MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:

Sponsor of
Second Opinion

Sponsor of
Community Sketchbook

Our major advertisers

Our in-kind partners

Search Engine Marketing

MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

ERIC BLACK INK

A small update, er, backdate, on gay marriage

By Eric Black | Published Mon, Nov 9 2009 11:37 am

My post of last Thursday made a fairly big deal of the fact that all the DFL guv candidates are pledged to sign a law legalizing same-sex marriage in Minnesota. And it is an important marker on the change in the overall political environment around gay marriage.

But Tim Bonham of Stonewall DFL, a pro-GLBT rights organization (obviously associated with the DFL) informs me that the DFL platform has favored equal marriage rights for all couples since 1972.

Of course, not all candidates including the eventual nominees agree with everything in the party platform and, if they win office, they are more likely to feel bound to the position they personally took during the campaign. But I do find it a tad surprising/interesting that this has been the party's official position for 37 years. In fact, the Stonewall website says that the DFL was the first major party in the country to adopt such a platform plank. The current DFL platform takes the following positions on gay rights issues:

• Allow same-gender couples to marry and to share fully and equally in the rights, responsibilities and commitment of civil marriage.
• In the absence of marriage equality, fully recognize civil unions for same-sex domestic partners and make available to them all the rights, privileges, and protections available to married couples.
• Oppose any amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that prohibits or limits marriage, civil unions, and/or legal protections to same-sex couples.
• Repeal the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy of the U.S. military and open service of gay and lesbians in the armed forces.
• Support domestic partner benefits for all public employees in Minnesota.

According to its platform, the Republican Party of Minnesota favors amending boththe Minnesota and U.S. Constitutions to define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. MNGOP also opposes expanding the legal rights of same-sex couples under a "civil unions" approach. Here's the the full section from the MNGOP platform on marriage issues:

The Republican Party recognizes the blessings that God has bestowed on this great
Nation. We declare our faith in Him and ask His continued guidance as we work to
preserve this government of “One Nation Under God”. We also recognize the sanctity of
human life and marriage, and the central role of the traditional family in our society.
Therefore, we believe that:

A. We need to change laws regarding marriage, divorce, adoption, child support,
welfare, taxes, and others, to encourage families to stay together. Minnesota’s laws
governing marriage should be amended to offer a ‘Covenant Marriage’ option, entailing
extensive pre-marital counseling and limits on divorce. Parental privileges of fathers in
child custody issues should be restored to comply with the 14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution. Grandparents and other relatives should be considered as the first option
and the logical choice when children cannot live with their parents.

B. We should amend the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota constitution to define
marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman. We oppose civil unions or
their legal equivalents between same-sex couples.

C. Domestic partner benefits should not be publicly funded.

| Mon, Nov 9 2009 11:37 am | 15 Comments

Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

15 Comments: Hide/Show Comments

(#1) On November 9, 2009, dan buechler says:

Thank you for your update er backdate I hope you draw some comments.

(#2) On November 9, 2009, Tony Wagner says:

"The Republican Party recognizes the blessings that God has bestowed on this great Nation. We declare our faith in Him and ask His continued guidance as we work..."

I cannot fathom how this is part of the political platform for a major state party. Wow. I mean, is the "praising God" stuff really necessary here? Isn't there a secular way of stating/justifying the same positions? Or would He take offense at not being name-dropped by the MNGOP?

(#3) On November 9, 2009, Richard Schulze says:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

The Right is comfortable with the language of religion, values, God talk. So much so that they sometimes claim to own that territory. Or own God. But then they narrow everything down to one or two issues: abortion and gay marriage. But in the long run, they’re going to lose this debate because they won’t be able to restrict it to two issues. Once you open that door to a values conversation, it’s going to undercut a right-wing economic agenda, which values wealth over work and favors the rich over the poor, or resorts to war as the first resort and not the last.

Jesus didn’t speak at all about homosexuality. There are about 12 verses in the Bible that touch on that question. Most of them are very contextual. There are thousands of verses on poverty. I don’t hear a lot of that conversation.

