POLITICS OF GAY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
All agree on amendment effect
DFL senators are insisting they support Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1997), which defines marriage as one-man, one-woman. Moreover, they insist this popular law is safe and secure and that, therefore, the constitutional amendment sought by many (including most Republicans) is simply unnecessary. Two disparate groups disagree with DFL on the security of DOMA: those who support marriage uncompromisingly and gays who seek a redefinition of marriage.
If you will tolerate the expression, these are strange bedfellows indeed. In the same bed, of course, they fight over who gets the covers. One considers existing law to be inadequate and the other recognizes it as vulnerable. In light of these realities, I find it difficult to believe that DFL senators truly believe what they say.
The first group fears existing law is inadequate to protect marriage against constitutional challenge, and the latter are confident it can be overturned as unconstitutional. Pro-marriage people fear existing marriage law might be overturned, and gays are confident it will be.
The most recent piece of evidence I find that those who advocate same-sex marriage are convinced DOMA is not safe is what they are willing to pay to overturn it. A week ago Out Front Minnesota announced (actually, admitted) it is prepared to spend $7-8 million to defeat any attempt by the people of Minnesota to amend the state constitution to define marriage, as state law does now, as one-man, one-woman.
If these gay activists actually agreed with the DFL, they would not allocate any sum to defeat an amendment. If the constitution should also so define marriage, it would make no difference to them. To have same-sex marriage disallowed doubly is no worse for them than to have it singly disallowed, as now. Except, of course, if you are confident DOMA can and will be declared unconstitutional. Then you will want to spend as much money as necessary to defeat an amendment. They possess the resources, because statistics reveal gays have above average financial assets and, also, are more willing to spend in their own social causes.
According to Senate majority leader Dean Johnson (DFL-Willmar), DFL senators respect existing law and personally support marriage as one-man, one-woman. I accept it he does, but I know different about others. He assures us DOMA will not change. What he fails to explain adequately is why it is so terribly important not to allow the people who elect the senators to vote on it-or even why DFL will not allow it out of committee so voters could know the extent to which they represent constituents.
The Star Tribune supports the DFL position and offers its editorial position: "This question should not be one decided by popular vote." I find this assertion to be a truly astounding editorial position for a newspaper to take in America, i.e., the people should be denied the right to decide our own state constitution. Outrageous.
It also praises Sen. Johnson for his "political courage" in reporting that 34 of the senate's 38 DFLers are "prepared to vote no." I praise his honesty and challenge him to use his considerable leadership skills to persuade these 34 to tell their constitutes at home what they told him in closed caucus. They are not doing this.
The same paper refers to DFL tactics as "a roadblock between [the] proposed amendment and the November ballot." I look for legislative leadership, not political subversion.
DFL senators, it seems to me, attempt to gain the votes of pro-marriage people by affirming DOMA as being an adequate safeguard for marriage. At the same time, they attempt to gain the votes of the same-sex marriage advocates by preventing a constitutional amendment that actually would protect it-against their designs. How can they pull this off? By preventing the bill from reaching the floor of the senate where their individual votes would become known. For their partisan political purposes, they cannot afford to allow this.
So, it seems to me that everyone knows if DOMA is to survive, the constitution must be amended. One-man, one-woman advocates and same-sex marriage advocates agree, although for opposite reasons. DFL senators agree, but they won’t admit it for their own reasons. Source: Austin Daily Herald, February 28, 2006
DFL senators are insisting they support Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1997), which defines marriage as one-man, one-woman. Moreover, they insist this popular law is safe and secure and that, therefore, the constitutional amendment sought by many (including most Republicans) is simply unnecessary. Two disparate groups disagree with DFL on the security of DOMA: those who support marriage uncompromisingly and gays who seek a redefinition of marriage.
If you will tolerate the expression, these are strange bedfellows indeed. In the same bed, of course, they fight over who gets the covers. One considers existing law to be inadequate and the other recognizes it as vulnerable. In light of these realities, I find it difficult to believe that DFL senators truly believe what they say.
The first group fears existing law is inadequate to protect marriage against constitutional challenge, and the latter are confident it can be overturned as unconstitutional. Pro-marriage people fear existing marriage law might be overturned, and gays are confident it will be.
The most recent piece of evidence I find that those who advocate same-sex marriage are convinced DOMA is not safe is what they are willing to pay to overturn it. A week ago Out Front Minnesota announced (actually, admitted) it is prepared to spend $7-8 million to defeat any attempt by the people of Minnesota to amend the state constitution to define marriage, as state law does now, as one-man, one-woman.
If these gay activists actually agreed with the DFL, they would not allocate any sum to defeat an amendment. If the constitution should also so define marriage, it would make no difference to them. To have same-sex marriage disallowed doubly is no worse for them than to have it singly disallowed, as now. Except, of course, if you are confident DOMA can and will be declared unconstitutional. Then you will want to spend as much money as necessary to defeat an amendment. They possess the resources, because statistics reveal gays have above average financial assets and, also, are more willing to spend in their own social causes.
According to Senate majority leader Dean Johnson (DFL-Willmar), DFL senators respect existing law and personally support marriage as one-man, one-woman. I accept it he does, but I know different about others. He assures us DOMA will not change. What he fails to explain adequately is why it is so terribly important not to allow the people who elect the senators to vote on it-or even why DFL will not allow it out of committee so voters could know the extent to which they represent constituents.
The Star Tribune supports the DFL position and offers its editorial position: "This question should not be one decided by popular vote." I find this assertion to be a truly astounding editorial position for a newspaper to take in America, i.e., the people should be denied the right to decide our own state constitution. Outrageous.
It also praises Sen. Johnson for his "political courage" in reporting that 34 of the senate's 38 DFLers are "prepared to vote no." I praise his honesty and challenge him to use his considerable leadership skills to persuade these 34 to tell their constitutes at home what they told him in closed caucus. They are not doing this.
The same paper refers to DFL tactics as "a roadblock between [the] proposed amendment and the November ballot." I look for legislative leadership, not political subversion.
DFL senators, it seems to me, attempt to gain the votes of pro-marriage people by affirming DOMA as being an adequate safeguard for marriage. At the same time, they attempt to gain the votes of the same-sex marriage advocates by preventing a constitutional amendment that actually would protect it-against their designs. How can they pull this off? By preventing the bill from reaching the floor of the senate where their individual votes would become known. For their partisan political purposes, they cannot afford to allow this.
So, it seems to me that everyone knows if DOMA is to survive, the constitution must be amended. One-man, one-woman advocates and same-sex marriage advocates agree, although for opposite reasons. DFL senators agree, but they won’t admit it for their own reasons. Source: Austin Daily Herald, February 28, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home