It’s not all good news: Jonathan Katz may have lost a position, but someone who had much more power to do good keeps his. Our Minnesota governor, Tim Pawlenty, is also a homophobic jerk—he just vetoed a bill that promoted some common decency, giving gay partners a few end-of-life rights and responsibilities, so gay people could make decisions about disposition of the body at the death of a partner, for instance. It was a bill that did not go so far as to legalize gay marriage, but simply acknowledged that grieving gay people ought not to be barred from making decisions about the people they love.
And Governor Pawlenty shot down basic human decency, making noises about defining marriage as “between a man and a woman” and how he opposes efforts to “treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage”. He’s a rotten excuse for a human being.
But then, he is a Republican.
The pandering slimeball is angling for a presidential nomination in the next election, and he knows the only way the Republicans will pay attention to him is if he plays up more bigotry and hatred. He’s going to be sidling farther and farther rightward in the next few years, and it’s not going to be good for Minnesota.
Nice how the US electoral system brings out the best in candidates….NOT
Ew! In similar but happier news, while he would clearly have quite liked to veto it, the Portuguese president decided that sending the law allowing gay marriage back to Parliament (which really needs to be concentrating on the country not imploding) would be just too dickish. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8688503.stm
We really need a homosexual version of Loving v. Virginia in this country…
It’s sad that it will take a generation (or 2) for gay marriage to be considered self-evident.
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/
It’s sad that it will take a generation (or 2) for gay marriage to be considered self-evident.
Longer.
You still have white pissed off that brown people have any rights at all, and that includes voting. And plenty of men feel the same way about women.
The annoying thing is that a lot of these repubicans were less insane when they got elected. Since their party made a sharp turn right, they decided to make a sharp turn right. It’s pretty sad… who cares about your principles when you could get more votes.
abolish marriage… an obsolete superstition-based cultural artifact. How is it sensible… or even sane… to have a 3-party contract involving human beings, civil authority, and a mythical, imaginary, invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairy?
Yep… abolish marriage as a ‘civil’ institution, and replace it with a ‘Domestic Partnership Agreement’ (DPA)… a civil contract which spells out the rights and duties of domestic partners, pertaining to…
* duration of the agreement (5-years, 10 years, perpetual)
* renewal
* distribution of assets upon dissolution or expiration
* child care responsibilities
* expectations and/or requirements for sexual fidelity (if applicable)
* allowable causes for one party termination
* termination procedures
* rights and responsibilities for decision-making in the case of a partner’s incapacitation… e.g., ‘pulling the plug’.
* rights and remedies
* responsibilities for continuing support for children/partner post dissolution
* etc…. the usual legal ‘partnership’ stuff.
Basically, a pre-nup on steroids.
A DPA would be accessible to any consenting adults… irrespective of sex or sexual preference… and law would provide avenues to extend things like a partner’s employment insurance benefits to the domestic partner. It would provide an avenue for family members… e.g., spinster sisters or parents and adult children… to live together in an environment of mutual support.
Benefits would include the de-fanging of an entire sub-class of societal vultures… divorce lawyers.
Thereafter, ‘marriage’ would simply be a ceremonial religious ‘garnish’… an optional religious ceremonial ‘icing’ that could be applied on top of the DPA ‘cake’ in order to satisfy the peculiar superstitious sentiments of religiously deluded segments of society… but it would be no more than that… garnish… and it would have absolutely no civil or legal significance. There would be no more ‘divorce’… just simple contractual disputes.
Marriage most likely evolved before civil society. There was no legal infrastructure or legal codes to enforce the ‘contract’ when the expectations of one of the partners were not met, or a partner failed to meet his/her obligations. The only infrastructure was religion, and the only ‘authority’ was imaginary supernatural sky-fairies. As civil society evolved, marriage was absorbed into it… complete with its religious trappings. Surely, we have out-grown such superstitious baggage, and it is time to separate the contractual part from the religious artifact, and call a contract what it really is… a contract.
Let those who are so inclined get their religious embellishments elsewhere, and leave the rest of us… and the legal system… out of it.
