Tag Archives: gay marriage

Symmetrical Couples and Asymmetrical Stadiums

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday was a tough day for traditionalists.  If you like your weddings square and your stadiums oval, it was not your day.

The Minnesota Senate passed a law extending the freedom to marry to gay people.  A few hours later the Minnesota Vikings presented a stadium design that is more likely to be featured in the Hirshorn Museum than the Football Hall of Fame.

I feel for my conservative friends, who are hopelessly nostalgic for the glory days of their youth, when Ward and June were prototypical couples and football was played in Met Stadium’s glorious mud, wind and ice.  Yesterday, they were served a heapin’ helpin’ of contemporary change, and I know it was jarring for them.  As of this post, shrapnel from Joe Soucheray’s head reportedly has been found in three neighboring states.

Yesterday, my conservative friends were told that some married couples will look like Ward and Ward, and June and June.  That does take some getting used to.  But as one who had to get used to the idea myself, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there is a lot to admire about this new brand of married couple, such as a love so strong it has survived waves of ignorance, bigotry and hate.

On the same day that the legal definition of marriage was broadened by the Legislature, my conservative friends were also told that they would not be able to watch football the way they say it was meant to be watched — in crappy weather in a traditional stadium whose architecture has only slightly evolved since the Flavian Amphitheatre.  Call it Lambeau envy.

Admittedly, the new Vikings stadium design is “different,” a word that passive aggressive Minnesotans tend to use when they actually are meaning “sucky,” but, little known fact, is actually defined as “not the same as others.”

The new Vikings stadium definitely is “not the same as others.”   It looks a bit like a football field grown inside of Reverend Schuller’s Crystal Cathedral, or a hog confinement building after a tornado, or a half-assed green house constructed of scrap materials, or the Walker Art Museum on bovine growth hormones.

That does take some getting used to. But as one who crinkled my nose the first time I saw the asymmetrical design, I’ve found it helps to focus on the positive.  Even for traditionalists, there are a lot of things to admire about this new brand of stadium — stunning skyline views from inside, sunshine to replace the Metrodome’s perpetual dinge, windows that crank open on the rare nice day, a blissfully clear path to spacious bathrooms, and climate control in a land of mostly “different” climate.

Yes, change takes some getting used to, and we won’t all love these changes right away.  But if we keep an open mind, I bet we will adjust to symmetrical couples and asymmetrical stadiums quicker than we think.  Onward.

- Loveland

MN GOP Condemns Colleague for Endorsing Spherical Earth Theory

Posted on by
2

Saint Paul, MN — In the wake of two Minnesota Republicans’ shocking endorsements of  freedom-to-marry legislation, today Minnesota Representative Orville Nielsen (R-Outing)  further stunned the state’s political establishment by becoming the first member of his caucus to say he now believes that the planet Earth is probably not shaped like a disk.

Conservatives were quick to downplay the Nielsen announcement as an isolated example of a misguided member being bullied by “junk scientists,” and not the beginning of a movement toward a more science-friendly Republican Party.  A few Republican officials who asked not to be identified also expressed concern that Nielsen may be suffering from a mental illness.

While the Greek scientist Pythagoras asserted that the Earth was spherical as early as 6 BC, Minnesota conservatives say that claim does not yet represent a scientific consensus, citing numerous contrary studies conducted by highly respected Mesopotamians, ancient Norse and Germanic thinkers, pre-Socratic Greeks, and the world renowned Flat Earth Society.

“Clearly the scientific community is split on the question of planetary shape, and until there is unanimity, Republicans will support the time-tested, traditional viewpoint,” said Buck Scheinenfelder, Chairman of the Minnesota Republican Party’s Conformity Committee.

This is not the first time the two major political parties have clashed over scientific interpretations on issues ranging from evolution to climate change.  Most recently, Minnesota GOP congressional candidate Allen Question has maintained that dinosaurs lived alongside humans as late as the 12th century, a claim liberals say is not supported with scientific evidence.

