The major candidates for governor in Minnesota — except Republican-endorsed Tom Emmer — favor gay marriage and could shepherd a move to allow same-sex people to wed, reports the Minnesota Independent.
The publication notes that Emmer has long opposed marriage rights for same-sex couples:
“I believe marriage is the union between one man and one woman,” he says on his campaign website. “As a legislator, I have consistently supported the constitutional marriage amendment that protects traditional marriage.”
In 2007, Emmer authored a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriage and civil unions.
In many instances, Emmer has tried to change language in bills so that same-sex couples cannot benefit. In a bill to create standards around surrogate motherhood, Emmer attempted to replace the word “parents” with the words “mother and father.” In a wrongful death bill this session, Emmer questioned the use of the term “domestic partner” just as he has in bills aimed at providing benefits for same-sex partners.
The three major DFLers in the race, and endorsed-Independence Party candidate Tom Horner, seem "enthusiastic" about LGBT equality, says MinnIndy.
That led Monica Meyer, public policy director of OutFront Minnesota to say: “We are on the verge of being able to right some wrongs in state laws. In this election, voters have an opportunity to vote for candidates who champion justice and equality for all Minnesotans.”
In the story, DFLer Mark Dayton is quoted:
“I unequivocally support marriage equality, meaning the right of any person to marry legally the person he or she loves,” he told the Minnesota Independent.
“I think that enough of the citizenry has shifted that the right leader can persuade them to support same-sex marriage,” he said. “In particular, my sons’ and campaign staff’s generation of people in their late teens, twenties, and early thirties are especially supportive of marriage equality.”
DFLer Matt Entenza recently said he "will sign a gay marriage bill if passed by the legislature, but it would have to include provisions for religious institutions that choose not to perform or recognize same-sex marriage," the story says:
“But if the Legislature passed that, and groups wanted to do that, yes, I would sign it,” he said.
DFL-endorsed Margaret Anderson Kelliher says she will sign same-sex marriage into law if she is Minnesota’s next governor:
“It’s a matter of fair treatment, and when you look at the number of different unfairnesses in the law on this issue, I think that it’s a matter that we can solve,” she said.
IP-endorsed Tom Horner's stance:
“I think gays and lesbians should be equal members in all aspects of our society,” he said last week in a live blog with The Same Rowdy Crowd.
On legalizing gay marriage, Horner said, “In the meantime, I’ve been working to eliminate the statutory discrimination against same-sex partners.”
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
38 comments
-
33 comments
-
29 comments
-
25 comments
-
20 comments
Comments (4)
None of this surprises me.
But I must note that when then state Senator Bachmann proposed a constitutional amendment be put before the citizens of this state for a vote to allow us to decide whether a sea change in the natural order was wanted.
Democrat legislators, including some that are now making these statements of support, responded that since there was already a law in place forbidding homosexual unions, she was grandstanding and wasting valuable time on non-issues.
Were the Democrat candidates lying to us then, or are they lying to us now? Or, more properly put, are they simply *still lying* to us?
@Thomas Swift
They want to repeal the law that made the amendment redundant. I don't see lying in that, just a refusal waste time piling a constitutional amendment on top of a law they didn't support in the first place.
Billions and billions of people, representing hundreds and hundreds of cultures, over thousands of years have all came to the same unanimous conclusion:
Men marrying men and women marrying women probably ain't such a good idea.
Now, four out of the five major candidates for Governor would dismiss the wisdom of the ages - because they know better. That is called arrogance.
Not only that, they are making this stand for the sole purpose of winning an election. That would be called irresponsible.
Arrogant and irresponsible. Isn't that (insert mirthless chuckle by typist here) what they all are calling Tom Emmer?
The "conclusion" against same-sex marriage hasn't been historically universal, Duke. At various points throughout history, there have been such unions.
Although I will grant you it is relatively new that the state treats same-sex unions on the same legal footing as mixed-sex unions. But, of course, that's because governments in the Western world haven't seen fit to regulate or regulate marriages until fairly recently.
No, for much of the past "thousands and thousands" of years, marriage has been mostly a business arrangement between families. Religious ceremonies were used about 50/50. And the poor were often excluded from formal, legal partnerships. Indeed, it's still awfully common for marriage law worldwide to be written to treat women as the property and/or servant of their husbands.
There are a lot of ways to treat marriage, actually. Always have been. There is no universal constant at work here.
And, besides, for the "billions and billions" you mention over the past "thousands and thousands" of years, the Earth was flat, disease was caused by demons and alphabets were magic.
The reason we're having this debate now, Duke, has a lot to do with the fact we in the 21st century are a lot more rational, egalitarian and civilized than our forbears.