@duckphup – You’ve still got to call it marriage. No reason why my legal contract should be looked down on because no deity was involved. We’re just too used to calling it marriage, when you take away that name you create a second class contract, one that sadly too many people will view as inferior. But there should be a single government sanctioned marriage contract that is entirely separate from a religious marriage. In truth there already is, but we tend not to look at it that way. There’s no reason for a gay couple not to be afforded access to the same civil marriage I have, and if some church they believe in chooses to sanctify it or not is not my or the government’s problem. Nobody sanctified my marriage and I don’t feel any less for it.
Man I’m tired of the anti-gay agenda in this country. The fact is that in fifty years these people will be viewed with the same disdain with which civilized people look at southern segregationists and anti-miscegenation laws. But that doesn’t make it OK to keep on as we are and just wait.
I hope so – judge that presided over my wedding had no qualms at all at making sure the big G wasn’t brought up, wife didn’t quite understand my absolute refusal to bring make believe into what I view as a very serious commitment, not out of any religious belief but more b/c it really doesn’t matter to her either way (capacity to ignore the stupid extends apparently to anything other than me forgetting that a cell phone may need to be charged, and may not enjoy sitting in a snow drift for a week)
On the main article – I can’t think of a better Republican candidate for the next presidential election than a bigoted asshat, anything that keeps them out of the office right? (or do I have too much faith in the American electorate ther?)
There is. It’s called civil marriage.
It will only take fifty years in America.
Well, that might be a bit harsh. I guess Iran, Saudi Arabia and a few other icons of enlightenment will be keeping you company in proudly lurking fifty years (and more) behind the curve in acknowledging basic human rights.
In many ways the Great American Experiment is becoming rather appalling.
^ Ok I see the original poster said that.
Do any of you other Minnesotans remember Arne Carlson, the pro-choice Republican governor we had less than 20 years ago? Imagine what would happen if he tried to run as a Republican now.
Ewan R @9–
WAY too much faith. Remember Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
We really need a homosexual version of Loving v. Virginia in this country…
Yesterday was the sixth anniversary of the first legal same-sex marriages in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Goodridge v. Department of Public Health was to same-sex marriage what Perez v. Sharp was to interracial marriage. There were 19 years between that California Supreme Court decision and SCOTUS handing down Loving. After the Bush reign of horror, the Courts are hostile and stacked against us. The wave of constitutional marriage bans has left a devastating legal landscape. And the Republican Party continues to see electoral gay bashing as the way to proceed (it’s also beginning to appear as though Lingle will veto the Civil Union’s Bill in Hawaii).
It’s going to be a while.
“He’s going to be sidling farther and farther rightward in the next few years, and it’s not going to be good for Minnesota.”
I think that might be a good thing. I’m hoping that Pawlenty, Bachmann, and Emmer keep ratcheting up the extremism. Hopefully, this will poke the people who voted in Obama and Franken out of their quiet, and make them panic and take action. They’re being too damn reserved.
http://moiramanion.blogspot.com/
I agree with duckphup and Ewan R.
It’s ridiculous how the two forms of marriage are so often conflated. Civil marriage already exists without the blessing of God.
Of course then we have preachers at religious marriages pounding the pulpit about how ‘marriage only counts if you do it before god.’ I’m so glad that I could pass off my angry growls as having a slight allergic attack…
The good news?: Pawlenty will be out of office in 7 months. Let’s hope he doesn’t do too much damage in that time.
Who IS Tom Emmer anyway? He sounds even worse.
I hope Anderson-Kelleher gets elected. I just wish the DFL had chosen my favorite candidate: Susan Gaertner.
My conventional heterosexual parents were married at City Hall in New York City. Their marriage was not valid according to either of the two religions they each were raised in, but 100% legal in the State of New York and anywhere in the USA.
By no means was it a “sacrament” though they took their vows very seriously and it wasn’t just a legal convenience.
There was some family friction, but never any nonsense about them not really being married.
Why can’t it be the same for gay people?
It would seem that Daffy Duck…er, “Daffy” Pawlenty is at the wheel on the R.M.S. Titanic.
Kevin wrote “Of course then we have preachers at religious marriages pounding the pulpit about how ‘marriage only counts if you do it before god.'”
eeww. Deity as voyeur.
@Moira:
ROFL. Not what I meant, but thank you for the laugh, I was starting to get irritated at remembering that aspect of my cousin’s wedding.
I thought he went further than that, doesn’t Jesus share the wedding bed? Something especially scary about accidentally crossing swords with a 2000 year old zombie king.
