Why Does The DFL Hate Gays?

I have a quick question for the Twin Cities’ leftyblog buildup.

Since gay marriage has emerged, at least for the DFL, as the most important issue in the gubernatorial election – at least as re the perceived record of the GOP’s candidate – I think it’s only fair to ask “why has the DFL been such an utter waste of time when it comes to passing gay marriage?” If there really is an outcry for gay marriage, then why didn’t the DFL-controlled legislature use their four years of absolute legislative hegemony to push the issue?

Because if there genuinely is popular support for a measure then there is no such thing as a “wasted vote”.

Here’s how it works; Representative A (DFL – Spike Lake) brings up a gay marriage bill. Representative B (GOP – Mud Lake) bottles it up in committee and it dies. DFL candidate C runs for Represenative B’s job, and uses the vote to stir up popular anger at Mr. B, who is turned out of office by the voters who are demanding gay marriage.

In the next session, Representative A and C and fifty other DFLers (and GOPers, scared by the demise of Representative B) pass the bill through the House , and send it to the Senate. There, Senator D (GOP – Ham Prairie) bottles the bill up in committee. That fall, GOP candidate E runs against Senator D in the primary, capitalizing on the growing grass-roots realization that gay marriage is what the people want, and gets the endorsement, and wins the vote in Ham Prairie, a reliably GOP district that, like all Minnesotans, really do support gay marriage.

The next session, the House and Senate both pass gay marriage bills. They are carried to Governor F. Ms. F vetoes the bill. In the following gubernatorial election, the popular support for gay marriage sends Governor F. packing; pro-gay marriage former state insurance commissioner G is elected governor. And in his first session, when presented with a gay marriage bill, he signs it, just as he promised in the keynote to his winning campaign.

——–

Is the example above a fanciful hypothetical? Yes and no. It was, more or less, how “Concealed Carry” was passed in Minnesota. Pat Pariseau and Linda Boudreaux proposed “Shall Issue” legislation for four or five different sessions (if I remember correctly, and I may well not) before the votes were there to get the victory in 2003. It wasn’t because they thought they could win every single time – in 1997, they certainly could not. It was because they knew they wanted the issue in front of the legislature, because the process surrounding the debate would eventually win legislators over (and see to the electoral firing of legislators who opposed the popular measure). And this was in a Legislature that was not controlled by Republicans, much less conservatives.

The MNGOP’s gubernatorial candidate opposes gay marriage. So, by the way, do most Americans, in one form or another; while many support civil unions (myself included), Gay Marriage proposals keep losing in referendum after referendum.

“Why waste the votes?”, one DFL wag asked me when I brought it up once.

I dunno – because if you believe in the rightness of your cause, that’s what you do; if you believe in the democratic process and you believe that the people really do support your cause, then there is no such thing as a “wasted vote”.

The DFL knows this, because while they are fine using gay marriage as a cudgel against conservative politicians to fire up, or shore up, their base, they have spent their last four years of absolute hegemony in the Legislature pushing exactly zero gay marriage legislation to Governor Pawlenty.

“Shall issue” handgun laws survived and grew during at least seven consecutive legislative tests against nominally hostile legislatures. Why doesn’t gay marriage get even one test in a relentlessly friendly legisature?

Posted

August 17, 2010

Culture War, Governor

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Pawlenty

Comments

34 responses to “Why Does The DFL Hate Gays?”

Jeff Rosenberg

August 17, 2010

Given that I’m pretty sure I’m said DFL wag, I’ll use this opportunity to explain myself in more than 140 characters.

I believe wholeheartedly in gay marriage. I have never ever heard anybody explain to me how expanding equality harms existing marriages. That said, I recognize that the majority of Minnesotans currently do NOT support gay marriage. I think they’re wrong, and I think opinions are shifting rapidly, but I recognize reality.

You write about “absolute legislative hegemony,” but the DFL did not control the Governor’s office, nor did they have a veto-proof majority in the House. Therefore, no gay marriage bill was ever going to become law.

So why hasn’t the DFL gone after the issue? Because they understand that the scenario you described above is not likely to happen. In time, there will be, but not right now.

I believe that passing gay marriage would be worth the loss of a DFL majority for the good it would do. But passing a gay marriage bill, only to have it vetoed, and then to lose seats because of it? Well, that does nobody any good.
gmg425

August 17, 2010

If we’re talking about a constitutional amendment, which is what gay rights advocates are wishing for, the governor isn’t part of the equation. Instead, the legislature, by simple majorities, can put it on the ballot. That’s where it gets sticky, though, because that’s when the DFL-backed measure meets with public opinion, which doesn’t favor passing that constitutional amendment.

