Skip to main content

Minnesota was one of four states where marriage equality won at the ballot box, as we became the first state to defeat a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. We were also fortunate enough to have the state Democrats (DFL) flip both houses of the legislature while a DFL governor is half-way through his term --- and marriage equality was one of his campaign themes in 2010. So we have a greater opportunity on a state level than most states, however, the electoral success in three other states suggests the time is right on a national level too. Time to repeal DOMA. Cross-posted at MN Progressive Project.

Add mine to the voices in the liberal base saying move right away on marriage equality. I used marriage as an example when I said yesterday that we've won nothing in the 2012 election but an opportunity but that's all it was, an example of the opportunities in front us where we haven't actually racked up a win yet. I'm focusing now on this specific issue. Now is the time.

I'm not insensible to the case for going slow. A bunch of DFL legislators won districts where the amendment passed. Legislators campaigned on restoring school funding and completing a budget without gridlock and government shutdowns, and this is the budget session. A bunch of worthy or even needed projects got left out of the bonding bills because the GOP can't comprehend that bonding isn't the same as spending the money now, that interest rates are at record lows, unemployment is high, and the work has to get done sometime (I guess I just summarized the case for bonding, and yes, we should do that too).

So I get it that there are competing priorities and clearer mandates. I'm aware too that the US Supreme Court might rule in California's Proposition 8 case and throw out marriage discrimination altogether, or the Congress might change federal law to effectively establish legal equality. I have great doubts Congress is ready to do that, but OK, I admit the possibility.

However, I'm not giving credence to the argument the voters were against gay marriage but just didn't want the ban in the constitution. That conflates the two amendments. Keeping it out of the constitution even if you're for it was a core argument against photo ID, but I see no evidence that argument had an impact against the marriage amendment, or even that it was much used. The debate on the marriage amendment was about the issue itself, and the pro-equality anti-discrimination side won at the polls. Yes, it was for the first time ever, but simultaneous with three other states and consistent with what polls have shown for years about changing attitudes.

Maybe support for marriage equality or gay rights in general will continue to rise, but maybe not, or maybe not steadily, we don't know that --- but we do know support is high now. I also know that if you have a chance the put a policy objective into law when public support is at a high point, you do it. You're almost surely a fool not to.

I understand that it's still smart to look at the risks and benefits before deciding the time is propitious, so OK, let's look at some benefits, or at least mitigations of risks, like the concerns of DFL legislators from districts that passed the amendment. Understandable, but it goes two ways, meaning a bunch of Republicans represent districts where the amendment lost. Maybe that's not much comfort to individual legislators, but on a party level, counting the number of legislators in this position, it's actually a touch worse for Republicans than DFLers.

I also understand that the budget is the main agenda item and has to come first. It will look really bad if a DFL legislature and DFL governor can't get it done. Got it. However, I also know it takes time to put the budget together. So don't try to vote on marriage at the  same time as the budget. Do it right away and be done with it.

I'm not so sure about the argument being offered that if we do this quickly, it will be forgotten by election day 2014. I'll buy that about 2016 when the Senate faces reelection, but I'm not so sure about the House. I hardly expect the pro-amendment side to just go away. They must be discouraged, but they have backers with scads of money, and I take conservatives at their word that stopping gay marriage is a top issue for them. I would guess they'll target pro-marriage legislators, however, I would also guess Minnesotans United For All Families (MN United, the umbrella group opposing the amendment) isn't going away either. So there is a movement to give those willing to end discrimination right now some wind at their backs. In fact, probably the only thing that could break up the pro-marriage movement now is to have DFL legislators refuse to take up the issue when the environment is so favorable.

And if they do refuse to take it up? That's not exactly risk-free. Like I said in that post yesterday about demographics being opportunity rather than destiny, the groups leaning Democratic aren't obligated to vote that way perpetually. We know LGBT voters have a strong blue lean, but if the Democrats aren't going to protect their rights either, even if it's out of fear of swing voters rather than dislike of gays, they have no reason to keep voting for Democrats. Same for younger voters, among whom even the straights favor gay rights. They just won a huge victory in marriage winning at the ballot box in four states and even an Iowa Supreme Court justice surviving a retention election. Young voters don't have money, but they had decent voter turnout and a lot of volunteer time, and DFL legislators really want to tell them they get .... nothing? Do you want them to make voting DFL a habit or don't you? No, young voters don't care solely about this one issue, and even LGBT voters don't care solely about this one issue ... but they do care about it. Ironically, by putting that amendment on the ballot and forcing this long campaign over marriage, Republicans created a great opportunity for the DFL to win over people who will be voting for a long time to come. Such voters discovered they're now the majority, that they can win, and which party is on their side. For crying out loud, don't blow it.

