I have never seen anything quite like the Minnesota House debate over the proposal to amend their state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment passed last night, 70-62.
In the first place, I’ve seen a lot of legislative debates on this subject, and five and a quarter hours is a lot of talking on a single subject. I don’t think California has ever broken the three-hour mark on same-sex marriage, and that was years ago.
But the length of the discussion wasn’t what made it so remarkable. While Joe Jervis says, “The vote came after impassioned debate by legislators on both sides,” in fact there was no debate at all. Every member who spoke opposed the amendment – and did I mention that went on for over five hours?
The only voice in support was the amendment’s author, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, who had no backup from anyone in his party. And even he never weighed in on why it might be good to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying. His argument was about the virtue of legislative abdication. This shouldn’t be our decision, it belongs to the voters. In his cameo speaking role, he kept repeating that his opinion on same-sex couples, were he to have one, would be irrelevant to his authoring of the amendment. The proposal wasn’t about same-sex couples or opposite-sex couples, or, really much of anything at all. He never budged from this non-position, and then went into radio silence, along with every pro-amendment Republican in the body. One other Republican, Rod Hamilton, did share how deeply he had struggled with his vote, but that was the extent of it. He, too, offered no argument in favor of the constitutional amendment.
In contrast, John Kriesel, a Republican Iraq war vet, was truly impassioned in his opposition. He spoke about the American values he fought for, and explained that the amendment was exactly the opposite of what he understood our principles to be. Rather than Gottwalt’s dodges, or the silence of the rest of his party, Kriesel was eloquent and manifest about his vote: “I’m proud of this. It’s the right thing to do,” he said.
Three other Republicans and all but two of the Democrats could say the same thing. So what about those 68 other non-voices, that majority in favor of – nothing? This is what the public discussion of gay equality has come to on the right, a combination of cowardice and embarrassment. Again, in decades of paying very close attention to legislatures, I have never seen such a stone wall (you should pardon the expression). In the past, opponents have always had something to say. They don’t any more.
That is a testament to the merits of their position. They are willing to let NOM’s commercials do their talking for them, since even they know it isn’t seemly for elected officials to so openly appeal to the vestiges of prejudice. Far from having arguments they can take pride in, they want to say as little as possible, knowing that history will judge them badly and hoping to minimize the damage. That seemed to be Gottwalt’s strategy. He knew, going in, that the other side had the better of it, and the best he could do was avoid owning up to the position he’d wound up having to champion.
Alone.
So now it will be up to the voters of Minnesota. How much of the GOP’s prejudice will they be willing to adopt as so supremely important that it is worthy of being placed in their state’s constitution?
The rules for passing a constitutional amendment in Minnesota are tougher than some other states, and that is an important fact. It must be passed with a majority of all votes cast in the 2012 general election, not just those cast on the amendment, itself. The increasing support for equality across the nation will also play a role.
But there is one other factor. Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has said he would fight the amendment with “every fiber of my being.” That kind of public leadership from the state’s governor can make a difference. California’s former governor once made a similar promise on Prop. 8; but like other promises he’d made, it wasn’t one he meant. He spoke not one public word against the amendment, and only offered a tepid statement for use by the opposition. I urge Minnesotans to do what California could not, hold their Governor to his word.
The rallying cry for this election should belong to Rep. Kriesel, though. Looking down at his desk, and then up to his fellow representatives, he said, “If there was a Hell No button, I’d press that.”
12 Comments for “Pride and Prejudice”
posted by BobN on
“It must be passed with a majority of all votes cast in the 2012 general election, not just those cast on the amendment, itself. ”
In all likelihood, a very poor GOP presidential nominee in 2012 will lower turnout and put goal easily within reach of the bigots.
posted by Jorge on
That makes absolutely no sense.
A poor GOP nominee would more likely result in fewer Republican or conservative voters going to the polls, making it more likely for Obama to win in a landslide in that state with more Democratic or liberal voters.
posted by BobN on
You can say it makes no sense, but that scenario is exactly what special-issue voters love. General turnout is low — on both sides. The winning side has no particular reason to go to the polls, cuz they’re going to win. The losing side’s vote is also depressed, though the most fervent show up to “protest vote”.
