« U.S. JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATING FRANKEN CONTRIBUTOR | Home | BREAKING NEWS: FRANKEN CONTRIBUTOR SKIPS BAIL HEARING »
U OF M PROFESSOR CALLS FRANKEN’S POSTION ON GAY MARRIAGE “POLITICALLY RADIOACTIVE”
By Michael B. Brodkorb | September 5, 2007
"University of Minnesota Law Prof. Dale Carpenter, a gay marriage advocate who teaches about sexual orientation legal issues, said there are very few states, and Minnesota is not among them, in which support for gay marriage is politically advantageous. After reviewing the Almanac debate at my request, he called Franken’s answer honest and straightforward, but 'politically radioactive in a race against [Sen. Norm] Coleman.'" Source: Eric Black Ink, September 5, 2007
Click here for the complete post.
###
This post also appears on Blogs for Norm!, an online community and blog covering the 2008 U.S. Senate campaign in Minnesota. The primary goal of Blogs for Norm! is to organize bloggers who support U.S. Senator Norm Coleman.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »
14 Responses to “U OF M PROFESSOR CALLS FRANKEN’S POSTION ON GAY MARRIAGE “POLITICALLY RADIOACTIVE””
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Yup. It is politically radioactive, and as the piece goes on to show, Franken’s position isn’t significantly different from Ciresi’s. In a year that may well not be good for Republicans generally (the US Senate race, overall, is shaping up to be a disaster of biblical proportions — the only thing missing, at the moment, is the actual raining of frogs), there’s not a lot of reasons for the Republicans to not beat on the SSM issue (err, so to speak).
Which is, to my mind, a pity; with all the dangers to the nation, the distant possibility of Al and Bob down the street someday being able to get a marriage license doesn’t weigh terribly heavily on my mind as a looming threat.
September 5th, 2007 at 10:32 AM
I still believe government should get the hell out of the marriage business all together. Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right.
There’s no sense in building a tax code and supporting bureaucracy around personal relationships.
September 5th, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Chestnut,
I think you’d find a lot of gay people who agree with that statement. However, what do you propose replaces the legal protections granted by marriage?
Civil unions, perhaps? That way any two adult people, regardless of gender, could enter into a legally binding civil union to guarantee property/asset transfer, medical decision making, protection under the 5th Amendment?
What about adoption, then? If I had a child and entered into a civil union, could I make my male partner a legal guardian of my child?
If we didn’t have children, could we adopt one into our home and give love, protection and care to that child?
I see you making the statement “Marriage is a religious rite, not a civil right” in several comment threads on MDE. You’re correct, marriage was a religious rite that was brought into our civil code. But rather than just giving a snappy sound bite, provide some answers to these other fundamental questions.
Then we will find out if your position is truly an argument against civil intrusion into religion (and vice versa) or is an argument against gay people. I truly am curious. I look forward to your reply!
September 5th, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Thanks DavidD.
My answers take the form of more questions: What special “legal protections” granted by marriage? They are really very few if any.
Everyone has legal protections regardless of marriage. Anyone can complete a will. Anyone can grant another power of attorney over financial or medical affairs. Anyone can grant legal guardianship to anyone else to care for their children.
None of this requires government sanctioned marriage. None of it requires civil unions.
The only reform that is required is the ability to pass property to anyone without inheritance taxes. Again, why are tax codes built around personal relationships? Why are we taxing property after death?
I’m not sure what the 5th Amendment has to do with it… isn’t that about incriminating one’s self in a court of law?
To your question on adoption: Adoption should be easy. I have no quarrels with children being raised by homosexuals… or single men, or single women… so long as they are provided a safe, loving environment. And I see no proof that homosexuals can’t do that.
Why does anyone look to the government to validate their personal relationship?
It’s bunk. Government has no business meddling, taxing and interfering in personal relationships or religious rites.
To be clear, this is in now way, shape or form, an argument against gay people.
September 5th, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Franken holds a political view regardless of the fact that it may harm his run for office? Shocking! Thank you for exposing this.
September 5th, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Chestnut, I respect you for your statements and agree with you on a lot of things. The 5th Amendment protects a spouse from incriminating the other spouse.
