Here’s a motto Republican leaders of the 2011 Legislature should consider given the past seven weeks:
“We legislate in 3-D — distractions, discrimination and dodges.”
Sadly, all three “Ds” best apply to the Republican-led push for voters in 2012 to decide whether the Minnesota Constitution should add an amendment that bans gay marriage — something state law already does.
Distractions:
The most important priority this session is for the Legislature and governor to balance the state’s budget. Republicans were well down that path until the end of March. But then has come almost two months of nothing.
The constitutional amendment banning gay marriage along with several pieces of legislation on Voter ID top the list of partisan distractions. Others, as cited by the DFL, include debates about speeding tickets, reproductive rights, limiting liability for asbestos claims and several health care coverage issues.
Discrimination, dodges:
Given Minnesotans will face a long and divisive political campaign on the gay-marriage ban, there will be ample time to highlight the other “2-Ds” in detail.
If Minnesotans approve this amendment, the state will have a Constitution that not only makes discrimination legal, but it does so based on religious views — views, it should be noted, that are anything but universally held.
Finally, letting voters make this decision amounts to elected officials dodging their duty to protect the rights of minorities. The people should decide many, many issues. However, when an issue threatens the basic rights of minorities (remember, the state human rights act defines sexual preference as a protected class) it is the duty of elected officials to protect those rights, not let majority rule.
Comments (112)
Add commentYup!
Well, nice to see the dispatch get a backbone and call this for what it really is. Anyone voting yes for this should be ashamed of themselves. Nail on the head Dispatch, well done. The 3-D's! I like it.
MN Tiger
This is an opinion piece from the St Cloud Times, not the BDD. Whether the Dispatch will offer an opinion on this subject is anyones guess.
I did not serve my country for this
Did anyone see the video clip of the young veteran who lost his legs in combat testify that he did not serve his country to vote for putting discrimination into our state Constitution? He's a young Republican, and it made the national news. He held up a picture of his friend, a young gay man, who lost his life serving his country.
Correction
Yes, my apologies! It is indeed the St. Cloud Times. I thought it was a little funny the BDD would be so quick to condone such blatant discrimination. Dispatch, your opinion?
As the young republican vet. demonstrates, the general population which is getting older and older are very much behind the times, and politicians know very well they are an easy target for votes. 2 rules for getting them to vote for you:
1. Scare them.
2. Scare them more.
Surely they agree
I can only assume the BDD agrees with it if they publish it in their newspaper?
Cry me a river
It is up to the voters now, so you can all turn off you tears and your blah, blah, blah!! All I have heard is what the Republicans have not done for you; I don't hear what the dems have done for anyone and dayton just sat there. Boo-Hoo!!
MN_Tiger
The oldest generation we have is the greatest generation this country has ever known and you want to take shots at it…Yikes our country is in the P P shoot
45vs...
That is quite an egotistical comment. I wonder what the generations before that would have to say about that?
Trying to suggest one generation is better than another is like saying my dad is better than your dad! I think you proved my point.
45vs
You are absolutely correct in your analysis. Older Americans are behind the times? You mean like morals and standards and common decency without being plain common!!
Greatest Generation
No one is questioning the great things our elders have done, but one must realize they grew up in a world were discrimination was rife. Blacks had no rights, women had only a few rights, people from different races could not marry till the late 60s', so they had not rights, and gay people, well, we did not even talk about that. So, in essence the world has changed considerably over the last 50 years, arguably more so than any other 50 years before that. So, the greatest generation you so boldly declare can show this greatness and call their politicians and tell them about all the discrimination they experienced and that they did not fight for this country so we can discriminate against another human being. Right?
pdnet15
Are you suggesting our younger generation have no morals, standards and common decency? I would argue that. If your statement is correct then who is to blame? Surely the generation that raised them, correct? Turn of the TV.
Discrimination
is rife no matter what generation, but if it were up to people like tigger then everyone would have every right. Another way to say that is total chaos. And, yes, I am suggesting that the younger generation has no moral, standards, or common decency. And the generation that raised them mostly sucks at it, which is why so many grandparents are raising their grandchildren. But unlike when they raised their children, the liberal courts have virtually tied their hands. Thanks dems!
Changing the subject again
Pointing out once again that you dislike democrats really does nothing to further your argument, pdnet15. And I really don't think liberals want EVERYONE to have EVERY right. Just consenting adults that are harming no one.
amygwyn
Does that mean consenting adults that want say, two or three spouses?
If there is a right given to
If there is a right given to any American, then it should be given to every American, with the only exception being obvious age limits. Though as for the drinking age, I think it's high time we bump it down from 21. But that's a different story. And as for the younger generation not having morals, standards or common decency? They are the ones fighting for equal rights for all! How does that show a lack of morals, standards and common decency? One could argue that trying to justify keeping a right given to one group a people from another group shows a gross lack of morals, standards, and common decency.
mndad1
It sounds a lot like you are ok with discriminating based on age. You pointed out that everyone should have the right if some have the right and yet you are willing to discriminate against age.
Age is something that is just
Age is something that is just common sense to place restrictions on. A 14 year old shouldn't be allowed to drink, drive a car, join the military, etc. because they aren't old enough to understand the responsibility of those things. But anybody old enough to be considered an adult and able to make their own decisions and live on their own, should be allowed the rights of every other adult.
mndad1
And you believe that happens magically upon a certain birthday
mndad1
Roughly 12,500 young people turn 18 each day and they are more capable and prepared on their birthday then they were the day before???????
