Or: Some Thoughts on the Marriage Amendment
A post on Emm-in-Sem's tumblr already had me thinking this way, but this quote from today's STrib continues the train of thought:
"While gay marriage is already banned in Minnesota, supporters say passage of the amendment would block legislative efforts to change the law."
Really? It's just a cat-and-mouse game to pre-empt any change in the law?
Because what, to make same-sex marriage doubly not legal will add that extra layer of protection against "the gay agenda"?
I don't buy it. I think this is all about flipping MN in the next presidential election.
Minnesota, with it's long strong tradition of progressivism. Minnesota, the only state in the union to vote for Walter Mondale in 1984. Minnesota, a stalwart democratic stronghold in presidential elections for longer than I've been alive.
But things have been changing, shifting evermore towards the conservative end of the spectrum. The DFL has been imploding over the last 13 years (and I personally hold our current governor responsible for a good chunk of the infighting), which hasn't helped matters. But the GOP has been slowly laying this groundwork for a while. Why else do you think they held their 2008 convention in St. Paul? Pawlenty was expected to be tapped for McCain's VP, they were hoping to flip the state back then.
Add to this the perpetual embarrassment that is Michele Bachmann, who we seem utterly unable to unseat, and who is constantly stirring and polarizing the pot. There is also the fact that Jim Oberstar (most senior member of MN's delegation, Democratic Representative from the normally staunchly pro-DFL NE corner of the state) was unseated last November. And there is a chance Pawlenty will be the front-runner on the GOP ticket in 2012.
I think certain powers-that-be were looking at these trends and possibilities and wondering to themselves: how can we capitalize on this? How can we guarantee that people who will vote for Pawlenty and Bachmann and Cravaack will come out in droves next election?
I know - let's put gay marriage up to a vote.
It's sad and sickening, really. They know they can't out-community-organize Obama, so they're not even going to try. While thousands of DFL staff and volunteers will be pounding the pavement going door to door, meeting their neighbors face-to-face and building personal connections to turn out the vote, the Republicans will merely run ad campaigns that prey on base fear and hatred.
Fellow progressives, they're kicking our hive, and though it's not a charitable thought, I'm really hoping they get stung for it. Let's show 'em what happens when compassion and civility and good citizenship wins the day.
6 comments:
I know straight people who are refusing to get married until everyone can, in solidarity with same-sex couples. I don't think this is a good long term solution. They have to go out of their way to explain why they aren't getting married, and most of the people they run into are people who already agree with them.
Recently (within the last few days actually) I have started formulating a different strategy. Instead of less weddings for straight couples, more weddings for same-sex couples. I know someone who is having a wedding ceremony for her and her same-sex partner, because they both want the ceremony (even though the state won't recognize it). It got me thinking, what if there were more ceremonies. A church (or anyone for that matter) can have a ceremony for whatever they want. You could officiate at a wedding that doesn't have any legal standing. What if more churches start having weddings for same-sex couples. More people start getting invitations to attend their friends, neighbors, co-workers, or family members weddings. And, more people know someone who has already gone through the ceremony. When it comes time to vote on the issue more people will be inclined to support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, since they are already having the weddings anyway.
YOU could organize this! Contact Minnesota congregations/denominations that are in favor of same-sex marriage and tell them to start having weddings (BTW, I'm not, in any way, associated with the wedding industry :-).
This has the added benifit that it will make it harder for someone to argue that the reason why same-sex marriage should not be recognized is religious in nature.
It will take the air out of their sails and pull the rug out from under their feet at the same time. Go for it! Probably best not to mention Operation Dream Within a Dream was my idea.
Actually, almost all of the clergy I know would rather get out of the marriage business altogether, at least as far as the state is concerned. To the state marriage is a legal contract, in the church it's a covenant, two different things going on there. Plus, it's really weird to function as an agent of the state in this regard.
My circle of friends and I pine for the European system where the legal union is handled by a justice of the peace (a true full time agent of the state) and those who chose can also have a church ceremony. I think that would take the "religious argument" out of the equation to a great extent because then marriage at the governmental level becomes purely a legal contract and it becomes more clear that denying it to an entire class of citizens is an egregious denial of civil rights.
But in lieu of that, I think you're right, more same-sex weddings is a better strategy than less heterosexual weddings. I am currently too mired in statistics hell to organize it myself, but I'll pass it along to my friend Rebecca, who actually gets paid to work on stuff like that full time (www.thetaskforce.org/about_us/staff_directory/sort_by_name/Rebecca_Voelkel).
Incidentally - Bachmann officially in the race for President? Let the games begin. . .
Though, I am *slightly* nervous if only because the last time a bunch of Minnesotans underestimated a candidate we ended up with Governor The Body.
You get all the fun...statistically speaking.
I don't think we need to worry to much about Bachmann. She will probably be the fundraiser and Palin will be the cheerleader. Crazy can get you elected to congress, but they wouldn't be crazy enough to nominate her for anything else...would they? What's the P-value of that happening...
Hopefully less than .05 . . .I think. I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around which way that should go, too many double negatives involved, it feels counterintuitive. I think I should just start building up my immunity to null hypotheses.
BTW, should have said yesterday, I have been known to begin a marriage rehearsal with "Mawwiage. Mawwiage is what bwings us togethuhh todaaaaay. . ." :)
And I don't even have a box of Thin Mints to blame that spaceout on, how sad.
Yes, the link worked! I think I was missing the "http://" part on the links I've botched in earlier comments.
Post a Comment