Tag Archives: same sex marriage

A Kinda Sorta Retraction on Constitutional Amendments

Posted on by
Reply

A while back, a communications strategist for the Minnesota House Republicans took umbrage with my assertion that the 2012 GOP-controlled Legislature had a historically low approval rating of 17% in part because Republican legislators were:

“Wasting all their time on constitutional amendments to limit Minnesotans’ freedoms to marry and vote.”

He took exception with my use of the word “all.”  To his credit, the Umbrage Taker was wielding supportive data, which earned him extra credit in my book.  I have no reason to dispute the data, and found them interesting, so I am happy to share them to hereby clear the record:

Wry Was Wrong

In light of this evidence, the Republican Wry reader asked for a correction.  I will oblige.   Using “all” in that sentence was incorrect.   I apologize for my mistake.

But…

While the “all” part of the statement was incorrect, I maintain that the overall spirit of the statement was correct.

While legislators weren’t wasting “all” of their time on these two issues, they certainly were wasting too much of their time.  The non-partisan League of Women Voters has shown that Minnesota basically has no voter fraud problem to fix.  At the same time, nine states have shown us that marriage equality poses no threat to citizens.   Spending any legislative time on solutions in search of problems is wasteful.

Finally, though the supplied data shows that the GOP legislators’ measures didn’t waste much of THEIR time on these issues, it is worth noting that they wasted plenty of OUR time.  The Legislature passed the policymaking buck to 2.9 million Minnesota voters, which meant that we had to spend exorbitant numbers of hours and dollars on these issues.

We didn’t much like it.  Those issues hurt Republicans with the swing voters they needed to win over.  According to a November 2012 Public Policy Polling survey, only 34% of self-identified moderates were with the Republicans on gay marriage, and only 38% voted were with them on voter restrictions.

But again, it is true that Republicans didn’t spend “all” of their legislative time on those two amendments, so I apologize.

(I never was very good at apologies.)

- Loveland

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

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.”

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.

Three Myths About Minnesotans and Same Sex Marriage

Posted on by
1

A recent SurveyUSA poll of Minnesotans included this question:

“President Obama says that same sex couples should be able to get married.  Do you agree with the president? Or disagree?”

The poll findings bust three popular myths about Minnesotans and same sex marriage:

Myth #1:  “Over Greater Minnesota’s Dead Body.”   The political conventional wisdom goes like this:  “The purple haired hipsters in Uptown may be for gay marriage, but traditional Main Street folks in Greater Minnesota will never stand for it.”  That conventional wisdom is wrong.  There is very little regional difference in support for gay marriage.  Support is roughly the same in the Twin Cities (53%), southern Minnesota (54%), and western Minnesota (51%).  Those three regions all fall within the 4% margin of error.  Only northeastern Minnesota (49% support) falls below the majority threshold, and is statistically different from the Twin Cities, but just barely.   Republicans need to realize that Main Street is not Narrow Street.

Myth #2:  “Only Radical Liberal Extremists Want Gay Marriage.”   This has been the conservative line for years.  But it doesn’t stand up to the data.  A pretty solid majority (55%) of self-described “moderates” and “independents” (54%) in Minnesota agree with the President on gay marriage.  If a majority of moderates support something, it can hardly be considered radical.  Support for gay marriage is now a mainstream position in Minnesota.

Myth #3:  “Marriage ban amendments pass everywhere, so it can’t be defeated in Minnesota.”  This poll found that 52% of Minnesotans support the President’s position and 42% oppose it.  There is a long way to go before the November election, but if this isn’t a dead myth, it is surely a rapidly dying one.  Literally.  The biggest source of opposition comes from people over 65 years old (only 33% support) support, and as time marches on younger generations will hold more electoral sway.  The support among Minnesota’s 18-34 year olds is running at an overwhelming 68%.

It’s very clear where this issue is headed.  In 2012, gay Minnesotans are hardly the societal aberrations they’ve been portrayed to be my whole life.  Statistically speaking, the 82% of Tea Partiers who adamantly oppose Obama on gay marriage are now the societal aberrations.

Loveland