Is it time for the Minnesota legislature to consider gay marriage and attempt to make this more than a regional phenomenon? It’s certainly getting close, but I don’t think the time is quite ripe. As long as Tim Pawlenty sits in the Governor’s mansion, I think DFLers would be hard-pressed to overcome a veto, and I worry about the consequences of failure — in particular, a mobilization of the hard-right conservative base that could rob us of the chance for actually passing an equal marriage bill in 2011.
The 2011 session, I believe, should be our goal for passing equal-marriage legislation. That means that in the next two years, pro-marriage activists need to be busy.
First, we need to build momentum and support for equal marriage by passing less controversial legislation to extend GLBT rights during the 2010 session. We can begin extending some of the rights of opposite-sex marriage, such as hospital visitation, domestic partner benefits, and inheritance, to same-sex couples. Marriage opponents say they’re not anti-gay — well, let them prove it next year.
Second, we need to raise some serious money, and we need to start early. Getting an equal-marriage bill passed is going to require a lot of advocacy and advertising, which is sure to become expensive. Plus, the GLBT community and its supporters will need to be active in the 2010 state elections.
That brings me to the third point — pro-marriage activists will need to work hard in the 2010 elections to champion the election of a pro-marriage governor and pro-marriage legislators. There are probably enough pro-marriage votes in the legislature to pass a marriage bill now, but not enough to override a veto. The easiest way to overcome that is to work to elect a governor who will sign an equal-marriage bill.
Passing an equal-marriage bill is not going to be an easy or quick task. But I believe that if we start preparing now, 2011 could be a reasonable target for equal marriage in Minnesota.
UPDATE: A related story from Andy Birkey in the MN Independent: Gay marriage hits close to home, but Minnesotans not ready
Jeff, are you a member of the GLBT community?
If the right concedes the equal marriage issue, will the left concede the spending and taxing issue? Wouldn’t that reflect a compromise?
Why should we compromise? You aren’t conceding, you are losing. Big difference. If it isn’t 2011 it’ll be 2012, 2013, 2014 etc. The DFL shouldnt make a single compromise to get marriage equality here any earlier (and I’m gay). Im fine with waiting a little longer.
Plus, the GOP would look idiots if they actually said something like that, we’ll allow gay marriage to pass but you can’t fund a new LRT this year, that would be reflected on very poorly in the media.
LOL! How typical…
“Why should we compromise?”
HA HA HA HA…
Reaching out across the aisle 101
I don’t think we should trade our policies for your last little bit of Jim Crow…
Don,
Are you saying the right maintains their anti same-sex marriage position only as a bargaining chip? We always knew the values claims were false but thanks for confirming that.
As Andrew pointed out, your chip is worthless. This will happen anyway. And brace yourself Don, spending and taxes will have to go up for a period to fix the mess you guys caused by undertaxing and overspending at the same time you allowed massive amounts of money to be siphoned out of the system and into the pockets of a few. Your plea is pitiful Don; like a meth head trying to sell his most valued possesions for one more hit.
Republicans on the far right have lost all legitimacy on taxing and spending issues but they still want to claim to be the protectors of the same earth they scorched. Democrats, who truly are the friends of middle class wage earners and small businesses, better start making the case for that now because this is the first ground that a reformed republican party with try to reclaim. That is essentially the motivation behind Don Huizinga’s embarrasing proposal.
Sure, why not? Why shouldn’t we bargain with something that is so important to the left?
Hell no. Prepare to get rolled. You are an anachronism.
Lojasmo -
With all due respect to your pent up anger, the Democratic revolution we’re seeing has been caused largely by more moderate Democrats from moderate districts. You really think their constituents expect them to “roll” the other guy? Unless you’re Ellison or McCollum, you really need to think about how you approach these issues.
It isn’t the GOPer you need to win over any more. You’ve defeated them for now. It is the Blue Dog Democrat, and it may be more difficult than you assume.
With moderation breaking out all over the place and people realizing that this is an issue of fairness and equal protection, this seems like an excellent time to fix this problem. The far right is broken right now. Why wait for them to re-group. Jeff says, “First, we need to build momentum and support for equal marriage”. I think the momentum is there. Pawlenty would veto legislation. Good. Make him veto reasonable, humane, rational legislation. He continues to do stupid and unpopular things, add that one to the list.
