counter statistics

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Commenter Reacts

Holly Cairns:


Holly Cairns said...
Okay, yep, it's that all or nothing thought that will slow down the gay movement. Good luck on that.

I think: Use the courts, allow Americans to become more familiar with certain thought and action-- set the frame-- (and then they will become more accepting), and ask for civil unions instead of using the golden word "marriage."

Asking a legislator to support something only a smaller percentage of the pop agrees with goes against 'majority rule' concept and will get you more Minnesota Republicans (IMO).


I'm not one who has as a goal getting more Democrats, and also don't think democrats pass gay friendly legislation when they are in power. President Clinton gave us DADT and DOMA. Gay individuals and gay groups have to hold politicians accountable, and only give money and time to those politicians who are supportive.

Margaret Anderson Kelliher, house speaker, quashed a very minimal goal - comprehensive sex ed - because she didn't want to force the governor to veto an education bill over this issue. She allowed the Minnesota Family Council to bully her. Kelliher has continually taken the position of doing the least for the gay community possible.

My question is where is the ROI (return on investment) for gays with democratic politicians?

3 comments:

cass said...

can someone please show me why 'conventional wisdom' is that there is majority opposition to gay marriage in Minnesota? Sure doesn't match what i hear anecdotally; don't know that many native Minnesotans who really want the State to ACTIVELY take rights away from people permanently.. How about this national survey posted at firelake http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/
(legislators who back marriage equality get re-elected). Maybe the real issue is not what the return on investment is for gays, but rather, what return on investment exists for legislators to support gay marriage?

If anyone would bother to explain to Minnesotans that the state is only being asked to re-define civil marriage and not religious marriage and that it will have no legal effect on churches' rights to restrict their religious ceremonies -- there are certainly enough Catholics in Minnesota who are on their second, third marriages, etc ... who accepted the Church's right to deny them a religious marriage ceremony but would raise a huge ruckus if civil marriages were re-defined to limit marriage to one per person lifetime by the State.

Separate but equal is not equal. And refusing to fight battles that need to be fought in some lame effort to 'accommodate' ideologues on the right and imagine it will result in any sort of progressive progress denies the 'devolution' of the GOP party. Accommodating Arnie Carlson and Elmer Anderson and Levander type republicans may have made sense long ago. Unfortunately, the GOP no longer has enough moderates to make that political tack viable, sustainable or pragmatic IMO.

But then i rarely have time for centrist Democrats .. frankly i wonder how many of them chose the democratic party to avoid being imagined as racists or bigots ....

Bad legislation is too often the end result.

I also have never been one to want to accommodate bullies.

Holly Cairns said...

Lloydletta said:
I'm not one who has as a goal getting more Democrats, and also don't think democrats pass gay friendly legislation when they are in power.

I see. The Republican agenda fits you better... or Independent agenda (but that voice often is lost and ends up in support of the candidate the Indep voter least likes).

Cass asked:
can someone please show me why 'conventional wisdom' is that there is majority opposition to gay marriage in Minnesota?

I suppose I could be wrong. Is there large support for gay marriage? Why don't we do a poll which asks if there is such support? (Note, at the poll: Even in California there was not enough voter support for it).

If there is not enough support for gay marriage, maybe the movement can use combined resources to better define rights, privledges, etc.

Llodyletta said:
Margaret Anderson Kelliher, house speaker, quashed a very minimal goal - comprehensive sex ed - because she didn't want to force the governor to veto an education bill over this issue.

I think that's dumb and I'm tired of Democrats 'giving it up' or 'not pushing if forward' to appease Pawlenty.

It seems we Dems got too caught up in the 'pass it fast or we look like we're not working hard here at the Capitol, we've just got to work with the other side' argument.

Well, I guess that's all for me on this one. I'll take a look every once and a while to see if you list what you want to do instead of what goals you don't have... my suggestion isn't all that, anyway.

eric zaetsch said...

Much is out of kilter. Much needs fixing. The DFL has not been much of an answer to much of anything. Better than the GOP, but that's faint praise. Not good enough. Not even fixing the potholes.