Category: DFL2012

by Dave Mindeman

I have spent most of this week hacking and coughing and laying around like a slug...trying to get over a nasty head and chest cold. Needless to say, I haven't been up to blogging and the news hasn't helped my mood much. It has been one endless stream of gleeful Republicans hyping "scandal" after "scandal" in front of any camera that will point their way.

But since I was in a slug-like funk, it also gave me the opportunity to watch all of it and to get a fuller understanding of reality....and not just a GOP interpretation of it.

Benghazi

This gets the most sound bites but has the least actual news involved with it. It is hard to claim "cover up" when all the information has been in hand from the beginning. ABC News botched a "scoop". CNN debunked it. Darrell Issa continues his fishing expedition. Everybody tries to connect Hillary Clinton to anything they can. Meanwhile, the White House has accepted the investigative report. Plans to implement every recommendation. Now, will the GOP House fund the proposed security upgrades for our embassies? I'm betting not. It would be nice if this tragedy would not be politicized any further.

IRS

Of course, Michele Bachmann couldn't resist citing "worse than Watergate" in her hyperbolic way, but there is a problem here. However, the problem is NOT in the extra scrutiny of the applications, because 501c4 applications need it. The problem is that the scrutiny was one sided. There is little doubt that it wasn't just conservative groups that deserved that kind of attention. Liberal groups were involved as well.

I find it more than a bit ironic that Eric Cantor is calling for more transparency.....when the whole idea behind 501c4 applications is to avoid any semblance of transparency. They want to hide their donors from public view and keep funneling the "dark" money into campaigns. Even though the purpose is supposed to be for the "social welfare".

People should be held accountable but the the whole thing is a manufactured problem of Citizens United.

AP Phone Records

This is really the most troubling "scandal". An investigation into the source of a government leak is justified, but the broad and sweeping acquistion of reporter phone records is not. There has to be a more specific probable cause and preferably judicial oversight here. This is the Press and they should have protections.

I am not a big fan of Attorney General Eric Holder. He seems to be using a pretty broad office cudgel (ala Alberto Gonzales) in his investigative authority. Even though he recused himself here, he is not absolved of some responsibility. He is still responsible for the workings of the Justice Department and this is a very troubling event.
*********************************

These issues are worthy of discussion and investigation....but as usual, the Republican response is shrill and overblown.

Bottom line?

The end result of Benghazi should be safer embassies.

The end result of the IRS should be reform of a broken campaign finance system....or even better, a repeal of Citizens United.

The end result of the AP Phone Records situation should a renewed Press shield law that protects the first amendment fully and completely.

Any other actions are political....and as usual, the political is all the GOP is interested in.

Category: Gay Rights

by Dave Mindeman

Good old Tom Emmer has decided to weigh in on gay marriage via the Davis & Emmer Newstalk Blog and cross posted at True North.

And as usually is the case, his title asks the absolute wrong question....

WHY DO WE NEED A LAW FOR HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE?

I have to question Emmer's basic understanding of the issue if he really thinks that is the question. We do NOT need a law FOR homosexual marriage, we need to get rid of laws that PROHIBIT homosexual marriage.

There is a big difference....a fundamental difference.

In 2012 a Constitutional amendment was defeated which would have taken current law and enshrined it into our state's founding document. And the actions taken this week will hopefully end the law that told a minority of our citizens - you cannot be married.

Emmer has a convulted idea of where the discrimination lies. He says it this way...

Again, if you really believe you are fighting against discrimination, then why propose a law that will enhance the very discrimination against which you claim to be fighting? Wouldn't it make more sense to propose the state get out of the business of defining a legal "marriage" in the first place?

Gay couples did not ask anyone to define marriage in a way that excludes them. Politicians like Emmer decided to do that. The courts began to wonder aloud as to why states did that as well. And in Massachusetts and Iowa, they said NO, you can't do that.

But Emmer uses another distorted argument...

There is another question: If the legislative advocates for homosexual marriage pass and the Governor signs their proposed law redefining “marriage,” how will they protect and respect the rights of those who believe homosexual marriage is wrong? Will they respect their neighbors' beliefs? Will they respect the right of others to pass their beliefs about right and wrong on to their children?

If you believe that homosexual marriage is wrong, what, exactly do you need protection from? Your beliefs won't be infringed upon unless you act upon them to harm others. If the tables are supposedly being turned and that now gay couples should be "respecting" their heterosexual counterparts, let us hope they do not use the example of respect that has been shown to them in the recent past.

Emmer ends with some words of advice...

...while you may have the right to live your life as you see fit, you will never have the right – even if you put it in law – to deny others the right to teach our kids to love thy neighbor but, at the same time, that marriage is and always will be a relationship between one woman and one man intended to carry on a moral, healthy and productive society.

Where Tom Emmer gets the idea that anyone is going to "force" some unwanted teachings on heterosexual families is a bit beyond comprehension. Frankly, Emmer and his colleagues are so busy trying to keep gay relationships hidden in dark corners that an argument could be made that they are denying gay couples their rights to be heard.

The suggestion that somehow we are going to have some kind of reverse discrimination backlash is just another distortion that weaves its way through the marriage arguments.

Relax, Tom, the sky will not fall. Really, it won't.

Category: Gay Rights

by Dave Mindeman

This has been an interesting journey.

I looked it up and the first time I blogged about gay marriage was 4 years ago - 2009. That seems like a lifetime ago....but in other ways like yesterday.

The pendulum has been swinging steadily and today the Minnesota House passed the Gay Marriage bill in a 75-59 vote.

We still have a Senate vote to work through and a signature from Gov. Dayton....but it all seems like a formality right now.

In a way, we can thank the Republican legislature of the last biennium for all of this....really, I mean it.

If they had not set the wheels in motion to bring that Constitutional Amendment to the 2012 ballot, how would this conversation have accelerated to this extent?

In what we thought to be a pretty cynical political move to get out the "base", the Republicans awoke a sleeping giant. A unique call to action was in order and it changed the conversation in the state.

The national trends were part of the pressure as well. We saw a President who decided to get focused on the issue. We saw Senators move to a more public and positve position. We have seen churches move, employers move, and some of our most basic institutions move.

There are still some basic and deep objections to any change in who can participate in marriage....but in the end, this process seems to be driven by the basic principle of fairness. That is what moves all of this.

I hope that a year from now this conversation will be old news. That we can get beyond the sharp divide and get back to live and let live.

Let the progress continue.