I think the key is keeping the civil and religious issues separate as Governor Baldacci pointed out. I think it would also be important for the GLBT community to maintains its focus on the equal protection issues and let people acclimate to the emotional issues over time. In other words, I think most people understand the need for visitation rights, property inheritance rights, insurance benefits etc. but many still have a visceral reaction to watching two same sex people passionately kissing. More can be accomplished if a less “in your face” attitude prevails. You are out of the closet now. Discretion is ok. We all have to practice that.
I am not going to profess that the timing is right yet in MN but in the long run the answer will be the same. We will recognize same sex marriage and this issue in the US will be nothing but a foot note in history in less then ten years. (Maybe longer in the south) The younger generation DOES NOT care. They do not understand what the fuss is about. Even people in my generation (40s) do not understand the arguement that gay marriage will destroy our straight marriages. I see NO connection here. The arguements against it dont hold water and the “shock and awe” of this issue is fading.
We need a DFL governor to do this. Pawlenty will veto and no Republicans will help override. It makes no sense to give DFLers in swing districts a tough vote when there is no chance of it passing.
It is hardly the most pressing problem we need our legislature to address with their limited time, but if this was on a statewide ballot I’m pretty sure it would pass.
On the ballot as in a referedum to allow gay marriage or a constitutional amendment type of thing?
I dunno if it would pass, it’d probably be really close and I think could go either way. I think everyone is waiting on 2011 with possibly a DFL gov to act. If the DFL maintains their majorities they could probably and still have many defections for swing district people. That’d rely on the up north legislators but Im sure some of them would vote for it.
I think it would be more of a referendum. I think this is what a referendum is for.
We elect our government officials to run government. Figure out what government needs to do and how we tax the citizenry to do it. That is essentially their job. Determine how to educate our kids and how to pay for it. Determine what level of food inspection we need and how to pay for it. Etc.
This falls in the category of things I’d like to see a direct representation of the population on. It is more of a statement on our society than a function of how to run government or collect revenues.
Remember Peter Hutchinson’s campaign a few years ago, when he talked about the 5 G’s — Guns, Gays, Gambling, God, and Gynecology? They are all wedge issues that get in the way of running a government…. regardless of which side of those positions you fall on. So put it up to the people, and let the legislators figure out how to keep my roads maintained.
DtM, the abolition of slavery, miscegination, racial discrimination, etc. were not done by referendum. Do you or any other reasonable person dispute that these were the correct actions to take?
We all are part of the GLBT community. Some are more hateful members than others.
Is that like saying we’re all part of the religious community, only some don’t go to church or believe in God?
I think we are all members of the human community and yes, some of us are more hateful than others. I understand why certain groups seek correction of inequities but in the final analysis, women, GLBT’s, men, blacks, hispanics, jews, Republicans, Democrats, the handicapped, the rich, the poor, the old, the young, the unborn, blondes, christians, non christians, and any other special interest group you can conjure up are all humans. Separating them out into groups might be politically expedient when political parties are vying for blocks of voters but it is counterproductive when dealing with human rights issues. We have a constitution that unequivocally guarantees human rights. Lets enforce that.
Try again, the religious community strawman breaks down quickly.
A right delayed, is a right denied. It is time for our party to grow a pair with regard to DFL rural legislators who are the ones being blamed for marriage equality failing this year.
DFL rural legislators aren’t to blame. If every single member of the DFL caucus voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn’t pass. Save the “growing a pair” for when the votes actually matter.
Elected, rural legislators represent their districts. They shouldn’t cater to single issue voters who are asking for what 25% of the pop would ask for….
sorry, but it hasn’t been framed right, yet.
Is it time?
Absolutely it’s time. It’s always time for human rights.
Does that mean it will happen? No. The Democratic leaders wouldn’t put it up in a election year.
Will it be time and will it happen in 2011?
Yes. If we elect a DFL governor.
