2012 amendments: Will Minnesotans deny and restrict — or empower and encourage?
MinnPost photo by James Nord
Dan McGrath
“This is the most important election of our lifetime.” I’ve heard this phrase every even-numbered year since I was 18 when I cast my first vote. While this is usually said in the waning moments of an election to rally volunteers to knock on more doors, it also happens to always be true. 2012 is no exception. The difference between the competing visions of candidates is profound, but more profound is the question asked by both constitutional amendments to be put before Minnesota voters this November: Who’s at stake in this election?
The anti-marriage amendment seeks to permanently exclude gays and lesbians from the benefits associated with marriage. Beyond the symbolic importance of bringing friends and family together to witness the love and commitment of two adults, marriage brings with it numerous financial and social necessities – everything from visitation rights for a loved one in the hospital to filing joint tax returns. Minnesotans are being asked to take a step backward by forever denying our LGBTQ friends, neighbors, and family members these tangible benefits and greater social acceptance.
The voter restriction amendment is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Designed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a coalition of major corporations and conservative legislators, it has been introduced here and in 34 other states since 2010.
Its photo ID requirement is only one part of a radical election-system overhaul that will impact every voter in the state. The amendment would effectively end Election Day registration and absentee voting, which is how more than one in four voters cast their ballot. It institutes an entirely new system of voting, provisional ballots, and will cost as much as $50 million to implement and millions more to maintain.
Furthermore, it would be the most extreme version of voter restriction of any in the country, with no exceptions for those the law would disenfranchise.
If we exclude, crafting solutions will be harder
Should either of these amendments pass it would mean that we – as a state, as a citizenry, as a community of people whose fates are tied to one another – will be less than whole. It also means that when so many people are excluded, we are less equipped to find solutions to the immense challenges we face today and tomorrow.
- How can Minnesota address the jobs crisis if those without work are denied the right to vote because they can’t afford the necessary documents to get an ID?
- How can we close the racial jobs gap, the highest in the country for the Metro area, when one in four African-Americans don’t have a current ID?
- How will rural Minnesotans be heard when they have to pay for gas and set aside two hours to drive round trip to the DMV to get an ID to vote?
- College students carry a collective $1 trillion in debt and face rising tuition, yet how can they be part of the conversation when they lose their vote when they relocate into a new apartment or dorm weeks before Election Day?
- What about the needs of seniors in care facilities – who may no longer have a daily need for an ID – but who need the state to pick up its portion of their care?
In each of the groups listed above there are LGBTQ Minnesotans who would face further social exclusion and the denial of financial benefits. And if the marriage amendment were to be stopped and the voter restriction amendment were to pass, those who want marriage equality will have a long road ahead of them with so many excluded from the electorate.
Our government should be responsive -- to all
A key principle of the Declaration of Independence is that government should respond to the wishes of the governed. There are heartening examples throughout our history where people in dire circumstances came together to compel our government to take bold action. The political will that made the New Deal a reality was the result of the political participation of those at the bottom of the economic ladder.
We can’t achieve a new New Deal or even a fair deal when those who suffer from our upside-down economy are excluded from the polls. We can’t achieve a more welcoming, vibrant society if gays and lesbians are barred from basic social and economic structures.
This upcoming election – like all elections – is a means to an end. We can choose to be a state that excludes, denies, and restricts the basic freedoms of people and, in doing so, gives even more power to the powerful. Or we can choose to continue down the path that recognizes our common humanity and empowers and encourages people to shape our future together. Which end will you choose?
Dan McGrath is the executive director of TakeAction Minnesota, based in St. Paul.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
Write your reaction to this piece in Comments below. Or consider submitting your own Community Voices commentary; for information, email Susan Albright.
Related Content:
Related Tags:
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
-
15 comments
Comments (14)
I find it *highly* amusing
...to see the likes of McGrath casting aspersions on groups like ALEC.
Progressive Minnesota, the leftist front group he was running a few years ago, was morphed into it's present form "Take Action Minnesota" through a huge donation of cash from Alida Messinger, an out of state leftist with very deep pockets.