Let me rephrase
For simplicity and tax purposes I think we can probably leave it at 2 consenting adults. But in theory, I think that people can choose to have as many partners as they see fit. I think it's kind of a red herring to throw in the polygamy argument however, as we're not really discussing how many people you should be able to marry, just what gender they can be.
Bigger picture
See amygwyn - under the argument that is being made, you can't leave this part of the equation out. Could I not say; "for simplicity we can probably leave it at opposite sex marriage"? If we are talking about individual rights, consenting adults, ability to choose, pursuit of happiness, etc.....how can you leave this out? By doing so in this area, are you not portraying the same insensability as those you debate the same-sex marriage issue with?
Quite frankly, I think the emotion of this issue has caused us all to lose the forest through the trees. Which, gets back to a larger question....what is or should be the governement's role in determining issues like marriage, regardless of who or whom is doing it?
Of course people don't
Of course people don't "magically" gain knowledge and insight on a certain day in their lives, and to suggest so would be ludicrous. What would also be ludicrous is to try and create a law where each individual is assessed at whatever age and determined mentally capable of certain things. Thus why there are age restrictions, I'm guessing based upon the most common ages where the majority seem to have developed the certain understanding required for each activity. I thought this was common sense. Stop trying to find holes in my argument and formulate your own to disprove mine. That is what makes a good debate.
At last -- a ray of light...
'GetaGrip' writes: "Quite frankly, I think the emotion of this issue has caused us all to lose the forest through the trees."
Well said!
Arguments 'for' and 'against' the amendment abound, but I've yet to hear a single rational argument as to how the passage of such an amendment would improve the well-being of the state of Minnesota or its citizens.
mndad1
Now that is funny…reading this post is like reading a DNTMG’s post. You dislike what the majority may do but you use the majority consensus on age. So the government sets the age restrictions and you are ok with that and when the government wants to set other restrictions you cry out in the name of discrimination.
Mission and I don't agree on many things
but I fully agree with his statement: "I've yet to hear a single rational argument as to how the passage of such an amendment would improve the well-being of the state of Minnesota or its citizens."
All For Equal Rights.
Yes, MNDAD1 Allow everyone to have "Equal Rights", with the constrictions being age or a Judge's orders for those physically or mentally handicapped (Doctor signed) and also those that the Government or State are supporting (Prisons, Jails). Well, maybe our taxes should be straight across the board for earnings - not per person.....
The straight middle class white male should have rights too.
Repeating my comment in Vox Pop
Equal Rights?
By brainerddispatchmember | 05/24/11 - 01:33 pm (in Vox Pop)
What is Equal Rights? We know it is not based on that all men and women are treated the same? Every time laws changes for "Equal Rights" - what they actually want is "Better Rights - than everyone else". Businesses and colleges have to prove they have a certain percent of minorities. Why does a white male have to score higher to get into some colleges than anyone else? Why does this same man get passed up for a job although he is better qualified and have more experience?
Next they will want every place of business to hire a certain percent of "Gays". Soon afterwards we will have to eliminate words like "Mom" and "Dad".
If we are going to have "Equal Rights" then the "Straight White Male" should have the same rights.
Forget about this one law and fight for "Equal Rights". All Men & Women (over 18) have exactly the same rights.
(with exception from Judges for criminals and handicapped - who will not have the rights). Age restrictions are for different ages of children (a 2 year old is not the same as a 16 year old, who can drive a car). But an adult is an adult - except for retirement ages.)
I do agree with you, Hercules1944. I totally agree if you are old enough to fight and die for your country you should be able to have a drink. But, I am tired of the "Better Rights issues". I do believe in Equal Rights when it is equal. I do not agree with same sex marriage. Gays will then want a "Gay Week" then something else. I do not want this in my face or in the face of all the children. I do not believe it is natural. What is next? I am just saying, let's just change the law so everyone is the same - and get it over with. I am tired of the Better Rights issue.
I will thank a few vets.
"You tadpoles weren't alive
"You tadpoles weren't alive then so your opinion means squat to me." You weren't alive during biblical times so your opinion on Christianity means nothing to me, either. And still calling gay people "funny folks" show just how much you don't tolerate them. Also, how is being gay criminal behavior? Please enlighten me. It isn't illegal to practice homosexual sex, just for them to get married. And even if it is illegal (I'm assuming it isn't but not looking it up because it would be absolutely ridiculous) it most certainly should not be.
As for hiring a certain
As for hiring a certain percent of people of certain ethnicities or sexual orientation, that I would disagree with. That is not fair. Give the job to the best person for it. And as far as gay people wanting better rights, do you then disagree with black history month? You had better, or else your argument is invalid. And should gay people want "better rights" then we can deny them that. It should be "equal rights." Give them the right to marry, just like everyone else. THAT would make it equal. If they want more, then everyone should get more, or everyone should get none. Simple as that. And it IS natural. It is a brain issue. Saying it isn't natural is like saying people choose to be gay. They simply don't. Other animals exhibit homosexual behavior too, because it is their natural impulse. Are you going to try and argue that a squirrel which practices homosexual sex is specifically choosing to do so?
Herc
mndad is saying that gayness is natural, like a squirrel or an animal. Yeah I agree it is squirrely (is that a word?) but I would like to think what Man does is a bit above what animals do. I mean my dog likes to go after my cat; should man do the same off the wall things. No. So let us not say it is a brain thing and natual; it is a choice, period.