This is the most religious nation on the face of the earth. Religion will be a factor in our public life. The founders wanted to separate church and state not to diminish the role of religion but to strengthen it. Europe has a state church framework and religion has almost no influence. Here, where it’s separated, it’s more dependent and more vital, and stronger. The founders thought strong religion was a factor in the political health of the nation.

(#4) On November 10, 2009, Jeff Klein says:

I've often wished that there was more different between the major parties (specifically that the Democrats were more liberal overall), or that there were other major parties.

That being said, anyone who thinks there's "no difference" and doesn't vote should read this page.

(#5) On November 10, 2009, John E Iacono says:

Neither party reflects my views completely in this area, but one is totally contrary to my thinking while the other goes further than I would.

So neither could get my total support, but one could get modified support, while the other would force me out of their club.

(#6) On November 11, 2009, Jeremy Powers says:

You forgot the most underlying principle of the Republican Party. "Rights are only for those people who agree with us."

They want government out of people's lives, or so they say, but Republicans are fascinated by what other people do with their genitalia. They also don't want anyone to have any fun – except them, of course.

The funniest part, though, is this completely distorted concept of what it means to be Christian. Do these Republicans really think the message of Jesus was to cast out people different than them and to force people to be just like them? Christ was liberal, first and foremost, and sought to have people treated fairly. He wouldn't be running around trying to "protect" marriage.

Conservatives are always the first to invoke Christ's name and the last to follow his teachings.

(#7) On November 11, 2009, John E Iacono says:

Sorry, Jeremy...

Years of scripture studies in my distant past suggest that, if anything, Jesus was a reactionary, not a liberal.

There was His "first commandment", harking back to the Pentateuch and lambasting the customs and practices that blurred it.

There was His clear stance on marriage indissolubility, declaring that Moses only allowed divorce because of "the hardness of your hearts."

There was His rejection of the moneychanging in the temple.

There was His constant affirmation of the root principles of Judaism in the face of contemporary aberrations. Like the prophets, He said He came to call the people back to past principles, and to expand upon them, making them in many cases even harder to hear.

He said clearly He had come not to reject, but to fulfil.

Jesus was no liberal. It was the liberals of the time, with their revisionist views, who did not like Him.

(#8) On November 11, 2009, John E Iacono says:

On Liberal Thinking and Christianity

Christian thinking, both at the beginning and now, has been revolutionary in that it envisions a completely restructured society more in line with Islam's world views than those of current day liberals.

Christian thinking, however, has never embraced the "all-inclusive" views propounded by those who would structure society in a kind of "kum-by-yah" world without dogmatic or ethical principles. The constant strife among Christians about what those dogmatic or ethical principles are bears witness to this.

While Christians are encouraged to "love the sinner" they are also mandated to "hate the sin."

In a complex world, what is the sin is often hard to discern. Guidance from Christian leaders has often been conflicting, and will be. Some emphasize "love the sinner" and downplay "hate the sin" while others do the reverse. But balanced acceptance of BOTH principles is the required position.

Those who opt for the posture that "all things are acceptable to him who believes (puts his trust in the Lord) would sometimes argue that there is nothing unacceptable to a Christian. But others point out that -- far from allowing any behaviour whatsoever -- the Christian commitment is to "put on the Lord Jesus Christ": to so live that others seeing him would see only behavior such as Jesus exhibited.

Some cynics notwithstanding, Jesus was not a homosexual and would not have countenanced the departure from scriptural views of the behavior, though He would likely not have rejected a repentant homosexual, as He did not reject the adulteress, whom He instruced to "Go, and sin no more."

A Christian view is that a chaste life is as difficult for a heterosexual as for a gay person, and both are bound to the same rules in the use of sexual powers.

(#9) On November 11, 2009, Richard Schulze says:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

But is it literal or Allegory?
There is a reason they call it "faith".

(#10) On November 11, 2009, David Moufang says:

None of this makes any difference whatsoever in the governor race. The Independent Party will run a vanity campaign, siphoning 10% of the DFL's votes, and the Repubs will win again with about 40%. The end.