“Liberal scientists want to make all of these issues needlessly complicated, with all their elitist calculations and peer reviewed studies,” said Sheinenfelder.  “But the next time you fly, just look out the window.  I promise, you will see clear evidence below you that looks much more like a flat disk than a dang marble.”

Minnesota Republican leaders denied that elected officials backing marriage equality and planetary sphericality signaled a broader moderating trend in response to a difficult 2012 election cycle.

“A tiny minority of weak-willed individuals may abandon their conservative values and principals, but the majority of Minnesota Republicans still understand that it is a mistake to jump to conclusions until the scientific community is unanimous,” said Scheinenfelder.

Note:  This post is, to the best of our knowledge, satirical.

Is Legalizing Gay Marriage a Minnesota Jobs Program?

Posted on by
Reply

Governor Mark Dayton used his State of the State Address last night to endorse legalizing gay marriage in Minnesota.   And right on cue, Rep. Greg Davids (R-Preston) took the Republicans’ most predictable jab:

 ”He’d rather talk about gays getting married instead of getting Minnesotans jobs that could provide for their families.”

We’re going to be hearing a lot more of that claim from Republicans in the weeks to come, so the argument merits dissection.

Forget for a moment that Davids’ party repeatedly beat down Governor Dayton’s  job-creating bonding proposals when it controlled the Legislature.  Forget that Dayton’s 2013 budget proposal includes several items designed to create jobs:

  • $86 million in low-interest loans for businesses relocating to Minnesota;
  • $25 million for a Minnesota Job Creation Fund;
  • $30 million in transportation and housing spending linked to economic development;
  • A Vikings stadium that will put about 13,000 Minnesotans to work; and
  • A more stable tax system to make our economy more bullet proof during downturns.

Forget about all that for a moment.

Instead, let’s take a look at whether there is any direct connection between legalizing gay marriage and creating and retaining Minnesota jobs. A 2012 article from CNNMoney sheds some light on this question:

 Since gay marriage was legalized in New York state a year ago, marriage license fees, local celebrations and wedding-related purchases have boosted New York City’s economy by $259 million, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced Tuesday.

“Marriage equality has made our City more open, inclusive and free — and it has also helped to create jobs and support our economy,” Mayor Bloomberg said in a statement.

More than 8,200 same-sex marriage licenses have been issued over the past year, representing more than 10% of the 75,000 licenses issued in the city, according to a survey conducted by the City Clerk’s Office and NYC & Company, the city’s tourism and marketing organization.

The city collected $16 million in tax revenue from same-sex marriages over the past year. But weddings brought the biggest economic boost to the city, with about 67% of same-sex couples who got married in the city holding wedding receptions at venues like hotels, restaurants and catering halls throughout New York City’s five boroughs.

Same-sex couples spent an average $9,039 on their weddings, while 31% spent $10,000 or more — though that’s still not as high as the $27,021 that the average couple spends on a wedding, according to a national survey of gay and straight newlyweds from TheKnot.com.

More than 200,000 guests flocked to New York City from other parts of the state or country to partake in the celebrations. Hotels booked nearly 236,000 nights at an average rate of $275 per night. More than 40,000 wedding announcements were printed, and couples bought 47,445 wedding favors, the economic impact survey found.

Of course, in addition to the beginning we also have to consider the end.  That is, many a heterosexual can tell you that what naturally follows many weddings is divorce, and it can sometimes cost more to get out of a marriage than it costs to get into one.  Though an expansion of divorce is an unfortunate consequence of an expanded definition of marriage, divorce proceedings do generate additional economic activity.

It should be noted that Minnesota is not as populous as New York, so we would not see economic benefits anything like the New York benefits.  More to the point, equality and fairness are the more meaningful reasons Minnesota needs to legalize same-sex marriage as soon as possible, not job creation.

Still, a look at what is happening in other states with newly legalized same-sex weddings shows that the Republicans’ asssertion that same-sex marriage would have no positive impact on jobs in Minnesota is every bit as silly as their other arguments against same-sex marriage.

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s Best of the Blogs.

