Minnesota’s gay Republican will not vote for marriage equality bill

What, the state can’t solve a budget crisis and end discrimination against gays at the same time? What kind of moron is this guy anyway? Maybe we should forget about fixing potholes in the state because we’ve got bigger problems.

Why doesn’t Koering just stay in the closet? He’s more helpful to the “gay agenda” that way.

Republicans suck! If I were a gay democrat in Minnesota I would get this loser out of office!

What a stupid man. He obviously has alternative reasons he does not want to reveal, but the least he could do is come up with an excuse that is not insulting to our intelligence.

What great intellectual chatter here. Wouldn’t you normal call someone who stands up for his own opinion bold? Courageous?

Congrats to Senator Koering for having a solid backbone!!!

I wonder if civil unions might be a better way to start off in Minnesota? While our ultimate goal should be marriage equality, is it unreasonable to start with civil union protections and then move on to full marriage equality? Minnesota is a fairly socially conservative state. Give the people time to see the sky won’t fall with civil unions, and the prospect of marriage equality may be an easire battle.

Appalling! Indecent! Someone just posted a comment to my blog “maybe we can get this guy enrolled in one of those pray-away-the-gay programs.”

http://www.tips-q.com/content/appallingly-minnesota-s-gay-republican-will-not-vote-marriage-equality-bill

Stellar, that’s not courageous;. A courageous stand doesn’t include such a clearly nonsensical dodge. He could say he’s against it, he could say he’d vote for it, but he doesn’t think the legislature should spend time on it now, and those could be principled. His stand, however, is just an attempt to save his skin in the next GOP primary.

I can’t believe this!! You can protect gay people and try to undo generations of injustice at the SAME TIME as fixing the budget! What about all the families that lose their financial security because the state and country legally discriminates against them??

America, land of the free, what a joke.

Bottom line: equal rights are less important than getting re-elected. You can pick just about any politician and replace “equal rights” with any core issue and it’s the same story. there are damn few people in elected office who think doing the right thing as they see it has any relevance to representative democracy–in any party.

The guy is a Republican, another Log Cabin type, so it isn’t at all surprising that he would take the stand he is taking. Just give him lower taxes and don’t tie him to a fence and beat him to death and he is happy as a clam. If you see the words “Republican” and “gay” in the same sentence, don’t go looking for any good news regarding equal rights.

I think the people on here that are calling Senator Koering names like ‘moron,’ it truly shows their intelligence and that they can’t have a civil conversation without using names. Ultimately Senator Koering’s job is to represent his constituents, and if you would take the time to talk to Senator Koering you’d find out

This is hogwash. It will be up for a vote either way; it doesn’t take more time for him to vote yes than it does no. So what if there are bigger issues currently?

I’ve little patience for people who will do what’s right only as long as it’s convenient for them. If Koering really had a spine he would stand up for equality every time, not just some of the time, and let the chips fall where they may. Oh well, he’s the one who has to live with his conscience not me.

I think the term is called self-loathing.

Move slowly Paul. Really really slow. I think he just a wet finder in the air to see which way the wind was blowing. Never mind doing what is right or having convictions. Well, he is a Republican after all.

A gay Republican. Now that’s odd isn’t it?

He’d be supporting it if he were in Scott Dibble’s district. He’s not. Also from what I’ve heard, Margaret Anderson Kelliher (representing one of the gayest districts in the state), is using her leadership position to make sure this doesn’t get out on the floor.

[...] as gay has not equaled any sort of desire to protect peoples’ civil rights. According to the MN Independent, he said that “he would vote against it because the state faces bigger [...]

Eva, please post more on your blog about what you are hearing from Rep. Kelliher’s camp. the sooner her constituents hear about this, the better. It’s time for this to come up for a vote so each legislator is on the record when it’s time for re-election.

“I think some of the gay activists will be upset with me for this, but sometimes I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back,” Koering told Raw Story at the time. “And I think that sometimes you have to move slowly.”

Excuse me….as Martin Luther KIng said…”When is a Good Time to demand Equality”? When it’s convienent? How long shall we wait…a week,month,year..5yrs,10yrs….when will America REALLY LIVE UP TOO the words “Liberty & Justice for All”??? To me they are words alright…EMPTY MEANINGLESS WORDS! LCR’s are Traitors…plain and simple.

Gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed in Minnesota or anywhere else for that matter. It’s simply wrong.

[...] Openly gay Minnesota State Senator Paul Koering has announced that he intends to vote against a bill… thus creating marriage equality for the LGBT Minnesotans. [...]

