Why DFLers Are Afraid of Voting on Same Sex Unions
Publishers note: Minnesota’s Democratic Farmer-Labor Party (DFL)
Katherine Kersten, my favorite Strib columnist, has another great column up titled Why are DFLers scared of voting on same-sex union?. Methinks that it’s because they know it’s a lose-lose bigger situation for them. These DFL’ers saw how definition of marriage amendments pulled people to the polls in 2004. The last thing they want here in Minnesota is to let something like that onto the ballot.
According to Ms. Kirsten, here’s how they’re trying to dodge this issue:
The marriage amendment is unnecessary. Opponents note that Minnesota already has a law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But in states such as Iowa and Maryland, similar laws are under legal assault. Activist state courts can throw out a Defense of Marriage law like Minnesota’s as discriminatory, unless it is backed up by a similar provision in the state constitution.
God knows that there’s plenty of liberal activist judges who’d gladly rip a DOMA apart here in Minnesota. I suspect that the Roberts Court would toss out such rulings because they’d side with voters expressing their will via a vote over a panel of black-robed activists.
Here’s another dodge:
The marriage amendment is divisive. What delicious irony! Same-sex-marriage supporters themselves created the rancorous dispute they now lament, by relentlessly promoting a radical social experiment that is essentially unique in human history.
Let people vote on it. That’s how the constitutional amendment process is laid out in Minnesota. If people want to dwell on this issue, that’s their problem. I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.
The amendment is discriminatory, a product of unfounded fear and hatred of gays. The Muslim faith permits a man to marry four wives. I oppose redefining marriage in America to allow polygamy. This doesn’t mean I “hate” or “fear” Muslims, or wish to discriminate against them. It merely means I believe one man-one woman marriage is best for American society and families.
Makes sense to me. Why let a modern ‘movement’ get in the way of us upholding 6 millenia worth of marriage tradition, right?
The marriage amendment is a cynical political wedge issue, a distraction from issues that people really care about, like schools and housing. What could be more vital than marriage, a universal social institution that connects fathers and mothers to their children, and thereby perpetuates the social order? Redefining marriage to include people of the same sex will erode expectations that children need both a mom and a dad, and that the mom and dad should be married. Our inner cities are reeling from the disastrous consequences of abandoning these ideas. The long-term consequences of redefining marriage are unknown and potentially disastrous.
Same sex marriage opponents are dismissive of the value of a mother-father home but that doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t abundant showing the strength and stability of a ‘traditional’ family.
Cross-post at LetFreedomRing
May 1st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Can i uses adapalene and accutane together….
Accutane acne treatment http. Accutane hair loss. My ro accutane diary….