I have to wonder if this is some shady backdoor political maneuver. We all know there are conservative Democrats who are fence-sitters on marriage equality. I wonder if this is a way to peel them off to the civil union side so they don't have to find some spine and vote for equality. They could say, "Oh well, I'll go with civil unions now that it's available." Or to turn them against the more progressive members as if to say, "Here's a better, less-controversial plan for right now."

Oh, to be a FORMER Republican office holder who has had a moment of clarity and NOW sees the light and NOW believes that all men truly are created equal. If only these born-agains could have found their conscience when they held office. If only they could have found their courage when there was an actual risk in doing so. Add former Rep Ostermann's name to the list of people whose opinions plus $4.00 will get you a latte at Starbucks.

As for the Duluth paper's insistence on a...

"Dayton suddenly found himself in a one-man battle against some of the state’s most powerful business interests..."

Wikipedia calls them weasel words. In this case, it's "some of." Wikipedia admonishes editors for using such words and strongly discourages their use if real examples or numbers can be given. Failure to provide such information can result in the sentence being removed from an article.

Here's my prediction regarding the same sex marriage poll. There will be an outcry from Republican legislators (and probably some jellyfish DFLers) to listen to the "will of the people." If that happens, then I want higher taxes and fewer cuts to social programs. I want Sunday liquor sales. I want universal background checks on gun purchases and limits on high-capacity magazines. The majority supports all this according to polling.