Also, I wonder if Dan remembers his answer when, after Progressive MN had been found (by the Campaign Finance and Disclosure Board) to have illegally taken money from the Saint Paul public schools, I asked him how he could justify stealing money from struggling schools?
"Tom," he said, "we are very good at what we do."
Can't argue with that.
I find it less than amusing, Mr. Swift,
that you would try to get by with these assertions.
1) "cast aspersions on ALEC."
ALEC is a thoroughly discredited lobbying organization. Its activities have been exposed by Common Cause and corporate sponsors have jumped ship by, literally, the dozens.
2)
You describe Ms. Alida Messinger as "an out of state leftist."
This is absolutely untrue. Mrs. Messinger lives here in Minnesota with her husband and is committed to good government in our state. She is as much a Minnesotan as you, who grew up and went to school in California and spent at least five years in Singapore.
3) "stealing money from public schools"
Absolutely untrue. An amended report was filed that fully described a sum of $3000 as "solely a fee for services performed by Progressive Minnesota and not a contribution."
A check for the amount of $180 [sic] that was in dispute was returned to the School District.
No civil, criminal, or financial penalties were assessed. Contrast this with the recent fines assessed to the Minnesota GOP and their chairman.
"I asked him how he could justify stealing money from struggling schools."
This is simply pathetic, Mr. Swift. I doubt very much your account in this matter. Have you any independent verification?
A link for the pertinent document is: http://bit.ly/AmldyG
For shame.
It read the 1st line
"The anti-marriage amendment seeks to permanently exclude gays and lesbians from the benefits associated with marriage"
That's a pretty absolute statement which I would love to see you prove. Because, for many of the people I know, the issue is not about benefits or rights. We want to see the state grant rights for everyone it so chooses.
No our issue is simply - we do not want the Government to expand the definition of marriage which, to us, is a religious sacrament.
I have been told by several lawyers, that a civil union law could be written in a few sentences to guarantee equal rights, benefits, etc for all. My question - why has it not been done? Why the push to redefine the term "marriage" instead of simply expanding the rights of civil union to be equivalent?
For me, I am just fine if the state gets out of the marriage business all together. Issue civil unions to everyone who wants one. Let marriage stay in the church (where it started and where it should remain) and let civil union be the mechanism for all civil rights, duties, benefits, etc.
The problem is my solution in the last paragraph would likely be supported only by the 80% of the people found in the political middle and not the 10% of the extremist on either side of the debate. As a result, it will never happen.
I am voting Yes in hopes of sending a signal that we should try a different path to benefits for all. Not because I want to deny anyone, anything.
It's not a religious sacrament to me, Mr. Milner.
I appreciate your candor, Mr. Milner, but disagree completely with your premise.
Marriage has existed in one form or another in virtually every society, irrespective of the dominant religious beliefs in those societies. (Pre-Christian Rome and Greece leap to mind. Look it up.) While marriage is strongly associated with religion in the United States, it has never been the sole province of any one religion or of religion per se. Marriage always has carried legal and social implications beyond those inherent in any religious practice.
Yes, civil union laws can be written that will provide the same rights and impose the same obligations on the united as the married. (Of course, we'd still have to repeal such things as the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which specifically prohibits anyone not "married" to a federal employee or recipient of federal benefits from receiving equal treatment.) But why is it that gays should not receive the social and cultural benefits of marriage, as opposed to a civil contract? I, for one, would not choose to introduce my wife as my . . . what? Contractee?
The proposed amendment would forever bar gays from enjoying the social and emotional benefits of marriage, the reasons I chose to marry. It would create a "separate but equal" status which, as was the case in racial matters during my lifetime, never equal. It is for this reason that I will vote no.
I agree and I disagree
The state should not be in the marriage business. I agree. The fact is, civil unions do not provide all of the benefits of state-sanctioned marriage. Voting yes indicates that you really don't believe that civil unions should provide the same benefits as marriage because the state does not afford the same rights and voting yes doesn't change that.
