It looks like the DFL is taking the narrow defeat of the marriage amendment as permission to legalize gay marriage in the state. Personally I am ok either way, however I don't think the majority of Minnesotans are quite that progressive yet. So what do you think?
- Will the bill pass?
- Will the DFL pay for this "over reach" later?
- What are the benefits of it passing?
- What are the detriments of it passing?
Star Tribune Gay Marriage Push
11 comments:
I am not sure the DFL is doing that, but it is a reasonable interpretation of the referendum last fall, one urged, by the way by many conservative commentators.
Gay marriage opponents took a risk by putting the issue on the ballot. And risk does have it's downside.
--Hiram
Detroit Lakes was beautiful and the snowmobiling was great !!! Though many of my muscles are very sore today and I almost dropped my sled through a crack in the ice that was near shore.
Hiram,
Personally I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation at all. The vote was pretty close the metro vote swayed the result.
I know too many people who are against gay marriage, yet they voted no because they did not think an amendment was appropriate.
Now if the DFL passes a gay marriage law against the will of the folks in rural MN. I am thinking the DFL candidates in those rural districts may find it difficult to get re-elected next time. The upside is that GOP will then take control of the legislature again. (ie return to trying to control spending)
Personally I don't think that is a reasonable interpretation at all.
I talked to a lot of people who voted the way they did because they thought gay marriage was the issue. I really don't think the supporters of the amendment worked so hard to put it on the ballot to make some obscure point about constitutional governance. And how many votes is the DFL getting now from rural voters for whom gay marriage is a decisive issue?
--Hiram
Well here are just a couple of examples...
Star Tribune Gay Marriage Fight
Twin Cities Vote Map
In any event, I don't think gay marriage will have much traction once it's adopted. For one thing, it's not something that can be undone. Invalidating valid marriages by statute would clearly be unconstitutional. I think the experience of most states with gay marriage is that the electorate just moves on.
--Hiram
So you would recommend those politicians to vote against the will of their constituents?
And you think those citizens would happily forgive them in 21 months...
Seems incorrect to me.
So you would recommend those politicians to vote against the will of their constituents?
The marriage amendment lost. That being the case, I am not sure why I would recommend that politicians vote against the will of their constituents. But in any event, politicians do that all the time which is why we have unfunded stadiums coming out of our ears.
--Hiram
Well as long as you approve of the politicians voting opposite to the will of their constituents. I just wanted to raise the point.
Well as long as you approve of the politicians voting opposite to the will of their constituents.
As I recall, the anti gay marriage lost, not won the referendum on gay marriage, they themselves sought so eagerly.
--Hiram
You are correct it lost in the metro areas. However it won in most of the rural districts.
Now what should those rural district representatives do? Represent their constituents or represent the metro constituents?
I think they should represent the will of the constituents that live in their rural district... But what do I know.
Now what should those rural district representatives do?
I think they should allow gay marriage.
==Hiram
Post a Comment