How The DFL Can Avoid The “Overstep” Label on Gay Marriage

Posted on by
Reply

A popular post mortem for Minnesota Republicans being drummed out of office in 2012 is that “they overstepped on social issues, especially spending all their time trying to ban gay marriage, instead of focusing on the bread-and-butter issues.”

 Is the DFL Now Overstepping Too?

So, are DFLers now doing the exact same thing by pursuing legislation legalizing gay marriage?

The situations are not entirely analogous.  There are important differences between what the Republicans did on gay marriage, and what the DFL is doing:

  • NOT THE CONSTITUTION.  The DFL is making the change through the normal legislative process, not through constitutional micromanagement. Many Minnesotans, even some that weren’t wild about gay marriage, simply didn’t like the idea of playing  political games in the Constitution.
  • GIVING, NOT BANNING.  The DFL is proposing to GIVE a right, not ban one.  Banning a right felt mean-spirited to many.  Giving a right is an easier political sell. Not easy.  But easier.
  • POST-WIN GLOW.  A multi-million dollar election was held just a few months ago, and that election 1) educated Minnesotans on the issue, and changed a lot of minds and 2) led to a pro-gay marriage win, which provides political cover to proponents of gay marriage.  Consequently, it is now less credible to charge that the DFL is “out of touch with Minnesotans” for promoting gay marriage.

The Mushy Mandate

Still, the DFL does run the risk of being punished by 2014 swing voters for overstepping.   There is a simplistic appeal to the narrative “Minnesotans voted Republicans out of office because of their obsession with gay marriage, and now the DFL is doing the exact same thing.”  You can expect a lot of the news coverage to have that tone.

And in fact, it is a mistake for the DFL to assume that all 52.5% of Minnesotans who voted “no” in November 2012 want to legalize gay marriage.

Presumably, some who voted “no” in 2012 were essentially voting for the status quo, and in the status quo, gay marriage is illegal.  Others likely voted “no” because of process issues, such as they didn’t like using the Constitution for micromanagement.   Still others may have voted “no” as an anti-bully statement more than a pro-gay marriage statement.

Moreover, many of the 1,550,864 Minnesotans who voted “no” in 2012 won’t be coming back to the polls in the non-presidential 2014 elections, and legislators have to be worried about facing the smaller 2014 electorate.

Still, the 2012 vote “no” win is undoubtedly a mandate.  It is politically safer to legalize marriage now that it was before November 2012.   But it is a mushy mandate.

Avoiding  The “Overstep” Label

To decrease their chances of being slapped with the dreaded “overstep” label, the DFL needs to do three things:

  •  ACT QUICKLY.  First, they need to pass the gay marriage legislation swiftly and efficiently.  The perception that “the Legislature is spending all its time on divisive social issues” is always a compelling issue for swing voters.  So, DFL leaders need to pass gay marriage in a hurry, leaving ample time for other work, and other headlines.
  • MAKE HEADLINES ON NON-SOCIAL ISSUES.  Second, DFL leaders need to produce on other issues that are more important to swing voters.  If the GOP-controlled Legislature had passed a jobs bill, major tax reform, and education improvements, swing voters wouldn’t have been so troubled with their gay marriage focus.  The DFL needs to deliver headliner accomplishments on high priority issues, so they are not vulnerable to charges of “the only thing they accomplished was legalizing gay marriage, and that does nothing to help me.”
  • DON’T GO INTO OVERTIME.  Finally, the DFL needs to get its work done on time. If the session ends in a timely manner, it becomes more difficult to sell the “they spent all their time on gay marriage instead of their ‘real’ work.”  It’s difficult to overstate how much the missed deadlines and shutdowns irritate swing voters.

Legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and it needs to happen.  But the DFL does need to mind the politics, because this is a politically perilous move.

- Loveland

The Anti-Amendment Amendment Lives

Posted on by
Reply

A little less than a year ago, I blogged at The Same Rowdy Crowd about One Minnesota Ballot Initiative I Could Support.