I would also point out to reluctant legislators that the DFL governor we were so happy to have at long last faces his own reelection in two years. Mark Dayton ran mostly on an upper income tax increase, but he also ran on gay marriage. I don't expect him to publicly contradict DFL legislative leaders, but I have a feeling that in private, he said something like, "Don't leave me hanging out here." If the marriage ban is repealed, Dayton can run on a fulfilled promise. If it isn't, he's running on a broken promise, even though it was outside his control. He can't sign it if the legislature won't pass it. DFL legislators, do you want Dayton to be reelected, or not? Then give him what he ran on.

One more consideration. Let's suppose the argument that marriage equality will be a non-issue in 2014 if it's passed now is right --- but it doesn't get passed. Think the pressure will go away? The demands to get this done will only get more urgent. If you're afraid of ticking off swing voters with a vote nearly two years before election day, how about a vote in the 2014 session, does that seem less scary? Yet the calls to pass it will get more insistent, and those calls will come as you're seeking donations and volunteers.

So maybe the main point to make to nervous DFL legislators is that the risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action.

Sometimes though, despite all the analysis we do, issues aren't that complicated and decisions come down to one thing: "What's the right thing to do? Do that." This is one of those times.

Click here to sign a petition to DFL legislative leaders asking that this be a high priority for them.

Originally posted to ericf on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:09 PM PST.

Also republished by Kossacks for Marriage Equality.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I Think (0+ / 0-)

     We should legalize Gay marriage nationally.

      Then track divorce statistics for 5 years for gay and straight marriage. The one with the higher percentage divorce rate then becomes illegal.

  •  Right now there is momentum. (6+ / 0-)

    Democrats in Minnesota have the governor's office and the legislature. Pass it now, the faster it gets legalized, the less of an issue it will be in 2014. The more time that same-sex marriage is legal, the greater the number of same-sex marriage in Minnesota. And the more same-sex marriages there are, the harder it would be to ban it again. It would be at least two years before Republicans could get back control of the state government, and to ban it, they would need to win back both branches of the legislature and the governor's office.

    The wolfpack eats venison. The lone wolf eats mice.

    by A Citizen on Fri Nov 16, 2012 at 10:27:12 PM PST

    •  I'm not convinced it wouldn't be an issue in 2014 (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dave in Northridge, pademocrat

      But if it was, I think it would work in our favor. That's a reason to do it now, when there's a campaign that could be reconstituted to help its supporters in the next election as a reward for doing the right thing. I'm sure the anti-marriage side will reconstitute too, but we've already seen that we can beat them once when they got to pick the fight.

  •  I've been thinking about this one (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Minnesota Deb

    I favor passing marriage equality, but I really do see both sides of the argument to pursue this now or to wait, both of which you lay out beautifully in this diary.  

    There really are 2 questions for me.  1) What is the right thing to do--pass marriage equality now or maintain democratic control to make sure we are able to enact progressive solutions on a range of problems from education to infrastructure to taxation to the environment?
    2) If the latter, does passing marriage equality help or hurt any mandate the democrats have now and help or hurt chances in 2014?  

    As you note, the answers to those questions are not cut and dry as we'd like them to be.  It's easy in our progressive bubble here on DK to assume the public is totally on board with this, that we have nothing to lose by making marriage equality job #1, and that anyone who suggests otherwise is a treasonous bigot and should have their progressive card revoked.  

    I'm leaning toward the mind that the DFL should get this done in 2013, but I can't say I don't have my anxieties about that.  I want us to learn from the GOP epic fail last session--that they were elected talking about jobs and cutting spending but jumped headfirst into social issues and micromanaging the DNR, which a lot of Minnesotans resented.  That could easily happen to us too and we shouldn't have our heads in the sand about that.  Personally, I think the new DFL legislature should get a few broad-appeal items under their belts right away like fixing the school funding issues the GOP left us, undoing the damage done to some of the natural resource committees, and getting a few needed infrastructure projects funded.  

    That would give them LEGISLATIVE momentum rather than just ELECTORAL momentum to get marriage equality done.  We could do the right thing while simultaneously showing that we tackled the problems that are in the front of the minds of all Minnesotans.  

    Get it done, but get it done intelligently.

  •  Budget first, yes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus, Minnesota Deb, Mark Mywurtz

    Then do it in the spring.  Remember, Minnesota won't be the first state legislature to vote for marriage equality.  In California our D-heavy legislature voted for it TWICE before 2008, and, since then, New York did (with publicity because it was New York), and so did Maryland and Washington State with surprisingly little fanfare.

    Immediately would let the Rs make fun of the DFL's priorities. We absolutely CAN'T let that become an issue.  After the budget and before the redistricting that blows Michele Bachmann out of Congress..

    -7.75, -8.10; All it takes is security in your own civil rights to make you complacent.

    by Dave in Northridge on Sat Nov 17, 2012 at 06:17:41 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site