MLK Jr. Said in his leeter he wrote in the Birhmingham jail: “Dont tell me when I can have my freedom” Koering is telling us when we can have our freedom. WHat a bigoted moron

Steve said, “Gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed in Minnesota or anywhere else for that matter. It’s simply wrong.”

Well, way to use logic and reason and fact to make your case Steve. Who says it is? You? So what. What an ego you must have to think you can toss out a piece of unsubstantiated opinion and expect anyone to take it as having any kind of value.

If you’ve got a case to make, make it. If all you have is opinionated blather, why bother?

Hey Steve – don’t like Gay Marriage..then DON’T HAVE ONE! you tool!

Gay people come from all over the political spectrum – it’s not helpful to stereotype gay’s. While Paul was born gay, he has chosen to be a conservative REPUBLICAN. The main emphasis on Republican – he has a near zero environmental rating, he has a 100% prolife rating, etc. He votes almost always with the Republican caucus.

Paul Koering’s senate district includes Morrison County (Little Falls) which is very conservative. (Morrison County has the most active MCCL chapters in the state.) It also includes most of Crow Wing County (Brainerd).

Both of these counties are very conservative and usually vote Republican.

My first reaction to this article was outrage. Outrage that a gay person who is open about it in the State Government would vote against a simple right that he himself would be able to enjoy. Then after reading all the comments here, and on Towleroad.com who picked up this story, it made me think long and hard about what it truely means to be a Senator or Congressman. It means at all costs, save your job. Do not do anything that can jepordize your job. Screw your own personal morals, screw your own soul, do anything and everything you can to keep your job. It really makes me sad to read these things and realize that all they care about is their jobs.

If Koering thinks the voters will be favorably impressed by this, as if, “Gosh, he may be gay, but he’s one of the good, non-threatening ones,” he has a big surprise coming his way.

[...] Mr. Birkey in a piece titled  Minnesota’s gay Republican will not vote for marriage equality bill: State Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, told KLKS on Friday that he will not vote for the Marriage [...]

move slowly? I’ve heard that justice delayed is justice denied…

This is a typical “Log Cabin Republican” we’re talking about. Protect the status quo. Represent those who have vested interests in keeping other people marginalized…immigrants, minimum-wage earners, racial minorities and anyone else that isn’t both white and upper class.

The only thing worse than a Republican is a gay Republican. Have another cheeseburger, Paul.

It’s called self-loathing, internalized homophobia.

Does he vote no on all “unimportant” issues? What a ridiculous cop-out; this bill is already before you, you don’t have to take time away from other, more important, issues to push a button.

Is it not possible, Senator, that equal rights would lead to more tax revenue for the state?

A legislator can choose what projects he wants to push or devote his energies to the most at a given time. But once something comes to a vote, that legislator has to vote based on what he thinks is right or wrong. There is nothing about economically stressed times that changes the judgment on this bill. It is either the right thing or the wrong thing. Vote, Mr. Koerig, and we will see what you think is right or wrong. However, do NOT think that you are only making a statement to “gay activists” only.

I think Koering is right on this issue. His position reminds me of why I have such great respect for Martin Luther King. MLK knew that other national priorities like the spread of communism, the escalating war in Vietnam and political unrest in Central America were of such importance that gaining basic civil rights for 8% of all Americans – those small things like voting, education and housing – would have to wait another 50 years. MLK’s go slow philosophy to avoid ruffling establishment feathers and ensure those cocktail party invitations kept coming certainly played out well!!

Koering, please do us a favor and find a spine. What a tool.

I think the biggest problem here is with one simple word – marriage.

Marriage to most people is a sacred religious event. Fine…let marriages be delegated to the churches where it should be.

When a couple gets “married” technically, it is not legally binding until they sign a state document that says the two people have entered into a legal contract. It is essentially a civil union. If those two people had just had a marriage in a church with all the pomp and circumstance, they would not be technically married in the eyes of the state until a marriage certificate, a legal state document, has been signed and filed with the state. I find it interesting that in most states, a notary public can technically “marry” two people.

Fine, lets change the wording of that legal binding state document to a “Civil Union Certificate”. Let’s really call it what it is and remove the religious word marriage. It shouldn’t be a part of that document anyway (separation of church and state).

I think we as gay people need to stop worrying about semantics and focus on what we really want; the right to enter into a legally recognized union with our partner. I could care less what it is called. I’m all for a civil union that offers all the same rights as marriage since that is really what the state offers same sex couples

If the churches want to ban gay marriage in their church, fine, that is their right. I don’t know of many gay people who would be running off to an evangelical christian church to be married anyway.