Your church is not the only church performing marriages. Some of them are quite fine with marrying two women or two men. Your sacrament and their sacrament clearly don't mesh. Do you get to define marriage for all churches? I think not. Two atheists can get married and have the same rights granted by the state as two Catholics, so it's not about religion and therefore shouldn't be about anything more than a contract. Thus, legally, no church owns the definition of "marriage." If you really believe that churches should be the only entities that can perform marriages, then same-sex marriages performed in churches must be afforded the exact same rights as opposite-sex marriage performed in churches. If you really believe that churches should have sole say over whether two people can be married, then voting yes would again be in direct opposition of your claim.
The fact is, you ARE denying someone of rights if you vote yes on this amendment. Doubly so, since you're enshrining it into the constitution where it would be harder to change even if the state got out of the business of marriage.
To Pretend
That voting "yes" does not "deny anyone, anything," is to put one's head completely in the sand and to betray a VERY limited perspective on the effects such a vote would have on the rights of other humans (humans which, seemingly, do not count as "anyone" in your eyes).
I grow tired of those from a "conservative" religious perspective claiming that allowing GLBTQ people the right to declare their intention to form a lifelong commitment to each other a "marriage" is an infringement on those "conservative's" OWN religious rights.
The fact is there are many (myself included) who come to a very different conclusion based on our own deeply-held Christian faith and beliefs and our experience of God's presence and guidance in the world and in our lives.
To enshrine the "conservative" Christian view of marriage in the Constitution is nothing short of the establishment of that particular religious perspective as the official position of the state government (which is prohibited by the US Constitution). It deeply and severely infringes on MY right to faithfully practice my Christian faith and live according to my beliefs.
The ONLY thing that would infringe upon the faith of conservatives in the same way that the constitutional amendment on marriage infringes upon mine would be a constitutional amendment that REQUIRES every faith community, if they perform "marriages," to perform marriages for anyone who cares to be married, regardless of gender.
Allowing others the freedom to do what you, according to your own faith and beliefs would NOT do, does NOT force you to violate that which you hold most dear. If gay marriage comes to be allowed, NO ONE is going to force faith communities that disagree to perform marriages for GLBTQ (or any other folks) whom they do not want to marry.
As precedent has long proven, neither the state, nor the courts are allowed to intervene in such matters nor to tell faith communities who must be allowed into their membership, who can join in their ceremonies and sacraments, who can serve as their clergy, who can be hired or fired by their ecclesiastical bodies, who can be buried in their cemeteries, etc.
I agree with Mr. Milner but I am voting no
I agree completely that the term marriage is a religious term and should be removed from civil laws and replaced with civil union.
One might actually argue that the term used in law violates the separation of church and state. If pursed then the courts could rule either that it is a violation or that the term has come to mean civil union. At which point gay's could file suit for discrimination on restraint in contractual relationships - perhaps even in violation of the commerce clause, but who knows.
Clearly we both agree that the goal of allowing two people regardless of gender to have the same benefits and legal obligations if they are in a committed relationship that can only be terminated by court action is legitimate and desirable.
I think however the course Mr. Milner suggests is not realistic and to suggest that it is either naive or deceitful.
Frankly I think God will understand if I vote yes because that is the compassionate approach I learned from my religion. But perhaps a look at Psalm 145.9 or Colossians 3.12 will remind you of the lessons of religion not the administrative decisions.
I appreciate your thoughful response
and I certainly agree that marriage was in society far before Christianity. But most early societies had religious beliefs that covered aspects of marriage.
And for good reason. Early societies had a fundamental need for supporting marriage - it was - up to recent advances in our technology - the best mechanism for pairing males/females together in hopes of provide offspring to maintain the society. A pretty fundamental reason to support the institution.
But I want to focus on this line in your response:
"The proposed amendment would forever bar gays from enjoying the social and emotional benefits of marriage"
This is where I see the slippery slope. Your sentence says what I have long suspected - this issue is really not about the benefits, legal rights, etc. It's about other social engineering issues and desires.
