Hear hear! It's wonderful to see a Minnesota politician decide that the people should be able to speak out on important issues.

Except that this isn't Koering's position. He doesn't support the Bachmann version of this amendment. He only supports putting the question to the ballot if it's a marriage only question - not the legislation as it's worded now.

From the Brainerd Dispatch:

Koering said he was shocked by Crow Wing County Republican chairman Brian Lehman's remarks last week. Lehman called Koering's vote against the gay marriage ban last week "political suicide." Lehman told the Dispatch that if Koering's "personal preference for the homosexual lifestyle sways his vote incorrectly and against the Republican Party platform," it could cause political problems for Koering.

"A lot of my fellow senators were shocked by his remarks," said Koering. "I talked to a number of delegates and I have their support. If he (Lehman) has an ax to grind with me, I just don't understand it. How can he say that I just committed political suicide or that I'm not going to be endorsed? I'll wait until a year from now and see where the delegates are at. ... I am not switching parties. I'm going to ask for their endorsement. If someone else wants to challenge me for their endorsement, well, that's how the political process works. I'm a fighter. I'm not going to give up what took me seven years to get."

Koering said his political opponents can criticize what votes he takes or how he stands on specific issues, but can't attack him personally anymore because he decided to go public with the fact that he is gay.

EY: So Mitch - are you going to publically criticize the idiot chair of the Republican party in Koering's BPOU? I doubt it.

From the Brainerd Dispatch:

Koering said that although he supports laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he has qualms with the Minnesota proposal as now written, which also would prohibit civil unions.

"Minnesota has always been a progressive state," Koering said. "I think we need to be mindful that everybody are taxpayers here, and they all are afforded rights. I just want to make sure we don't infringe on somebody's rights."

Also from GayCityNews:

Still, the bill’s proponents, the anti-gay Minnesota for Marriage, which is affiliated with the Family Research Council, have begun running ads saying it was Koering's vote that stopped the amendment.

The measure, which also passed the House last year but never came to a Senate vote, could still be voted out of the committee onto the Senate floor this year.

EY: Now where is the Minnesota for Marriage on Gambling? That destroys marriages? Why no efforts to enforce party platform loyalty on gambling?

"Except that this isn't Koering's position. He doesn't support the Bachmann version of this amendment. He only supports putting the question to the ballot if it's a marriage only question - not the legislation as it's worded now."

And I think Koering's right.

"Koering said that although he supports laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman, he has qualms with the Minnesota proposal as now written, which also would prohibit civil unions."

Ditto.

Now - since Koering has broken with the "two people who love each other should be able to get married" orthodoxy, are the fundamentalist gays going to support him or not?

"EY: So Mitch - are you going to publically criticize the idiot chair of the Republican party in Koering's BPOU? I doubt it."

WTF are you talking about, Eva? "Publically" (sic) criticize him? Because legions of voters depend on what I say? Wow.

Lehman has a right to his opinion, and he knows his BPOU - so he may be right, it might hurt Koering. It'd be a shame - I think Koering's taken a principled position, and I'd like to see him rewarded for it. Furthermore, since by all accounts Koering isn't a RINO, I'm inclined to support him.

So maybe I will. After I've carefullly weighed how I "publically" want to approach this oh-so-vital issue. Sheesh.

Koering supports gun rights and is opposed to legal abortion. He also supported the minimum wage bill in the Senate - so depending on your definition, he may, or may not be a RINO.

Lehmann also made the statement that Koering should resign if he can't support the amendment.

As far as Koering's stand on the amendment, if he votes against the amendment, should it continue to be the Bachmann wording, I think he'd be doing as much as he can. A legislator does have to show some respect for their district.

He's going to have a Republican opponent, and he's intending to fight to keep his seat, so I will do what I can to help him keep the seat - and defeat the Leviticus Crowd Bachmann clone who is sure to run against him. Paul's been doing the right thing - calling Republican delegates this weekend - and many of them don't agree with that idiot chair.

Ironically, Koering also said he supports outing in some situations. Mike Rogers of the outing blog talked with him - and helped encourage him to come out. I've been opposed to Rogers tactics - but did appreciate what he did this time.

Koering supports gun rights and is opposed to legal abortion. He also supported the minimum wage bill in the Senate - so depending on your definition, he may, or may not be a RINO.

Lehmann also made the statement that Koering should resign if he can't support the amendment.

As far as Koering's stand on the amendment, if he votes against the amendment, should it continue to be the Bachmann wording, I think he'd be doing as much as he can. A legislator does have to show some respect for their district.

He's going to have a Republican opponent, and he's intending to fight to keep his seat, so I will do what I can to help him keep the seat - and defeat the Leviticus Crowd Bachmann clone who is sure to run against him. Paul's been doing the right thing - calling Republican delegates this weekend - and many of them don't agree with that idiot chair.

Ironically, Koering also said he supports outing in some situations. Mike Rogers of the outing blog talked with him - and helped encourage him to come out. I've been opposed to Rogers tactics - but did appreciate what he did this time.

You know, I just interviewed Sen. Bachman on Saturday, and she had some very interesting things to say on all this. There are a lot of words being put into people mouths lately. I got to hear Bachman's from her instead of her opponents. You should check it out.

Part 1
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/16/137/
Part 2
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/17/139/
more to come.

You know, I just interviewed Sen. Bachman on Saturday, and she had some very interesting things to say on all this. There are a lot of words being put into people mouths lately. I got to hear Bachman's from her instead of her opponents. You should check it out.

Part 1
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/16/137/
Part 2
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/17/139/
more to come.

You know, I just interviewed Sen. Bachman on Saturday, and she had some very interesting things to say on all this. There are a lot of words being put into people mouths lately. I got to hear Bachman's from her instead of her opponents. You should check it out.

Part 1
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/16/137/
Part 2
http://www.residualforces.com/index.php/2005/04/17/139/
more to come.

A. Mitch and Eva, get a room. (Or, maybe just Eva. Jeez, you're like a stalker.)

B. There will be no litmus test. Koering represents the best of the typical Republican, in that he has myriad values, beliefs, and priorities, he knows that you get some things and not others, and he'll work to try and get the most important while sometimes giving up others. I hope he retains his district, I hope he tempers the anti-gay-marriage movement, and I hope he continues his conservatism. Yay for him - I hope that, should the day come when I need to make a gesture as costly as his was in support of some basic priniciple, I can do the same.

C. If Lehman's unhappy, good for him. Let him raise his unhappiness at the next election - that's what they're for - but he needs to stay short of losing the damn seat. At that point, he's a doctrinaire dinosaur dragging down the party, and he needs to go. He should recognize, like the rest of us, that sometimes you give up a battle to win a war. And, if not, then we know that we've misconstrued what he thinks the war really is. The war is NOT to keep fighting the anti-gay fight - it's to foster conservatism. If he cannot see the difference, he needs to leave.

We are NOT the anti-gay party, even though some seem to think so. We are the conservative party. Anyone who has allowed their overblown egos to interfere with their perception of reality enough to think otherwise is going to be surprised at the next election. I, and many like me, are quite willing to put off our need for governmental shrinkage if that is the only way to make the point that a Republican election was NOT a mandate for effin' fundies. Conservatism means government leaves me the hell alone, not that government gets to impose a whole different set of personal preferences on me, and any R pol that can't get that straight needs a new job. Elsewhere.

The real question is, what does Eva think? Has anyone heard from her yet? I'm really not comfortable proceeding until we know what a fellow gay "Republican" has to say about this. If only she wasn't so shy and reticent to speak...