If it’s about “human rights” and “equal protection” why won’t GLBT’s accept Civil Unions as a compromise?
Marriage is so tied to religion that it seems like that’s the primary issue for many on the right.
If the issue is equal standing under the law that should be enough.
I am not GLB or T so I can only speculate but I believe the reason that the GLBT community is hesitant to compromise on this is that they want what most everyone else wants when they get married; a joyous celebration, a public commitment to their vows and the opportunity to make those vows in accordance with the customs of the religion they practice.
We have a long history of secular/religious hybrid practices related to marriage. I believe that he GLBT community should focus on settling the secular issues of equal protection first and work out the religious aspects over time within their respective religious groups if they want sacramental marriage. Rather than creating two categories of contracts however(marriage contracts/civil union contracts) it would be preferable in my opinion to remove all gender based language from marriage law and simply grant civil unions to all partnerships that want to enter into that type of contract.
The term “Marriage” is deeply entrenched in the common vernacular. It has many meanings and is owned by no one. If you engage in a civil union but consider yourself married, then call yourself married. I’m married, not because of any contract I entered into but because I have chosen to love and honor another person and to create a household and raise children with her. We did make that committment in a church as I am sure many GLBT couples would like to be able to do. That is a question for religion to grapple with.
The state can remain neutral on the complicated issues like love, emotional committment, and sacramental or church marriage. Not everyone who seeks a civil union would want marriage anyway; like siblings who live together for life or parents and adult children who form permanent households.
Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. If the Gov wants to completely eliminate the term marriage and everyone has civil unions, sure whatever.
And it is a matter of equal standing, you can get married, I could get a civil union. That isnt equal, plain and simple. It isnt the rights only that are important, its the fact that by calling it marriage, my relationship with a guy will truly be equal to yours with a man/woman.
If our government uses two terms with one being relegated only for a certain group of people, that is inherently unequal.
‘GLBT’s? That’s funny, I thought they were called US citizens. That’s not just snark, that’s highlighting something very important here. We are talking about rights that US citizens enjoy. One of those is that to be married. Only civil, yes, but it makes no demands of any organized religion to recognize anything it does not wish to. But marriage, not second right alternative.
When does any group of US citizens have to accept second class status on a biologically determined set of criteria? It is in no way dramatic to call these limitations of marriage, these unconstitutional limits on the rights of US citizens, as Jim Crow laws. Segregation had its polite sounding, ‘moderate’ adherents in its day. They are now remembered as exactly what they were.
“Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. ”
I’m still mulling over this issue, so I have more questions than answers. How is not calling it marriage discriminatory? That is the part I don’t get.
Part of any dialogue is ensuring we are answering the right question and in the right setting. I’m not so sure the state legislature is the right place to define what marriage is.
You could get married. Just marry a female
And as it was said, by law, to African-Americans in South. ‘You can get married. Just not anyone who isn’t your own skin color.’
These are exactly the same things, and a court case struck most of those laws down as well.
Hubert H. Humphrey gave a famous speech at the 1948 Democratic National Convention Address. He talked about how civil rights was not a question of right time but that it was 172 years too late, that now was the time. During that speech the Happy Warrior quoted Senator Alben Barkley. Speaking of the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, he quoted from Alben Barkley:
“He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and Catholic men are equal; that all rich and poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal. What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support.”
Bluntly, “What he declared was that all men are equal” and short of the using the male pronoun to mean all citizens, this is true today.
Oh, HHH. Gotta love that guy. My father was called a Hubert Humphrey as an insult. Damn that Gresser.
All wo(men) are declared equal. It must be unconstitutional to discriminate, especially monetarily, against gays.
Well, where is Skadden on this one? I’d like to see the Supremes take this one on. Let’s look to Marbury vs. Madison.
It is time! It’d be easiest with civil unions…
Are you all aware of Project 515? Project 515’s goal is full equality for same-sex couples and their families, but isn’t advocating for marriage now. First we need to education folks about the discrimination against same-sex couples that exists in Minnesota law right now. In fact, just about 515 such laws! The folks behind Project 515 think it is more productive to get people to talk about the issues that to come down on one side or the other of marriage equality.