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.

Category: Gay Rights

by Dave Mindeman

There is an amendment to the Gay Marriage bill which is getting some attention.....

Rep. David Fitzsimmons,R-Albertville, wants to insert the words "civil marriage" in all instances where marriage is mentioned in state laws. It would apply to both same-sex and heterosexual couples.

Although on the surface, this appears to be another semantic exercise, there is one difference. The words "civil marriage" would apply to EVERY marriage in Minnesota.

This is getting some acceptance with Democrats.

DFL House Majority Leader Erin Murphy and the bill's co-author say they back the amendment. The House has scheduled a vote on the bill tomorrow.

It would be enormously beneficial for the future if there could be at least some bipartisan support for this historic bill. This amendment might provide it.

Sen. Branden Peterson, R-Andover,.... who is the only Republican to publicly say he'll vote for the bill, says he expects as many as six Republicans to support the same-sex marriage bill if the amendment is adopted.

Politics in Minnesota has reported that some Republicans had been toying with support before this amendment talk....

Eden Prairie Republican Rep. Jenifer Loon said this week that she?s still deciding how she will vote, but four other Republicans perceived as leaners on the gay marriage issue ? Reps. Tim Kelly, Andrea Kieffer, Pat Garofalo and Denny McNamara ? have opted to support a proposal to allow civil unions in the state. GOP Rep. Mary Franson also co-sponsored the civil unions bill. All of those Republicans say they still plan to vote against the gay marriage bill if the civil unions amendment is not adopted.

I don't know if these are the six that Rep. Peterson was referring to but I would guess a few of them might be involved.

Frankly, I would like see this amendment call the bluff of Rep. Pat Garofalo and Rep. Mary Franson as potential "supporters". It is hard for me to imagine that they will actually vote green in the end. Amendment or no amendment.

With all the talk about how difficult this is for rural Democrats, it should be noted that suburban Republicans can face just as much of a back lash.

Having said that, Rep. Joe Radinovich gets my vote for the most principled and courageous legislator in the House.....

DFL Rep. Joe Radinovich has gotten a taste of the backlash already. The 27-year-old freshman lawmaker from Crosby won his GOP-leaning District 10B seat by a mere 323 votes last fall, while his district voted more than 62 percent in favor of the constitutional amendment. Late last week, he became the second rural swing Democrat in a span of several days to come out as a supporter of the bill, and shortly afterward Republicans in his district announced that they would organize an effort to remove him from office.

The young representative is casting a vote that a 10 term veteran would have difficulty with - but he has done so with grace under fire.

I salute him.

And I salute the entire legislature for moving forward on this.... to do what is so ultimately right. Not just for the present, but for the future of this state.