“Why can’t it be the same for gay people?”
Because most of the people in the US still want to have legal coverage for bigotry and want to be able to disadvantage and discriminate against our gay friends and family members. Obscene but true.
Same reason it took so long for the Minnesota Legislature to adopt the national standard of 0.08% for drunk driving: They wanted to continue to drive drunk (the bloody idiots!)
But I do think there’s a sea change a-comin’, little by little. Recent changes have been positive, in general. The general trend is in the right direction. That’s why the conservatives are so up in arms (IMO) — they see it coming too.
Given the spate of recent Repugnican outings with hire-to-carry-baggage young male escorts, one wonders when Minnesota’s Repugnican will be outed in a similar fashion PZ. :).
@Gus #8
Actually, there are plenty of people who strive to move back to those days, and they aren’t ashamed to say it publicly.
As a moderate republican, I would now be considered a socialist. I really resent having morons take my party away from me. As a former Maine resident I have no regrets about the senators we sent to Washington. Now that I live in Texas, what can I say. I am forced to vote in the Republican primary to vote for the best candidate who will likely win and then vote with the Democrats because the Republican is usually so clearly not representing my views. I am not the only person in this position.
Way, way, way too much faith.
If the Republicans nominated a bigoted asshate for president, the Democratic nominee would start acting more bigoted in an attempt to be bipartisan.
Or maybe they weren’t convinced that 0.8% BAC significantly impaired one’s ability to operate a motor vehicle.
OK I meant asshat but asshate works too.
Hatred. That’s all they are….hatred.
It’s not. But that’s not what we have. The government doesn’t care one whit about your mythical, imaginary, invisible, magical, supernatural sky-fairy and his opinion of your relationship.
precisely the same things marriage gives you, just under another name.
which is available to anyone who wants one now.
The two biggest reasons for keeping the name “marriage” when allowing gay marriage are 1) making a definitive statement that gays are included in something everyone else can already have, and 2) not giving the homophobes claiming that the government is trying to abolish marriage a bill that would.
– interpretation –
“Bigotry and hatred – as defined and cherished by all REAL, PATRIOTIC and GODLY REPUBLICANS – should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been. I oppose efforts to grant equal rights to all and I oppose efforts to treat loving domestic relationships as the equivalent of a traditional marriage. Accordingly, I am opposed to this bill so that all self righteous, god fearful, bigoted and genuine red-blooded americans will passionately vote for me for president of the USA,” Pawlenty said in his veto message.
how much is wrong with Minnesotan politics? pawlenty is wrong.
@duckphup at #7, As I understand, and IANAL, the distinction is really whether the state recognizes a marriage or not.
You can find a religion to marry you to a fire-plug, but if the state doesn’t recognize the marriage as a valid one you won’t get the rights and privileges (as well as the duties and responsibilities) the state grants to state-recognized marriages.
Thus, already, only marriages which are recognized by the state gives you the legal rights inherent in marriage and thus all state-recognized marriages are already civil unions under the law.
The solution can’t be reached by abolishing marriage. The state has no interest in marriage as a religious ceremony. It only has an interest in recognizing the non-religious part of the union, the civil part, which grants rights and privileges to the people who engage in a state-recognized union.
Again, I can find (or found) a religion that would marry me to Niagara Falls, and the state doesn’t care unless I also want to have the state recognize this marriage. What you call marriage in your religion is different that what the state recognizes as a marriage. The rights, responsibilities, and respect granted by a congregation to a marriage in a religion are different than the legal rights granted to you by the state.
The solution is not for the state to create civil unions, in essence they are already doing so. From the state’s standpoint, from the legal standpoint, the only interest the state has is in the civil rights and responsibilities granted by the state to people who enter into state-recognized marriages.
A state-recognized marriage is already a pre-nuptial agreement on steroids. It goes beyond the interaction between the people involved and includes state-mandated requirements of behavior for the rest of society. For example, the state demands that a married partner has the rights to make medical decisions and hospitals must (mainly) respect those decisions. This respect would be required by the state to be given to a gay couple, regardless of what any other doctors, nurses, or family members think. If necessary the state would enforce this respect.
