Where is Elwyn Tinklenberg on the Federal Marriage Amendment
On Backbone Minnesota, there is a Wetterling vs Tinklenberg thread.
# kristen Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
This is a very hard question, because a DFL candidate in CD6. It appears as though El has better odds, but in reality I think they are pretty even. I say this because wetterling got pretty close last time she ran, and that is because she inspired a lot of people to vote who dont usually. Now El will certainly take some votes from the republican, but he will also lose some dfl votes due to not inspiring people, and being socially conservative.
Now I will vote for the candidate the dfl endorses, but I really hope that candidate is patty. El is pro-life, and supports a federal ban on gay marriage. These issues may help in CD6, but to me being a member of the DFL party means you help those who are being oppressed, you stand up for people’s rights and that is something El won’t be doing. So I think patty is the best candidate.
# Mike Grimes Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Let me remind you of an added factor to this race. There will be an Independence Party candidate in the race, in fact John Binkowski has already been endorsed. John seems to lean to the left of 2002 IP candidate Dan Becker who recived 7.48% of the vote
# DBDem Says:
March 30th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
El Tinklenberg does not support the constitutional amendment to ban gay marraige. He supports the federal law the defines marriage between a man and woman. It's the same law the Paul Wellstone voted to put on the books. There is a huge difference between the current law and the constitutional amendment.
I was at a county unit convention last weekend and I heard the Wettlering campaign staff telling activists he support the amendment. That is dirty politics, especially when it’s a lie.
I support Tinklenberg not only because he fits the district and shares our DFL values, but he is the only Democrat in the race that has kept his or her word.
Tinklenberg could clarify all this by posting his position on his website.
Minnesota Campaign Report suggests that folks should support democrats who take anti-gay positions just because they are democrats:
There's a factor to El Tinklenberg's support for a Federal Marriage Amendment that's missing here, and those of you who have read the first 50 or so pages of Crashing the Gates will know what I'm talking about - with a majority in the House, his positions in support of socially conservative initiatives won't matter. On the balance, he'd still be a Democrat, and would still vote for a Democrat to be House Majority Leader and another to be the Speaker, which mean that FMA would never ever ever make it on to the schedule, let alone come to a vote.
Now that helps the DFL, but are the Stonewall DFLers going to just contribute $ and shut up? Will HRC fall for this line? They always have before.
UPDATE - MNCR responds in the comments:
That's not what I was suggesting, Eva. The idea is not to empower anti-GLBT factions within the DFL/Democratic Party, it's to understand that while some elected officials (Tinklenberg, Bob Casey in PA) may not be gung-ho about gay rights as the majority within the party, their positions would never see the light of day if they helped constitute a Democratic majority, and THAT is the important goal.
Litmus tests are important for party-line goals like civil rights, but are only really important at a general level for individual candidates, who must instead be judged on the whole of their platform and their in-district electability.
MN Campaign Report 04.03.06 - 9:14 am | #
My point is that it's very understandable for DFLers to support Tinklenberg - and Collin Peterson - because they are DFLers. However it makes no sense for gay rights groups - like HRC - to be supporting either of these candidates. When Democrats had both houses, and Clinton was president, that anti-gay Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy got passed. Later on, when Republicans had both houses, and Clinton was president, DOMA was passed - with lots of Democratic support. Clinton advertised his support for DOMA on Christian radio. HRC should have - but didn't - yank their endorsement for Clinton.
excuse me, but Bobby Casey supports civil unions and opposes a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. hes campaigned on this out in the open-and recently attended a fundraiser by the HRC in Phila.
u people outta get your facts right. i bet youre just assuming that because he opposes abortion rights that hes a hater. Bobby Casey really IS pro-life, hes NOT a hateful anti-choice, anti gay rights anti immigrant type.
Casey opposes legalized abortion. Pro-life doesn't accurately describe that position because it suggests that people who oppose criminalizing abortion are "anti-life". I've always felt that gay rights groups shouldn't score candidates on the basis of their position on abortion. HRC is a big supporter of Casey - and an HRC staff member told me that Casey is a big supporter of gay equality.
Casey is out on the open on this issue, because it is politically smart for him to do so - since he's contrasting himself with Rick Santorum - who is known for his obsession for "man on dog" sex.