In said blog, Captain Obvious pointed out that Minnesota is supposed to have a representative democracy, where we elect leaders to make decisions for us, rather than a direct democracy, where elected officials pass the decision-making buck back to the voters who elected them to make decisions.

My specific complaint was about Minnesota conservatives’ rush toward a rash of constitutional amendments as a means of bypassing the normal two-branch lawmaking process, which includes a liberal Governor in possession of a veto pen.

I then proposed, somewhat cheekily, that:

“(T)here is one ballot initiative I could support. I wrote it this morning in in my parlor with a feather quill, but I have faithfully transferred it to typeface for you:

‘Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to require an affirmative vote of seven-eighths of the State Legislature before more Constitutional amendments can clutter voters’ ballots?’

Please sign the petition and consider making a donation at makethemdotheirjobs.com.”

Well, Politics in Minnesota’s Weekly Report recently noted:

 ”Rep. Kim Norton wants to bring constitutional amendments back on the table in the form of an amendment to make it harder to pass amendments (her bill would require a two-thirds legislative majority to pass a ballot measure instead of a simple majority).”

It’s probably just a happy coincidence that Representative Norton  (DFL-Rochester) and I landed on the same solution, the Anti-Amendment Amendment.  We’ve never met, and I can’t imagine someone as respectable as Norton would read my blog.

Moreover, our proposals aren’t identical.  I proposed a seven-eighths (~88%) majority, while Norton is proposing a two-thirds (~67%) majority.

But, I hereby cave to Norton, and endorse her two-thirds proposal.  So Norton and Loveland are now constitutionally copasetic, like Jefferson and Madison.

Needless to say, this is a historic moment at WWP.  I am currently retrofitting the “Wry Wing Politics” banner with the additional text “…and Constitutional Scholarship,”  and I am holding onto that feather quill for future display at the Minnesota History Museum.

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin as a “best of the best.”

A Thank You Note for Minnesota Republicans

Posted on by
2

Dear Minnesota Republicans:

We just wanted to drop you a quick note to thank you for the gift of your marriage ban amendment.  Such a thoughtful idea!

We must admit, we didn’t appreciate your gift to its fullest when we first unwrapped it last spring.  To be candid, we thought it was kinda ugly.  We wanted to throw it away.  But we couldn’t.

As it turns out, though, it was one of the most beautiful gifts we’ve ever received.

Your gift gave some of us the chance to express love and support for very important people in our lives.

It gave us the platform to educate people who haven’t thought much about the issue.

It gave us the opportunity to role model important values to our children and other family members.

It put us in a fighting mood that we haven’t felt in several election cycles.

It helped identify, train and mobilize a new generation of Minnesotans with huge hearts, a passion for equality, and a disdain for bullying.

It helped smoke out those falsely claiming to embody Minnesota Nice.

Overall, it helped us rediscover our civic hearts and souls – our collective passion for equality, freedom, fairness, and civil rights.

And it motivated us to get out to vote for candidates who share that passion.

So, thank you, thank you, thank you!  I know you shopped long and hard in 30 other states to find just the right gift for us, and so we just wanted to let you know that you succeeded in finding something we could really use!

Love,

Over Half of Minnesotans

 

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

 

 

Brodkorb Says Gay Marriage Opponents Are Being Used As Political Pawns. Photo ID Supporters Too?

Posted on by
Reply

Michael Brodkorb, former top political strategist for Minnesota Republicans, recently made it perfectly clear that the Republican-proposed gay marriage ban amendment was motivated by politics, not principles.

As WCCO-TV’s Pat Kessler reported:

 In an interview with WCCO, Mr. Brodkorb discussed the scandal, and gave a surprising inside look at the gay marriage amendment.

…Brodkorb — once a powerful Republican insider — says a big reason it’s on the ballot isn’t family values. Top Republicans needed a way to get conservatives off the couch and into the voting booth.

“It provided a turnout opportunity for Republicans,” he said.

Brodkorb was former Deputy Chairman of the State Republican Party and top Senate staffer, and says GOP Senators knew a driving force behind the gay marriage amendment wasn’t morality. It was political reality.

