pegkerr | The (mis-named) Minnesota for Marriage ad (Reply)

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.