As far as Koering is concerned…he is obviously too concerned with his job than creating an equal right for him and the GLBT citizens who live in his district. I don’t understand how any gay person could be part of a political group who really doesn’t like you and only allows you to stick around because of the perceived notion that all gay people have more money since we don’t have a traditional family. Ohhhhh…now I get it.

This guy wins the self-loathing man of the year award. What a complete loser!

He says “…I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back.” That’s correct. Whatever the gay community wishes were true doesn’t make it so. A leader with no followers is just a guy standing out in a field. You have to be were the people are to move them.

Gay or Str8, being a CONservative means being politically & intellectually CONSTIPATED!

“going slowly” = waiting until I personally find a man stupid enough to want to live with my self-loathing idiocy for the rest of his life. THEN I’ll want marriage.

It is clear to me that Sen. Koering would be under alot of pressure from his caucus to toe the party line on this issue and that is unfortunate. There are enough votes in the Senate however for marriage equality to pass it without Sen. Koering’s vote but his vote could be useful in helping override a likely gubernatorial veto.

I see an earlier poster asked why marriage and not civil unions as an intermittent step. Civil unions violate the equal protection clause. The only places where civil unions are being discussed are in states where constitutions have been amended to modify the equal protection clause by specifically denying equal protection to same sex couples and their families. Hawaii looks on the verge of passing civil unions for example but they have a constitutional amendment banning marriage equality.

Though it has not yet been challenged in federal courts, civil unions are likely unconstitutional under the federal constitutions equal protection clause for the same reasons CT and CA courts found civil unions and the similiar entity of domestic partnerhships unconsonstitutinal under their respective state constitutions.

It doesn’t seem wise and seems rather disingenous to propose supposed “solutions” which are in the end unconstitional.

I just got a mean-spirited reply from the office of the Senator, as follows (wow):

My name is Ken Swecker, Senator Koering’s Legislative Assistant. Senator Koering and I both would like to respond to the e-mails we’ve been receiving regarding his intention to not vote in favor of Senate File 120. I am currently responding to the e-mails to give you the Senator’s home phone number so that you might call him over the weekend and speak with him personally on the matter. This much he asked me to do.

To add to that, as a personal statement, is to say that SF 120 is something that the majority of the People of Senate District 12, the People that he was elected to represent, do not favor this piece of legislation. In case you have forgotten, we are a government of the People, by the People, and for the People. He was not elected serve his personal interests. I personally believe that instead of sending e-mails full of threats and hateful words you should take his example to heart and congratulate him on being a legislator who cares more about what the People of his district want than what he may want personally. You and I both know that this is a rare quality to find, and just because this is contrary to how you wish for him to vote, you must remember and respect he is here to represent the interests of his rural Minnesota constituents who voted him into office. As a constituent of his myself, I am happy to see him take non-personal votes on several issues. After all, I would not want another politician taking another vote that would serve his or her personal interests more so than the People’s, would you?

I can testify all day long about how much Senator Koering cares for the People of Senate District 12. He ran three consecutive times, being defeated the first two, and why did he put himself through so much hard work? Do you think it was because he needed another job? Absolutely not! He did it because he believed he was the best person to serve the People that he calls neighbors, friends, and family. And especially now, in a time like this, we are being bogged down with this completely pointless issue. There are People in Morrison and Crow Wing Counties, and across the State who are losing their jobs, their homes, their insurance, and were you to ask them if this is an issue that should take one second of precedent over these conditions they’re facing every day, do you believe, do you honestly believe that they would say to you, ‘Yes, please, waste the time of the State Legislature with a piece of legislation that will not help, but in fact, overshadow the current situation we’re living in? Please, waste their time with this piece of legislation while I tell my son and daughter that mom and dad aren’t hungry tonight?’

I know very well that you will respond to this e-mail of mine with some probably quirky, snide, and very thoughtless comment that will make me out to be a bad person and threaten the Senator even more just as most of the absolutely tactless and disrespectful e-mails we’ve received have been written, but really, don’t waste your time. We’ll just put your e-mail where it belongs, in the trash.

The Senator’s home number is
218-829-0544

He’s free on the weekends.

Very Sincerely, every word of it,
Ken Swecker

P.S.
I hope you do not believe that this e-mail was written specific to the one that you sent, this is a blanket e-mail, being sent to everyone who has e-mailed us on this issue and I’ve already wasted too much time in responding to you. Good day.