Top GOP leaders thought they couldn’t beat incumbent Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Republicans would stay home.

“The belief was, the United States senate race was not going to be close, and that Republicans needed and social conservatives needed a reason to get to the polls in November,” he said.

So despite the Republicans claims about backing the amendment to defend “family values,” Brodkob says that is nonsense.  Mr. Brodkorb was the chief political strategist at the time, and he says this amendment was pushed to promote partisan politics, not principles.

So gay marriage opponents, elite GOP operatives are using you like their political puppets.  Feel like chumps?

And speaking of crass partisan amendments, what about the Photo ID amendment?  Behind closed doors, Republicans in other states have made it clear that the Photo ID requirement is also being pushed because of politics rather than principles.  That is, Republican political hacks want to  erect bureaucratic barriers that disproportionately impact the voters who are most likely to vote for their opponents – minorities, students and seniors.

Now that Mr. Brodkorb is inclined to tell the truth about the Republicans’ political playbook, he should be asked by reporters about the photo ID ruse too.  Before next week’s election, photo ID supporters also deserve to know about the political puppeteers trying to control their strings.

- Loveland

 

Could Gay Rights Turnout Operation Sink the First Pro-Gay Marriage President in History?

Posted on by
Reply

In the Halloween season it’s always fun to tell far-fetched scary stories.  This one is pretty darn scary, and may not be as far-fetched as some.

What if the opponents of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage inadvertently helped unseat the first President in history to endorse gay marriage?

Here is how it could happen:

President Obama’s lead looks to be narrowing in Minnesota.

At the same time, a massive and well-organized army of gay rights supporters, looking at razor thin poll margins of their own, is desperate to turn out anyone who will oppose the marriage ban amendment.

To win, marriage rights supporters need amendment opponents to vote, so you would assume they will go to great lengths — mailings, calls, door-knocking, rides to the polls — to make sure that happens.

Gay rights supporters need to turn out every single vote, including (cue the scary music) the 15% of amendment opponents who are Republicans.

Because a recent Star Tribune survey found that 93% of Minnesota Republicans are voting against President Obama, turning out pro-gay rights Republicans en masse could hurt the President’s reelection prospects in a close election.

And if turning out pro-gay rights, anti-Obama voters caused Minnesota to unexpectedly sneak into the Romney column, the electoral college math could get much more difficult for the President than it currently looks.

And so the question becomes, is Minnesotans United for All Families’ get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive a treat, or a trick?

(Maniacal laugh)

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Seriously, “Minnesotans for Marriage?” The Nazi Card?

Posted on by
1

Imagine for a moment that former Governor Jesse Ventura had compared the campaign of his 2010 U.S. gubernatorial opponent Norm Coleman to Nazi persecution.   Because Coleman is Jewish, and we all know that Jews were targeted for mass genocide by the Nazis, Ventura would have been rightfully derided by the press on the front pages, and rejected by many shocked Minnesotans.  The outrage would have been widespread, because comparing the persecuted to the persecutors is one of the most outrageous things any of us can imagine.

Well, yesterday it was reported on the Star Tribune blog that an official from the anti-freedom-to-marry group “Minnesotans for Marriage” shamefully played his own Nazi card.  Speaking to a group in Brainerd, Reverend Brad Brandon was selling the crowd on a parallel between Hitler’s suppression of religious freedom and the alleged suppression of religious freedom by supporters of the freedom to marry.

Perhaps because he saw jaws dropping in the audience he was addressing, Reverend Brandon did try to take a bit of edge off the argument:

 “We’re not saying that one side or the other is equal to Adolph Hitler and the atrocities that were committed in Nazi Germany. What we are simply saying is that when a totalitarian dictator takes place and wants to suppress the voice of a group…. they use certain tactics.”

Or to paraphrase, “We’re not saying the gays and their supporters are acting like Hitler, just that they are using the same tactics as Hitler.”  Doesn’t that just make you feel SO much better?