Further complicating things for the DFL is the fact that putting the gay marriage constitutional amendment on the ballot means that GOP turnout would skyrocket. Not only that but it would strip the last facade of the DFL being within miles of being moderate.
Jeff Rosenberg

August 17, 2010

No, a constitutional amendment is what the anti-marriage crowd wants, because they know that a simple law banning marriage isn’t strong enough — it’s often overturned by the courts. That’s why they need to actually alter the constitution to be able to legally discriminate.

A pro-marriage law would be passed through the normal mechanisms, although I won’t dispute that it would bring out a huge wave of righties in the next election. That was my point.
Mr. D

August 17, 2010

No, a constitutional amendment is what the anti-marriage crowd wants, because they know that a simple law banning marriage isn’t strong enough — it’s often overturned by the courts.

Oh, state constitutions don’t much matter to federal judges either, as we’ve recently learned. My proposal is to allow gay marriages, but only in the Cordoba Center mosque.
Terry

August 17, 2010

“That’s why they need to actually alter the constitution to be able to legally discriminate.”

So gay marriage is legal in Minnesota now?
The more the judiciary is used to decide issues that should be decided by elected officials, the weaker the social contract becomes. Yet the progressive vision requires ever-greater trust between individuals and the State.
If you think that “opinions are shifting rapidly”, why the desire to impose gay marriage by judicial decree?
Dog Gone

August 17, 2010

Well said Joel!

Terry, judicial decree is not so much imposing gay marriage, as doing what it is supposed to do, prevent majorities from abusing minority rights. Marriage has been defined in the limitation to heterosexual couples in a way which was wrong. There are multiple avenues for addressing that wrong, and they are not contradictory.

It is the right – figures like Mitch’s colleagues on Saturday afternoon – who use words like abomination for a minority segment of our population. I’m still getting a kick out of the bumper sticker that said (paraphrasing here) that if heterosexuals want to end homosexuality, they should stop having gay children.
Kermit

August 17, 2010

Opposing gay marriage is NOT discrimination. Jeff Rosenberg and his fellows do not get to define this debate in their preferred terms (even though that is a time-honored liberal strategy).

Marriage is the union of ONE man and ONE woman. It has been thus in western culture for thousands of years. Your desire to reform society does not give YOU the right to impose on the rest of us what we see as a perversion of nature.

Liberals have already screwed up American culture enough over the last 50 years. Pardon us if we prefer you do no more damage.
Terry

August 17, 2010

Well, Mr. D, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf has said For each of the problems Obama cited — American occupation in Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the spread of nuclear weapons, development of democracy, religious freedom, women’s rights and economic development — Islam presents a solution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/imam-feisal-abdul-rauf/obamas-challenge-to-the-m_b_211838.html
Islam – it’s a floor wax and desert topping!

Yet somehow these solutions seem to not exist in the real world. The American occupation in Iraq is being ended by the United States and the secular Iraqi government, the Islamic method of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as practiced by real Muslims, has been with us for over 60 years and shows no sign of ending, the Islamic solution to the problem of the spread of nuclear weapons is to get their hands on as many as possible, no Islamic state has an organic democratic system, there is no religious freedom in self-identified Islamic states, there are no women’s rights as Huffpo readers understand them in Islamic states, and all economic activity of any importance in Islamic nations either relies on imported Western dollars or imported Western businessmen.
Troy

August 17, 2010

Jeff Rosenberg said:

“I have never ever heard anybody explain to me how expanding equality harms existing marriages”

I think “harms existing marriages” is a stupid red herring.

A much better question: is it good policy?

I have read again and again about the ‘right of marriage’, but “I have never ever heard anybody explain to me” from where this ‘right’ is derived. That is because it isn’t a ‘right’. Marriage is a custom, a tradition, or a ‘cultural idiom’.

My opinion: successful cultures use marriage because it makes them more successful. It can spawn family units of varying size, it can provide role models for each sex to the next generation, it does not depend on others for growth and success, and more. Policy-wise, ‘gay marriage’ shouldn’t exist because it is not the functional equivalent of ‘marriage’.

What exactly would ‘gay marriage’ do, other than make gay couples feel better about themselves because the government endorses their relationship?
Terry

August 17, 2010

It is exactly imposing gay marriage, Dog Gone.
People don’t don’t want Gay marriage. They vote against it, when they are given
a chance, even amend a state constitution to do so, when given a chance.
One man in CA decided gay marriage was a legal right and imposed that decision
on thirty million people.

You could not effectively defend your statement that “Marriage has been defined in the limitation to heterosexual couples in a way which was wrong.” in a million years. You haven’t even got the grammar right.
Jeff Rosenberg

August 17, 2010

Kermit wrote: “It has been thus in western culture for thousands of years.”

