The (mis-named) Minnesota for Marriage ad

[pegkerr]

I am very indebted to naomikritzer for pointing out in a post here an ad that I had missed in today's Star Tribune. Naomi writes:

You know, I consider myself pro-marriage. In the sense that I support people who are married, including those who got married in Massachusetts or Canada and aren't allowed to other places.

I think, first of all, that we need to reclaim the language. The people trying to push the anti-marriage amendment to the Minnesotan state constitution are not pro-marriage. They are anti-marriage, because there are real marriages, right now, that they are working to end. They are anti-family, because there are real families, right now, that they are busily trying to enact discrimination against. At best, they could be called pro-traditional-marriage, except they aren't really (I doubt that Katherine Kersten, a local conservative who has a column in the Star Trib, favors marriage laws that would deny her the right to own property, have a credit card without her husband's permission, etc.)

I'm thinking about all this today because one of the anti-marriage groups (called, paradoxically, Minnesota for Marriage) ran an ad in this morning's Star Tribune. It's very eye-catching -- black and white except a spot of purple on the fingertip of an Iraqi woman. "Iraqis Have the Right to Vote," it says in big bold type. "Why Don't Minnesotans?"

Yes, because putting up with legislative and procedural stonewalling -- a normal and respectable (if annoying, when it's going against your side) part of representative democracy -- is exactly like living in a military dictatorship where the secret police can come in the night and take you away to torture you because you were rumored to have criticized the government.

I'd scream, "Do they think we're stupid?" -- except, apparently, some people are really that stupid. The ad suggested calling Senators Dean Johnson and Don Betzold "with a simple message: Stop stalling...and let the people vote!" So I called both offices, to tell them that I found this ad appalling and that I supported Senator Johnson and Senator Betzold in their stance against this amendment. The beleaguered staffers at both offices were surprised and really happy to hear from someone from their own side, and both noted that the phones have been ringing off the hook. (I could hear them ringing in the background while I talked to them, in fact.)

I would love a list of proposed amendments to the Minnesota state constitution that have stalled in committee over the years. The only one I can remember offhand is Ventura's proposal to switch to a unicameral legislature.

Anyway, I wanted to call Minnesota for Marriage and let them know what I thought of their ad. Naturally, they didn't provide their OWN phone number, only the numbers for the senators. One of the senate staffers I talked to cheerfully looked it up for me, though, so I called it, and got an automated phone tree. You can leave a comment in voicemail; you can't talk to a real person. On the plus side, though, they'll pick up the tab for the call. 1-877-MN-MARRY.

I agree with Naomi: we need to reclaim the language. I force myself to read Katherine Kersten's columns in the Star Tribune (who rants on and on about the evil threats of gay marriage at least three times a week), even though it gets my blood pressure up, because I am trying to get a sense of the arguments that the other side is marshaling.

This topic is getting huge press in Minnesota right now because of a gaffe made by DFL Senate Leader Dean Johnson. Johnson was meeting with some conservative ministers, who were trying to urge his support for this amendment to the Minnesota Constitution (which would define marriage as only being between one man and one woman, never mind the fact that this is illegal in Minnesota anyway). Johnson assured the ministers that he had talked to several Supreme Court justices who told him that they would never overturn the present statute. This statement by Dean Johnson was taped by one of the ministers, without his knowledge. When this assurance became public, the uproar was huge, because Supreme Court justices ethically, of course, can never give assurances about how they might rule. The justices denied Dean Johnson's remarks, and Johnson, red-faced, says that he "overstated and embellished" a conversation with just one justice. The conservatives are doing all they can to make hay out of this gaff, embarrass Johnson all that they can, and use this controversy to give their amendment some momentum.

We also have a very ambitious state Senator Michele Bachmann, who is flogging this amendment for all it is worth, figuring it will propel the conservative vote to further her career. Oh, and because she really believes that very idea that gays could have full civil rights would lead to the breakdown of all society.

Anyway, I called all numbers, too. If you live in Minnesota and wish to voice your support against anti-gay bigotry, I hope you'll do the same.

Comments

[huladavid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the phone number. What I thought was interesting about the ad was that I do not believe that Iraqi vote had anything to do with the majority ethic group voting on the rights of the minority...

[jemyl.livejournal.com]

Peg, I have no objections to gay marriage. I am straight and will likely never legally marry again. It would cut off my pension money as a widow and I doubt if I would have ten years to qualify as a widow for any many I might marry now. We would both likely be too old. Sometimes, too, when Bill was alive, I found that being his wife didn't hold as much sway and raw power as my durable power of attorney over his affairs did. Being a legal spouse only seems to count for more when he is dead, and that is only because they can and do put his bills over on to me, whenever they think that they can, even if some of them were for stuff before we were married or don't have my name on them at all.

What makes me wonder, however, is why so many people get so upset over gay marriage for one reason only. All of the studies, literature etc. that I have been able to find states that homosexuals and lesbians make up only three per cent of our population. Even assuming those figures are low and making it five per cent, it is still a very small minority of our population. Why are the ultra conservative people so afraid of such a small, though admittedly vocal, part of our population? Since I would imagine, from the gay friends both in real life and on lj, that only half of that number really, really want to get married, we are talking about an even smaller number of men and women.

I think, truth be told, that it is really the health insurance companies that don't want gay marriages allowed. Having to allow gay families on their family -- read that spousal -- insurance plans for larger companies and corporations is a real threat to their bottom line. Someone needs to study the incidence of breast and prostate and colon cancers in married heterosexual couples and contrast that with the incidence of AIDS and HIV in committed i.e. married gay couples. I think it might just show that the gay couples would cost the insurance companies the same or less than the straight ones.

Anyway, I think the three percent population idea might just wake these folk up to the ridiculousness of their law changing response. I also think that if it were just not made a big deal, the number of gay marriages would not be so great as to be a problem to anyone. The response is like taking a baseball bat to kill a fly. The collateral damage to the house or rest of the environment when the bat hits makes it a very effective but poor weapon. It is far better to just open the door and let the fly go free.

marriage priorities?

[(Anonymous)]

Back when Missouri passed its so-called marriage protection act, I wrote a piece about it for my website. It might be worth looking at.
Go to my URL--www.marktiedemann.com--click on DISTAL MUSE, go to the Archives, find "Gay Marriage And the State of My State."

When money and moralism (as opposed to actual morality) mix, the ground gets squishy and it's hard to walk

Mark