Along with the obvious fact that  fighting for the freedom for all American to marry in no way resembles the persecution and genocide carried out by the Nazis, there also is the small historical matter of the Nazi’s brutal persecution of, well, gays.    A quick history recap from the Holocaust Museum website:

 ”The Nazi campaign against homosexuality targeted the more than one million German men who, the state asserted, carried a “degeneracy” that threatened the “disciplined masculinity” of Germany. Denounced as “antisocial parasites” and as “enemies of the state,” more than 100,000 men were arrested under a broadly interpreted law against homosexuality. Approximately 50,000 men served prison terms as convicted homosexuals, while an unknown number were institutionalized in mental hospitals. Others—perhaps hundreds—were castrated under court order or coercion. Analyses of fragmentary records suggest that between 5,000 and 15,000 homosexual men were imprisoned in concentration camps, where many died from starvation, disease, exhaustion, beatings, and murder.

In the racist practice of Nazi eugenics, women were valued primarily for their ability to bear children. The state presumed that women homosexuals were still capable of reproducing. Lesbians were not systematically persecuted under Nazi rule, but they nonetheless did suffer the loss of their own gathering places and associations.

Nazi Germany did not seek to kill all homosexuals. Nevertheless, the Nazi state, through active persecution, attempted to terrorize German homosexuals into sexual and social conformity, leaving thousands dead and shattering the lives of many more.

Gays suffered beatings, castration, imprisonment and death at the hands of the Nazis, and now gays are being accused by those fighting to limit their rights of being Nazi-like?

I know we all have outrage fatigue at this stage of the silly season.  There are so many over-the-top statements being made that it all starts to get lost in the campaign clutter.  But in terms of degree of outrage, comparing Nazi persecution to the effort to allow Americans to love whomever they want is in a category all by itself.

- Loveland

 

Note:  This post was also featured in Politics in Minnesota’s “Best of the Blogs” feature.

Is Target Still Playing Kingmaker?

Posted on by
Reply

About 16-months ago at Minnesota-based Target Corporation’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, an embattled Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel stressed that Target would heretofore remain neutral on the issue of gay rights, but would continue to make political donations.   A June 9, 2011 Minneapolis St. Paul Business Journal headline characterized the balancing act Steinhafel was attempting:

CEO: Target will be neutral on marriage vote, will still give politically

Steinhafel’s neutrality pledge came on the heels of a customer backlash prompted by the corporation making a large political donation to anti-gay rights Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer.  Remember all the news stories, boycotts, social media rants, and flash dance protests?

At the time Steinhafel made this announcement in Pittsburgh, I wondered how Target could  possibly manage to support political candidates while keeping its neutrality pledge, since virtually all candidates take positions on gay rights issues.   After all, the world community would no longer consider Switzerland neutral if it was funding a combatant.

So, what is Target doing now?  In the 2012 election, what candidates are being funded by Target, or has Target decided to stay out of politics altogether?

My drive-by Googling can’t find the answer to this question.  After all that coverage and controversy in 2010 and 2011, could it be no business or political reporter has followed up with Target?

Why Civil Unions Aren’t The Solution For Minnesotans Who Believe in Equality

Posted on by
Reply

A Public Policy Polling (PPP) survey released this week finds that 46% of Minnesotans support the gay marriage ban amendment, but 74% of Minnesotans think that gays should either be able to marry or form civil unions.

The large group of Minnesotans who support gay civil unions but not gay marriage are mostly not anti-gay. In some ways, it is encouraging to know that about half of the people supporting this moronic amendment actually support extending additional rights to gay people.  It’s also very bad news for Republicans that only one quarter of Minnesotans support their position.

Still, those Minnesotans who support gay civil unions but oppose gay marriage are wrong, wrong in a way that preserves inequality.  The fallacy of their logic needs to be exposed, because these folks are the persuadable swing voters who will determine the outcome of Minnesota’s constitutional amendment election.

Those who support gay civil unions but oppose gay marriage are misguided in two fundamental ways.