Whatever marriage is, it has never been a constant for thousands of years. We’ve moved from arranged political marriages to marriages of individual choice, and from strictly intra-racial marriages to allow inter-racial marriage. Marriage is always changing; how does it make sense to pick one particular aspect and say that THIS particular aspect is sacrosanct?

Troy wrote: “successful cultures use marriage because it makes them more successful. It can spawn family units of varying size, it can provide role models for each sex to the next generation…”

So should marriage be restricted only to those who want to start a family? I’m not okay with that.

“What exactly would ‘gay marriage’ do, other than make gay couples feel better about themselves because the government endorses their relationship?”

In the absence of checking a couple’s fertility, what does STRAIGHT marriage ‘do’? Given the divorce rate and the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, I’m not so sure either type of marriage does anything whatsoever. In fact, I don’t understand why our government is in the marriage business at all. But since it is, it’s hard to see what the value is in discriminating.
Kermit

August 17, 2010

Jeff, like most liberals, seems to understand that our rights are derived from government, which is another perversion. Read the Declaration of Independence.
Fearless Leader Obama doesn’t like our Constitution. He has said that it is a “charter of negative rights”. And that it is. It is a charter that limits what government can do TO us.
Kermit

August 17, 2010

Whatever marriage is, it has never been a constant for thousands of years.
Bullshit.
Troy

August 17, 2010

Jeff Rosenberg said:

“So should marriage be restricted only to those who want to start a family? I’m not okay with that.”

I didn’t say that, and so I do not care if you are “not okay with that”.

“In the absence of checking a couple’s fertility, what does STRAIGHT marriage ‘do’?”

Already explained and ignored. Will repeating myself help? I don’t think so.

“Given the divorce rate and the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, I’m not so sure either type of marriage does anything whatsoever.”

Please forgive me if I am not filled with confidence in your grasp of this topic by your lack of ‘sure’-ness on this point.

“In fact, I don’t understand why our government is in the marriage business at all.”

Think on it and get back to me when a clue arrives.

“But since it is, it’s hard to see what the value is in discriminating.”

Just like wanting to eat food instead of cardboard would be “discriminating”.
nerdbert

August 17, 2010

Whatever marriage is, it has never been a constant for thousands of years.

For the elites, that’s true. For us plebes, not so much. Which group are you in, Jeff?

In the absence of checking a couple’s fertility, what does STRAIGHT marriage ‘do’?

Not much, now that liberals have managed to destroy the effectiveness of the contract. No fault divorce is hardly a “reform” we should be trumpeting.

Kermit: Jeff, like most liberals, seems to understand that our rights are derived from government, which is another perversion.

There’s that pesky 10th Amendment that really should be coming into play here, but the whole idea of that terrifies the Big Government folks (both GOP and DFL).

Honestly, let the states and people decide. If MN wants gay marriage, fine. I’d prefer the terms “civil unions” or “sodomite sinecures” since the whole arrangement is frankly a new institution and arrangement, but if Jeff can manage to persuade enough folks, that’s fine.

It’s telling that the idea of putting this to a vote terrifies supporters. Abolitionists weren’t exactly scared to stand up for their principles, and they were certainly publicly defeated many times before finally succeeding, but this crowd certainly doesn’t act as though they’re firmly convicted of the moral rightness of their cause.
Master of None

August 17, 2010

Jeff, how would you feel about a constitutional amendment that gives only the state legislature the power to define marriage?
Kermit

August 17, 2010

Ah yes, the rate of out-of-wedlock pregnancies. Something else we can thank liberals for. How’s that “Great Society” working out for us, Jeff?
K-Rod

August 17, 2010

Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights!

Only a complete moron would claim otherwise.

And don’t make me go all Tina Turner on your ass.
bubbasan

August 17, 2010

Regarding Jeff Rosenberg’s comments, what the honest definition of marriage (one man, one woman, been that way since Adam and Eve) does is provide a legal framework where family law can protect the rights of weaker vessels; women (especially childbearing) and children.

While certain specifics (interracial marriage, how it’s contracted, etc..) have changed, the central issue is that a sexual relationship between a man and a woman is presumed to be likely to be fertile, and that fertility will create weaker vessels that the law ought to protect.

What is at stake with misdefining marriage? Very simple; the law will–as the California judge’s decision amply demonstrates–forget that it has weaker vessels to protect. When one fails to define and enforce the responsibilities of a father–as the law has abundantly done with the many “sperm donors” out there–women and children suffer, and badly so.
swiftee

August 17, 2010

To paraphrase my favorite Terry quote:

“If a court decree is all it takes to make buggerin’ Bob and Barney sharing a shack “=” to marriage between man and woman, will a similar decree entitle Bob to ovulate?”