This is one point where I think many people get upset. It’s not enough that the state would allow gay marriage, but the state would enforce the respect of those additional rights. A bigot who happens to be an accountant would have to respect the right of people in a same-sex marriage to file a joint tax return, they couldn’t be turned away because the state recognizes their union as one which grants the ability to file jointly.
There are thousands of such societal rights granted to married people and these would constantly annoy bigots.
As a Minnesotan, you can just stop after “I’m ashamed of our governor,” and we’ll understand.
Good news: Pawlenty isn’t running for another term.
Bad news: The leading Rethuglican candidate is Norm Coleman.
Worse news: The only Democrat candidate that can give Coleman a run for his money* is Mark Dayton.
*Money being the key word. Mark Dayton; as in Dayton’s, Target, Macy’s, Marshall Fields. I may be biased**, but I truly believe Minnesotans lost out when Tom Bakk (DFL) dropped out of the race because he couldn’t compete financially.
**The Bakks have been friends-of-the-family for generations.
Here in the UK we have de-facto gay marriage. It is not called that, since the Government felt it would make it impossible to get the legislation through the House of Lords if it did. As it was the bigots were out in force trying to defeat the legislation.
So we have marriages for different-sex couples and civil partnerships for same-sex couples. With a very minor exception1 the rights on obligations are the same.
The media and the public just call both marriage.
1 That exception is that a person does not get a courtesy title if their partner has been granted (or inherited) a title. Oddly if a woman has been granted (or inherited) a title her husband would not get a courtesy title either, but the wife of a man would. Totally fucked up but not that important.
So you’re accusing them of being willfully ignorant. Is that more charitable?
Or actually make it civil. Over here, marriage is a bureaucratic act performed in the registrar’s office. Religious marriages are not recognized by the government, and are traditionally performed the next day; indeed, at least the bigger denominations don’t marry people who haven’t already married in the registrar’s office.
The anti-marriage campaigners keep saying we should be satisfied with “civil unions” or domestic partnership: and then they object when Hawaii talks about passing civil unions for same-sex couples, because it’s too close to marriage, and do their best to make domestic partnerships meaningless. Even the second-class status they’re offering isn’t really on offer: ask for it and they’ll find reasons why it’s too good for us.
If they can’t tell the difference between civil unions and marriage, give us marriage. Because they want us to settle for something sufficiently lesser that they can ignore it.
–Vicki, seeking a more interesting handle
Well, I think it’s incredibly likely that T-Paw (as I not-so-affectionately call our governor) will be voted out quite soon. I can’t imagine that his last three years or so have gone over well with most of Minnesota’s voting public. Then again, I thought Bush wouldn’t serve a second term… so I guess my liberal college life is keeping me slightly insulated from the “common folk.”
“Religious marriages are not recognized by the government”
Dammit, why do you guys always have to be so much more sensible?
I see what you did there
How conclusive is the research on that? When the Minnesota legislature was holding hearings on the issue, there was precious little science, just a lot of appeal to emotion. We all agree drunk driving is deadly and should be illegal. The question was, should the limit be .08% or .10%? The only answer given was we would lose federal highway funding if we didn’t drop it to .08%.
boygenius @36
“Bad news: The leading Rethuglican candidate is Norm Coleman.”
I’m pretty sure Coleman has bowed out of this one.
“We all agree drunk driving is deadly and should be illegal.”
“The question was, should the limit be .08% or .10%?”
Yes. Based on my unscientific experiences on Minnesota (and other) roads over several decades, and especially the last 10 years when cell phones proliferated, something above 30% of all drivers are not really competent to drive even when stone-cold sober.
“The only answer given was we would lose federal highway funding if we didn’t drop it to .08%.”
Quite true; but the real reason is: They wanted to continue to drive drunk (legally). Why else fret about lowering from 0.08 to 0.10? They wanted legal cover to drive at 0.099%.
Personally, I would be quite happy if the law were: lose your license for life on first offense. 0.08%. (And I love to drink. Including drinking to (moderate?) excess.)
JBlilie @44,
Doh! You’re right. I’m an expat and don’t follow MN politics as closely as I should. The stats I was looking at were from January.
So.. who is the favored R candidate?
So.. who is the favored R candidate?
Tom Emmer got the R nomination. Looks like a clean field for the primary. He may be on the crazier side of Bachman. He’s already shooting for the cracker vote.