Is our government role really suppose to be take action, for any group of people on any issue, to insure they can enjoy certain social and emotional benefits? Or should government really be focused on civil rights and laws that promote equal rights and opportunities? I always believed it was government's role to do the later (equal rights) while it was up to the individual (and/or groups of individuals) to do the former (emotional benefits)
Our constitution is wonderful - it guarantees that we have the right to pursue happiness. But is it ours to pursue not the responsibility for government's to provide/guarantee?
Believe me, there are far more YES votes coming from this point of view than there are people wanting to willful deny benefits to anyone.
I don't get it
You say everything right and then come to a conclusion in direct contrast to your reasoning. It simply doesn't make sense.
You speak to civil rights versus social and emotional benefits. It is a civil right to be able to pursue happiness, as long as you do not impede on another's right to pursue their own happiness. That is, the law should be such that everyone has the ABILITY (civil right) to pursue their own happiness (emotional benefits). Putting into the constitution (or any law, for that matter) that certain people do not have the right to pursue their own happiness (marriage) is taking away a civil right.
Furthermore, a state recognized marriage is a contract, not a religious ceremony. You can go to the church and have a big hurrah with white dresses and tuxes, but until the state issues a marriage license, you have no legal contract of marriage. That is, the state does not (and SHOULD NOT) recognize your religious beliefs as having any legal significance. If this amendment passes, it is inherent that the state MUST only recognize marriage in light of your religious beliefs. That is Constitutionally wrong.
It a troublesome vote
because, as previous written about here, no matter what happens, there will be lawsuits.
If YES wins, I really think there is a better opportunity to get government to reconsider the whole marriage business and, hopeful, get out of it, in favor of a system with less religious overtones. I may be naive that government today can actually reach a compromise position, but I think it is the best way.
Take the longview
The idea that government is going to get out of the marriage business is nonsense. I don't know if this position is a copout for people who don't want to admit they are anti-gay, or if people sincerely believe that its a good idea, but the bottom line is that its just never going to happen.
What IS going to inevitably happen is that gay marriage is going to become legal everywhere in this country. And the reason for that is based on demographics. Support for gay marriage has gotten stronger and stronger because younger people don't have the same hang-ups - be it outright bigotry or beliefs similar to yours about the sanctity of marriage. Young people, even young conservatives, just don't care. And the amendment may pass now, but 5 or 10 years from now it will get turned around or overruled, and people who supported it will just look back and feel stupid, much as people who opposed civil rights for racial minorities do now.
So by voting yes, you are not defending marriage or working for a compromise. You are just postponing the inevitable and denying a group of people their civil rights in the process.
Bingo.
"this issue is really not about the benefits, legal rights, etc. It's about other social engineering issues and desires."
Succinctly, it is about normalizing alternative behaviors. Leftists will champion the side of any issue that undermines our society. It is their legacy from Lenin.
Destroy every tradition, belief and social structure that make people feel secure, and replace it with the state. It's the same road map communists have used successfully since 1917.
Lenin
Wrong spelling. It's Lennon.
“There are two basic motivating forces: fear and love. When we are afraid, we pull back from life. When we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. We need to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory and our imperfections. If we cannot love ourselves, we cannot fully open to our ability to love others or our potential to create. Evolution and all hopes for a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who embrace life.”
― John Lennon
What are you afraid of, Swift?
Good catch Ms. Kahler, Mr. Swift it is about compassion
Can you imagine standing outside your dying spouses room and not being allowed to enter because the spouses parents never came to terms with the fact their son or daughter was gay. That has happened here in Minnesota because the same sex spouse had no right to be their. That is not the kind of pain I would ever inflict on anyone.
I really don't care what the radical agenda is in the gay movement, and probably don't support some of it. I do however care that the people are committed to each other be allowed to honor that commitment without interference in all circumstances. Marriage makes that clear.