“Marriage” v. “Civil Union” Differences.  Many naively believe that civil unions bestow the same rights and respect as marriage.  Wrong.  The General Accounting Office (GAO) says the government provides 1,138 benefits to married couples that are not available to others. Tax benefits. Immigration rights.  Medical decision-making advantages.  Death benefits rights.  It’s a long list of legal distinctions that impact finances and quality-of-life.

But the equality difference between marriage and civil unions goes much deeper than the 1,138 benefits.

If the government told my wife and me today that it had stripped us of our marriage status, our first concern wouldn’t be about the loss of those benefits. Our more heartfelt concern would be that we were being stripped of society’s sacred recognition of our commitment and love.

Marriage is honored and cherished in our society in a way that is absolutely unique. It is put on a pedestal.  The stigma that would come if my wife and I were banned from claiming that special relationship status is what would most make us feel most unequal and stigmatized.  That’s what gay couples face.

Marriages bestow more legal and social benefits than civil unions.  In a nation built on the notion that all are created equal, it’s just not okay to have such inequality baked into one of our society’s most revered institutions.

Semantic Slavery.  Beyond those who mistakenly believe that marriage and civil unions are legally and socially equivalent, others essentially have a language hang-up.

In their minds, heterosexuality has always been at the core of the definition of the word “marriage,” and it just feels incongruous to them to adjust the definition. The vast majority of these folks don’t seem to hate gay people, or wish inequality on them.  They just can’t seem to get their head around that semantic shift.

I understand this position, because it was the position that I was taking when I was first exposed to this issue in the 1990s. Ultimately, I realized that my reasoning was silly.

After all, dictionaries are not written in stone.  Every year, scores of definitions are added, deleted and adjusted, based on how society’s use of the language is changing.  Languages evolve as societies evolve.  Therefore, we shouldn’t be denying people something as sacred as equality based on what lexicographers say. Lexicographers take their cues from society, not vice versa.  If a democratic society declares, in the name of equality, that marriage is open to everyone, then it is, and dictionaries will adjust accordingly.  Dictionary definitions shouldn’t rule the day.  Equality should rule the day.

Unlike the 24% of Minnesotans who oppose any kind of legal recognition for gay couples, I’m convinced that many of those who oppose gay marriage but support gay civil unions are “persuadables” when it comes to the constitutional amendment.  If they aren’t written off as “homophobes” and “haters,” some of them can be convinced that separate but equal doesn’t work any better for civil unions than it did for segregated schools.

- Loveland

Note:  This post was also featured as a “best of the best” in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Minnesota Group Announces Broader Marriage Ban For 2014

Posted on by
9

SAINT PAUL, MN — The lead group pushing to ban gay Minnesotans from marrying announced today that it plans to expand its efforts to protect traditional marriage.

“We don’t hate gays, we just believe traditional marriage is about procreation, something gay couples simply cannot do,” said Homer Fobe, a spokesman for Minnesotans for Our Kind of Marriage (MOKM).  “So to prove the 2012 initaitive isn’t about gay bashing, in 2014 we’re also going to push to nullify marriages for heterosexual couples who are not having children.”

Fobe said the group would propose a ballot initiative to amend the Minnesota Constitution to nullify marriages of Minnesota heterosexual couples who reach the age of 44 without bearing any children.

“Procreation is a sacred duty of traditional marriage that childless couples simply are not willing to fulfill,” said Fobe.  “We hate the sin, but we love the sinner.  Everybody has the right to love who they choose, but nobody has the right to redefine traditional marriage so it no longer includes its traditional purpose, procreation of the species.”

National Center for Health Statistics researchers say the last time they asked whether women were voluntarily childless was 1995, when 6.6 percent of American women fell into that category. The number had increased from 4.9 percent in 1982.  Many advocates of traditional marriage feel the number of voluntarily childless women has increased dramatically since 1995.

MOKM indicated it would seek to nullify marriage for all childless couples, not just those who are  voluntarily childless.  About 18% of women ages 40-44 had no children in 2008, according to the Pew Research Center.  In 1976, just 10% of women fell into that category.