And that leaves the special interest voters to swamp the turnout. Because their issue transcends mere politics. Their vote is about what God wants.
posted by Jorge on
But the length of the discussion wasn’t what made it so remarkable. While Joe Jervis says, “The vote came after impassioned debate by legislators on both sides,” in fact there was no debate at all. Every member who spoke opposed the amendment – and did I mention that went on for over five hours?
Reminds me of what happened in New York when they tried to pass the marriage bill. I’m not going to try to explain it.
There will be an accounting, right?
posted by Tim on
That’s right. I listened to the “debate” in ’09 before the NY Senate voted down the marriage equality bill. One Republican spoke against it – the infamous a-hole from the Bronx whose name, blessedly, escapes me now. Not a single added voice of opposition; they all just silently and cravenly voted no, without explanation.
posted by Jorge on
Ruben Diaz Sr. is a Democrat.
posted by Houndentenor on
I guess I’m supposed to be pleased that now Republicans are ashamed of voting for anti-gay bills? Call me when they stop voting for those bills.
posted by Carl on
I think it has nothing to do with shame and is more about the increasing lack of a need or desire for Republicans to explain. They can do what they want, and know the public will generally go along with them. It’s about the other – the Democrats, the liberals, the gays, etc. All bad people who are coming to get you. Their base knows this and supports this. The base is all that matters. The people who aren’t in the base are generally people who don’t care as long as you don’t raise their taxes.
It’s the legislative equivalent of Sarah Palin only going on Facebook or Twitter or Fox News.
They see us as unworthy of any explanation, and voters will most likely prove them right and happily ban gay marriage, so who are we to argue at this point?
posted by Houndentenor on
“The people who aren’t in the base are generally people who don’t care as long as you don’t raise their taxes.”
And sadly that includes gay Republicans as well as the family and so-called “friends” of gay people who are Republicans.
posted by Carl on
I was wondering if there are going to be any writeups on this or the “don’t say gay” bill that is also likely to be signed.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110523/NEWS02/110523033/Haslam-reverses-Metro-s-anti-discrimination-law
This bill was passed in conjunction with ads from “family” groups that said not passing the bill would result in child molestation.
For all the talk of marriage and whether or not some random Republican is becoming slightly more tolerant or might someday be slightly more tolerant (or at least not insult us to our face), there is a lot of anti-gay legislation being pushed through that has nothing to do with marriage.
posted by Tom on
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton has said he would fight the amendment with “every fiber of my being.” That kind of public leadership from the state’s governor can make a difference.
It can, but don’t count on it. In 2006, Wisconsin’s Governor Doyle and other Democrats fought the anti-marriage amendment during their own election campaigns, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin had a platform plank opposing the amendment, and Senator Russ Feingold, then still a popular politicians, came flat out in favor of same-sex marriage.
None of it made a difference. Wisconsin Family Action, working through a network of conservative Christian congregations, turned out an estimate 70-80% of its voters, and the anti-marriage amendment became part of our constitution.
In an example of unintended consequences, which turned into fitting bit of reverse justice, the anti-marriage amendment probably saved Governor Doyle’s political hide. He wasn’t much of a Governor, but was carried to re-election by the votes of infrequent voters who were turned out by the WFA to vote against marriage but otherwise voted Democratic. The Republicans, who pushed the amendment through the legislature in the expectation that it would increase their vote count, got what they deserved.
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Yes, it is a sad day for Minnesota. Although the amendment is opposed by the State Democratic Party, Independence Party and the Libertarian Party. The Log Cabin Republicans in the State opposed it, but the GOP in MN basically (from what I hear) ordered its members to back it and have told lots of gay young Republicans to shut up or leave the party.
Some impressive speeches were made against the bill, but bigots were in stealth mode.
A BIG challenge for the State is that (1) y0u have a big state where media communications are centered in Twin Cities (with lots of little affiliates) or Fargo, ND. The DTV transition made it very difficult for lots of people to pick up much in the way of ‘free tv’ and lot of this will come down to the more rural communities.
Minneapolis/St. Paul has a pretty active and organized gay community. Not so much beyond the metro area, where much of the work will need to be done fighting this bill.
(2) It is still early, but I have not seen much about how the “no” campaign will connect with more rural voters. Minnesota is also a pretty diverse state in terms of regional but also cultural and (yes) politics. Again, it is still early but if the powers that be think that we can defeat this amendment by busing in “urbane, big city” folk into smaller towns and cities, they probably should not be called, ‘ ‘the powers that be’.