Chanting Points Memo: The Potemkin Push

With much fanfare, a few DFL figureheads are introducing a gay marriage bill:

“Minnesotans spoke so loudly during this last election refusing to adopt that proposed constitutional amendment. It was a very clear statement, and I think we’re now ready to take the next step, and it means everything to our families.”

Surrounded by supporters, Clark and Sen. Scott Dibble, who was instrumental in the anti-amendment campaign, said their side is prepared to combat the flood of national money that’s been promised against the proposal.

I’ve been saying since the opening day of the session that the DFL was going to stall on gay marriage – and they have.

And they’ll continue to; even the DFL’s house PR organs (including the MinnPost, from which I quote) note that the DFL leadership is going very slow:

Although DFL leaders have said they personally support same-sex marriage, they haven’t been overly enthusiastic in discussing legislative action with the press.

This is echoed in fundraising letters being sent to gay marriage supporters; outstate DFLers, already alarmed by the DFL’s gun grabs and a DFL tax bill that is going over outstate like a Lindsay Lohan one-woman show in Branson, are queasy about the bill; they remember (even if the media doesn’t) that the Marriage Amendment passed, often convincingly, in most of Minnesota; it was stopped by cataclysmic turnout in the Metro.

Where, unlike greater Minnesota, the issue is a winner for the DFL.

My fearless prediction:  the DFL will introduce the bill with much fanfare (ok, that’s not a prediction, that’s what happened).  It’ll quietly die in committee.  And the Alliance for a Better Minnesota will send its flying monkeys out next year to spin the death as perfidy by a GOP caucus that, in fact, controls nothing.

Final scorecard:  those who prosper from low-information voters: 1.  Gays who wish to marry:  0.

And so it shall stay.

14 thoughts on “Chanting Points Memo: The Potemkin Push

  1. Pat Anderson, (former state auditor and Republican national committeewoman and current chair of the 4th Congressional District Republicans), who also attended the “event” and stated her support for same-sex marriage as well. Ms. Anderson is also being recruited for the state GOP chair position.

    Ms. Anderson says:
    “I think gay marriage is inevitable because of the position of the younger generation, and it’s just a matter of when. And the longer we as party fight the issue, the smaller we are going to become.”

    Freedom and liberty are not just words.
    http://www.twincities.com/opinion/ci_22673588/pat-anderson-gop-activist-support-same-sex-marriage

  2. “Freedom and liberty are not just words”

    Nor are they especially simple. Gay marriage will eventually, inevitably, mean litigation against churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages. Traditional marriage will be driven underground, First Amendment be damned.

    I don’t oppose civil contractual unions – but I do believe government needs to get out of the business of sanctioning unions, at all. And I do plan on putting my money where my mouth is; if I ever get married again, I won’t be getting any government license to do it.

  3. I think “inevitable” properly sums-up what some of us feel about the issue. At least those of us who were neutral on the issue until those we oppose took up the cause.

    Freedom and liberty are just words. Words that are often used when a sound arguement cannot be raised. Homosexual marriage is to “freedom” as is the legalization of sexual relations between intragenerational family members; the “freedom” to love, “liberty” for people to marry who they want.

    I am pro “traditional” marriage. However, those who might engage in it rarely do now days; cohabitation is more the norm and the nuclear family consists of baby mama, baby, and social services. Unless you’re rich and famous. Then you have a child with someone inconsequential then keep them on the payroll as the “fiance” or “fiancee”.

    If forced to decide purely on a gut level, I do believe marriage is a permanent committment between members of opposite sexes; biologically determined members by the way.

    However, we believers are in decline, and very few practice what we adhere to. That’s even excluding the divorce issue.

    So since “we” don’t really engage in traditional marriage, we, as a group, have little credibility in defining it. Humble opinions.

    That said, I’m looking forward to the hand wringing this must be causing in the DFL ranks right now, especially in the 218 area code.

  4. Emery, did you see where there is an effort to ban Chik-Fa-la from Univ of New Mexico because the owner said he supports the historic 3000 year old definition of marriage? Do you also support banning Jew owned businesses?

  5. Chuck:
    Did you read that Carl Rove has formed a new PAC named the Conservative Victory Project ? The purpose of the fund is to clear away the under-brush (extreme far right) in the conservative movement. I wish him luck.

    Self-identified Republicans are about 26% of the electorate, white, male, and about 187 years old on average.
    .
    The party needs to start over, and preferably by realizing that it’s now 2013, and not 1513.

  6. It’s been nothing but mayhem in Canada ever since they legalized it. The economy just keeps on growing, people keep having children, and worst of all, the sun continues to rise and set predictably.

    Their economy is growing because they were, ironically, more conservative than us over this past eight years.

    And just so I make sure I understand your argument: you’re saying “who cares if church groups are being harassed by the government if they oppose gay marriage; the trains run on time!”, right?

  7. I have the same concerns as Pat Anderson has.

    Ms. Anderson says:
    “I think gay marriage is inevitable because of the position of the younger generation, and it’s just a matter of when. And the longer we as party fight the issue, the smaller we are going to become.”

    But you keep up the good fight ….

  8. Oh, I don’t disagree with Pat. She has a point. And it’s a point I don’t disagree with, as I’ve been pushing for civil unions and for getting government out of the marriage busieness for the past ten years.

    I’m just pointing out that there’s a downside to be prevented.

    What “good fight” did you think I was keeping up?

  9. As someone who spent his first 22 years in Canada, I can assure you that Canadians tolerate their federal government because Canada is a far more federal state than the US, with far more power and responsibility delegated to the provinces. Nobody outside of Ontario likes Ontarians, everybody hates the French, everybody resents the wealth of the Albertans, everybody in the West resent the transfers to the Maritimes, and everybody in the East resents the intrusive Federal government that thinks their transfer dollars give them leave to dictate how people run their lives and businesses. The Canadian federal government makes block grants to the provinces to run most important social services, social security is run by an arms-length government corporation, and defense and foreign affairs are small and largely irrelevant. Despite this, no government has been elected with 40% of the popular vote in decades, and any mention of the prime minister’s name sends at least half the country into a flurry of name-calling. Canada is functional because the federal government need hardly function at all. Which is to Canada’s credit. The US had it like that, but Lincoln, FDR, and LBJ used various crises to centralize power. The US would be far less dysfunctional if it operated more like Canada, with almost all social services delegated to the states.

  10. Emery,

    I’d have to dig hard to find much to disagree with in your previous. And I’m too busy to dig hard at the moment.

    Wait – I found it. Human Rights Court. Canada has ‘em, and they’re an abomination. We don’t – yet.

  11. Government entities granting money to other government entities is a great way to waste money.

    [sarc]Want to save money? Add middlemen! Bureaucrats are always more responsible with money that’s been laundered through a few other government agency budgets before it lands in theirs. [/sarc]

  12. Emery, when you look at that picture please look deeply into my eyes, and believe I’m looking into yours.

    And, of course, that goes for your Christian hating, buggery loving fellow Canadians too.

Leave a Reply