(#11) On November 12, 2009, John E Iacono says:

Richard:

The "literal" meaning of a passage is the meaning it had for it's original audience, not the meaning it may have for persons distant in time and culture from that audience. To grasp the "literal" meaning of a text one must learn what it meant to those for whom it was first written, and in the context provided.

That said, the Jewish people were not noted for embracing "allegory." They borrowed from related cultures to make theological points (e.g. the two creation stories -- wet and dry -- placed side by side and both edited from their neighbors' versions to place the Jewish god as the sole source of all). The original audience, knowing both of those stories, understood the theological point, and did not look to the two accounts as "history" in the 19th century scientific sense. Nor should we. In areas where the texts report "history" as we understand it, they have proven to be quite accurate, though biased, recorders if understood as the first hearers understood them.

So, "literal," properly understood, takes the day for me.

And I believe David M is right on target as well.

(#12) On November 12, 2009, Jeremy Powers says:

John E Iacono

Every ugly building was designed by an architect. Every plane that crashes was flown by a pilot. Every stupid bit of religion was endorsed by a cleric. Every clueless minister went to seminary.

The truth is, most of what you are quoting is coming from a flawed Bible, written years later and edited by people who wanted to control people. None of it was written at the time of Christ. Jesus' basic teachings were liberal. Love your neighbor, which at a time of tribal governing where people looked after only their own, was radical.

Religion is never flawed except that which is touched by humans. Or in other words all religion is flawed.

(#13) On November 12, 2009, Richard Schulze says:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

DM nails it. Word up.

(#14) On November 12, 2009, Richard Schulze says:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com

Aside that Dave cuts to the heart of the matter and the fact that I am in absolute awe of John's historical and biblical knowledge.

To what degree are we as citizens aware of the moral principals that we are appealing to? Whether it’s the utilitarian idea, or some conception of individual freedom or some conception of civic virtue and the common good. I think that too often these days our politics does not articulate the moral principals or understanding of justice underlying the policies that we advocate. And I think that is one of the reasons our public discourse is so impoverished.

I think we should be open to the full range of moral resources available that people may bring to bear. Purely secular moral arguments to moral arguments that may be formed by some people and their faith traditions. I think its important when people appeal to religiously informed moral convictions that they try to persuade people who may not share that faith persuasion.

Some religious arguments are dogmatic. Some secular arguments are dogmatic as well. Just listen to the arguments on the floor of the congress everyday. I don't think that those whose views are formed by faith have a monopoly on dogma. Dogma is not a very good contribution to public discourse. But I wouldn't associate it uniquely as some people tend to do with religiously informed moral arguments.

Aristotle did not have anything directly to say about same sex marriage nor did most of the philosophers. But the debate over same sex marriage involves competing conceptions of rights. Competing accounts of the relation of moral judgment to law. Competing accounts of what forms of association in family union are worthy of honor and recognition by the wider society. And all the famous philosophers that we look back upon did have powerful views about all those things. About who deserves what? About how we should decide what qualities and virtues are worthy of recognition. What does morality have to do with law? So at the heart of the debates we have from the standpoint of justice, do raise these big questions of principle.

(#15) On November 13, 2009, John E Iacono says:

Richars S: Awesome! Deliminates the complexity of the problem precisely.

None of these factors would be so important if we did not have a democratic republic, where the "will of the people" is actually formed within the context of all of these factors.

And it is left to our representatives, with reasoning minds locked in debate, to sort them out and make value decisions for us.

I don't envy them on such radically divisive issues, and prefer to let the people decide.

Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.

RECENTLY PUBLISHED POSTS

minnpost.com/ericblack

Eric Black is a former reporter for the Star Tribune and Twin Cities blogger. He writes about politics and government of Minnesota and the United States, the historical background of topics and other issues. Click here to view Eric's previous postings at former blog, Eric Black Ink. He can be reached at eblack [at] minnpost [dot] com.

Search Engine Marketing

ERIC BLACK INK

A small update, er, backdate, on gay marriage

RECENTLY PUBLISHED POSTS

minnpost.com/ericblack

Recent Posts by Eric Black