“Some claim their infertility is involuntary, that they were “born this way,’” said Fobe.  “However, we won’t allow our Constitution to be polluted with that kind of junk science.”

David Foot, an economist at the University of Toronto, has found that the factor most correlated to childlessness is a female’s level of education.   The more education women have, the less likely they are to have children.   While 16% of females without a high school degree are childless, 25% of females with a bachelor’s degree are childless.

“We can’t lose sight of the cause of this rejection of traditional marriage,” said Fobe.  “Something in today’s society is polluting young minds, and we must root it out.”

 

Note:  This post was also  featured as a “Best of the Blogs” in Politics in Minnesota’s Morning Report and in MinnPost’s Blog Cabin feature.

Anti-Marriage Ban Ads Are Rove-esque

Posted on by
Reply

Bare knuckles political consultant Karl Rove was famous for advising former President George W. Bush and other conservative clients to attack their opponents’ strengths, rather than their weaknesses.  For instance, Bush’s 2004 opponent John Kerry was a war veteran and hero, while Bush got a draft deferment.  But before Rove was done, Kerry’s heroism somehow was twisted to be a political weakness, rather than the strength it should have been.

Fortunately, gay marriage supporters have taken Rove’s strategy to heart, and this time are using the power of the strategy for good instead of evil.  Two ads they recently released go directly at the strengths of the groups trying to ban the freedom to marry – the skepticism of the elderly and aggressive opposition of some religious leaders.

These ads counter the conventional wisdom that religious leaders and seniors are universally opposed to gay marriage.  It frames the issue as a referendum on love, individual freedom and religious freedom.  It shows that skeptics’ opinions are evolving, and that even historic opponents are seeing the issue in a new light.

These are outstanding ads, alternatively moving, funny and thought-provoking.  And again, they go directly at the strengths of the marriage banners.   If he could manage to get over his anti-gay bigotry, Karl Rove would approve.

- Loveland

Hey General Mills, Make Pop Tarts, Not Politics

Posted on by
Reply

In this morning’s news, Best Buy and other corporations announced that they are joining a growing list of corporations pulling out of the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) ).  The corporations are doing so because they were worried about their valuable brands getting muddied from fallout due to ALEC’s aggressive advocacy of “stand your ground” gun laws, such as the one at the center of the tragic Trayvon Martin murder case in Florida.

Best Buy’s decision is smart brand management.  Goodness knows, it has enough issues of its own to solve.  Best Buy doesn’t need to add to its woes by putting its  brand in the middle of the political knife fights over the most polarizing political issues of our times.

Which brings me to General Mills and its opposition to the marriage ban amendment that will be on Minnesota ballots in November.

As  a voter, I strongly oppose the marriage ban amendment.  I’m actively opposing it.  The idea that any loving, committed people are banned from getting married is an embarrassment.  So I wholeheartedly agree with General Mills’ sentiment.

What could possibly go wrong here?

But as a public relations guy, I find General Mills involvement in this ballot issue monumentally stupid.

General Mills should focus on what it was created to do– make and market packaged food.   It should stay out of ballot questions — all issues, all candidates, all the time.

Why?  First, it’s bad brand management.  You spend billions building brands over the years, only to put them in the middle of bitterly divisive political battles?  Really?

Second, it’s bad democracy.  To state the obvious, it is notable that President Lincoln described our democracy as “of the people, by the people and for the people.”  He didn’t go with “of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.”  That comment might sound trite, but its true.  The “demos” (δῆμος ) in democracy aint Greek for “C-Suite.”

General Mills should leave democracy to the demos — its employees, customers and others.  That is who is supposed to decide societal issues in a democracy.   I admire General Mills’ leaders for wanting to stand up for equality for all of their employees.  It is making the mistake for all the right reasons.  But it is a mistake.

So please, General Mills, stay out of politics, even politics that I support.  To improve our democracy, give your employees ample time off to exercise their individual choices on Election Day.  Beyond that, make Pop Tarts, not politics.

Loveland