Right now the reality is that marriage exists and will NOT go away. Therefore there are special legal protections that are offered to heterosexuals for only the cost of a marriage license. For a gay couple to get the same things in order it takes a lot more paperwork, time and money…that’s all I am saying.
Would you email me? I’d be interested in a friendly chat with you regarding a few of these ideas. email David1369@gmail.com
or you can find me at lloydletta.blogspot.com
September 5th, 2007 at 6:40 PM
“the distant possibility of Al and Bob down the street someday being able to get a marriage license doesn’t weigh terribly heavily on my mind as a looming threat.”
No, but how about a liberal judge ording the law to be changed so Al, Bob, Chuck, Phyliss, and Pat can all get married? Or maybe a 40 year-old can marry a 9 year old. Both polygamy and inter-generational marriages have a much richer history the same sex marriage. What’s to stop a judge from ruling in their favors?
September 5th, 2007 at 8:00 PM
yet gay marriage goes back almost 600 years in some parts of the world
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/
September 5th, 2007 at 9:35 PM
“Civil unions between male couples existed around 600 years ago in medieval Europe, a historian now says.
Historical evidence, including legal documents and gravesites, can be interpreted as supporting the prevalence of homosexual relationships hundreds of years ago, said Allan Tulchin of Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania.
If accurate, the results indicate socially sanctioned same-sex unions are nothing new, nor were they taboo in the past.”
DavidD, that’s your eveidence? heh heh. Want me to present evidence of polygamy and old men marrying little girls? That has been very common in human history. I say eqaul rights for polygamist. They are like Rosa Parks.
September 5th, 2007 at 9:39 PM
And I meant to say, DavidD…..I can find more examples were cannabilism was accepted 600 years ago then you can find of gay sex being accepted.
Agree to the challenge?
September 6th, 2007 at 7:02 AM
I said nothing about being accepting of gay sex… in fact I’d appreciate if you’d stay out of the private lives of gay people. However, it’s interesting to see that you take the topic of civil unions/gay marriage and make it into an issue regarding sex. It shows your true colors and motivations.
September 6th, 2007 at 7:44 AM
I think we spend way too much time worrying about what other people do with their genitals. That’s between them and God.
Frankly, I don’t recognize the validity of any non-religious marriage. Justice of the Peace weddings (why don’t they just perform them at the DMV?) are a mis-allocation of judicial resources… Though, in the grand-scheme of things, it doesn’t matter much what I personally recognize, does it.
The state has the right to validate the registration and title of my automobile. Not my marriage.
September 6th, 2007 at 9:38 AM
However, it’s interesting to see that you take the topic of civil unions/gay marriage and make it into an issue regarding sex.
~ Um, last I checked to be gay meant you have SEX with someone of the same sex? if you are two guys living together and not having sex, then you are just roommates or friends.
Let’s not forget this group of people want recognition for just that, what their choices are regarding sex. Well, I like a good blow job from time to time, can I get special days and months commited for the kind of sex I like. How about giving me access to a city so I can have oral sex parades?
I am just fine with staying out of any gay relationship, but then I also ask the damn gay’s to stop shoving their identity in my face. I really do not care to know what you like sexually and it really is none of my business who you choose to love. That being said, quit your whining all the time and looking for special attention. Go about you life as I will mine. Quit with the parades, special days or months and act like you believe you belong with the rest of society which does not have a need for special identification.
September 6th, 2007 at 10:55 AM
Big Kahuna-
If you happen to be part of a relationship right now, is it strictly based upon sex? If so, I fell badly for you. A committed, long-term relationship is about more than sex. In fact, sex is much more a secondary aspect.
That’s the problem with people like you. You think that gay people are only in it for the sex and that there is no emotional connection/support. I think that speaks volumes about you.
How about giving me access to a city so I can have oral sex parades?
That’s just a foolish comment and a baseless analogy.
I am a gay man, I don’t go to Pride (I have but it’s not that much fun for me). In fact if you and I met on the street and started chatting, you’d have no idea I was gay. Perhaps you should expand your horizons and realize that your stereotypes are not all encompassing, they only represent a segment of the gay community.
Being gay and in a committed relationship is not antithetical to being Republican, Conservative or having Family Values or being heterosexual.