And if Bob comes ino a OBGyn’s office to have his eggs harvested, will the doctor be subject to having his license revoked if he laughs until he cries?

How many helpings of sand is recommended by the Democrat party to ensure good health?
Loren

August 17, 2010

I would like to point out to DG that her “Well said Joel” should be a reference to Jeff (I think), unless Joel Rosenberg had a posting that has since been removed.
Loren

August 17, 2010

Jeff said:

Whatever marriage is, it has never been a constant for thousands of years.

And then went on to describe numerous things which have varied over the years. But at the same time, Jeff omits to point out that the very thing under discussion (gender of the particpants) has constant for those very same years. Curious.
Loren

August 17, 2010

That should be “has remained constant”
Mitch Berg

August 17, 2010

All,

Loren kinda hit my comment; marriage has been practiced in a dizzying number of ways; from fiercely-enforced monogamy to casual polygamy and polyandry; from family-arranged affairs to Vegas instaweddings; from ceremonies where the couple meets each other for the first time to ceremonies that are only held after the bride is pregnant.

But the one constant, everywhere, always, is that it’s been a dude and a chick.

I support civil unions, as a civil contract. I don’t see any way not to offer them.

But whatever marriage HAS been, it clearly IS something to the vast and stable majority today.
K-Rod

August 17, 2010

Civil unions? WTF?

Wow, Mitch doesn’t like the current statutes on contract law so he wants to pass even more over-reaching big government laws to correct the current bad laws on the books.

No, my friends, that is not what makes one a true conservative. I can spot those liberal tendencies a mile away.
Mitch Berg

August 17, 2010

It’s a libertarian tendency, Krod.

There’s a HUGE difference.

Marriage is, or should be, a religious observance. Churches should be able to perform any kind of marriage they can theologically justify.

(And no significant religious theologically justifies gay marriage).
K-Rod

August 17, 2010

No, mItch, more government is not a libertarian tendency!

You want more law instead of fixing current law.

Churches already have the freedom to perform what they find fit…

Churches are not dictating to me about marriage.

But, please, don’t call yerself a libertairian/conservative while you continue to support adding more big government just because of poor contract laws!!!

And remember:
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.

Even deegee knows this to be true.
Troy

August 17, 2010

I am not sold on civil unions, but I don’t consider myself well informed on them either. My opposition to “gay marriage” is partially owed to an aversion to equating things that are obviously not the same. The other part has grown over time after reflecting on what ‘traditional’ marriage “does” for us.

What stands in the way of civil unions in Minnesota? Why should they exist? How, and to whom, could they be useful? How, and by whom, could they be abused?
Mitch Berg

August 17, 2010

more government is not a libertarian tendency!

And civil unions don’t add ANYTHING to government.

You want more law instead of fixing current law

Fixing current law is exactly what I’m proposing.
jimf

August 17, 2010

Dog- “Judicial decree is…..doing what it is supposed to do, prevent majorities from abusing minority rights.” They’re “supposed” to do nothing of the kind. If your’re talking about the Supreme Court, they’re “supposed” to decide if a law is constitutional or not.
nerdbert

August 17, 2010

KR, there’s no “more” government associated with a civil union as commonly defined. In fact, there’s actually less government and legal involvement.

I’ve stated in the past that if there were a real need for gay marriage we’d be seeing tons of lawyers offering packages to grant all the rights married folks have to two gays. With the exception of tax benefits, there’s nothing that the right forms and contracts wouldn’t give a “gay couple.” The fact that we don’t see those set up and flying through the court system says something.

But a civil union would be essentially a shortcut to what amounts to all the rights that a state could grant through a series of decrees and a pile of paperwork and legal expense. So if anything, it’s actually less of a load on the system than the alternative.

But as I’ve said, there’s no demand for the alternative of civil contracts and judicial decrees that are out there now. So what gays are really looking for is official government blessing and recognition of their condition, nothing more. Perhaps that’s cynical, but I saw the first civil unions up close in Vermont and I have to say that after the initial burst of interest, there wasn’t much there there.
K-Rod

August 18, 2010

“Fixing current law is exactly what I’m proposing.”

By adding more “civil union” laws.

Wrong answer.
Mitch Berg

August 18, 2010

Well, no, Krod. It’s a contract. In principle, no different than any other.
K-Rod

August 18, 2010

“But a civil union would be essentially a shortcut to what amounts to all the rights that a state could grant through a series of decrees and a pile of paperwork and legal expense.”

Well then, clean up these existing laws instead of piling more laws on top to correct them.
Is that toooo hard to do?
Is it too much too ask for legislators to rewrite the contract laws that are currently on the books?

I am tired of the liberal PC use of the term “civil union”.

It is all about contracts and it shouldn’t matter if it is between two men or two men and four women… or a widow and her father-in-law…