Senator Paul Koering
District 12
131 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155-1206
Phone:651-296-4875

[...] was particularly impressed by the explanation you gave KLKS radio: Koering, who is gay and a Republican, said he would vote against it because [...]

My state’s senators are pretty horrible politically (Louisiana), but at least the can walk and chew gum at the same time.

As a happily married man, I wish gay folks could take part in (and be legally recognized) the union of marriage. I can’t believe the US is still so stupid about this issue.

If you don’t want gay marriage, then don’t get gay married!

So if his constituents supported slavery, he would be for that, too? Or if they wanted to declare war on Canada, he’d vote for that? This guy is amoral; a true political hack in the worst sense. SHAME on him. What a sad sad case: no balls, no backbone, no self-respect. I guess the phrase “gay republican” says it all….

These republicans seem to have no direction. reminds you of the Keystone Cops.

He must have been a good friend of Roy Cohn’s, because he acts like it.

Shameful!

Shame on you Mr. Koering. Taking such an easy way out. Pretty disgraceful and pathetic that you so willingly fail to stand up for the rights of the very minority you are a member of especially since you are in a position to do something to address this problem. How do you sleep at night knowing you have betrayed so many? On the other hand why should anyone be surprised by this coming from a gay Republican? Nice to see that you accept your second class citizen status.

Would you people kindly not reference or make analogous homosexuality and slavery? You do understand this just makes black people, well all people, dig their heels in on the homosexual marriage issue, right? Comparing this issue to slavery does not shame anyone into supporting your position. If it can’t win in California where can it win? 0-30 nationwide. Furthermore if gays really want that type of moral authority they can try slavery for a few hundred years then another hundred years of gay jim crow laws, oh throw in a civil war for good measure.

Gay marriage is not an equality issue, it is a redefinition of a religious sacrament. Civil unions are indeed a civil rights issue, and if you want to ensure that the laws and rights associated with civil unions support same-sex couples, then you’ve got my vote. I’m a firm believer in civil rights, although I draw the line at polygamy and incest and pedophilia. Then again, if a brother and sister really did love each other and wanted to support each other through old age, would you discriminate against them? This is a potentially slippery slope, and I’m interested to see where your particular line in the sand is drawn.

Marriage, on the other hand, has no such blurred distinctions. Marriage is almost universally agreed upon as a union between a man and a woman. Only a handful of countries in the world, and only a handful of state in this country, recognize same-sex marriage and I don’t see a reason for it to change.

You want civil rights? No problem. You want to change a societal pillar to fit your redefinition? Not likely.

Why don’t you effen queers go eff yourselves? Oh! That’s right, that’s what you do. You do know that you are suffering from a birth defect, don’t you?. A male effing another male or a female doing the same thing to another female. You are despicable and add nothing to society.

What an interesting, disturbing position Koering has taken. Hopefully he is reading the comments spoken here (although I’m not confident he will). No, of course politicians shouldn’t be ’single issue’. However, there comes a time when you are in a ‘position to know’ and Koering is in that position. But, without courage it seems…

I hope the new GOP leader Michael Steele sticks to his principles in allowing a more diverse range of voices within the republican party to speak up. Perhaps then yellow-bellies like Koering will feel more courage in speaking up.

Regardless of Koering’s reasons for turning his back on gay republicans who probably voted for him, the fact is this: Koering is ‘giving away’ a golden opportunity to lay all of the gay controversy to rest once and for all and bring better lives to more Americans. And, he is not even being asked to say he is pro-gay, just pro-gender neutral, a more progressive way of looking at marriage laws than most of the nation.

We have a separation of church and state. Voting in equal rights for real Americans who face real economic and legal problems or inequality because they can’t marry is a ’state’ issue and has nothing to do with religious rights. How about the children of gay parents in his district? Does he truly understand the benefits they will continue to be denied because he isn’t courageous enough to take a stand?

By giving gays the right to marry, we are not going to force churches to do anything they don’t want to do. Marriage is a civil right.

One writer said it best – Koering must be awfully ’self loathing’ to be so cold. I sure hope this is one gay politician that doesn’t get re-elected. He’s dead wood…

Internalized homophobia at its finest.

Re: Joe’s argument around the proposition that “Gay marriage is not an equality issue, it is a redefinition of a religious sacrament.” That is clearly a falsehood; to wit:

1) If marriage is only a religious sacrament, then why are governments involved in defining marriage at all? Yet essentially every government in the world does define marriage. Clearly, it’s a civil institution.

2) If marriage were only a religious sacrament, then atheists wouldn’t want to get married, would they? Is it a “redefinition of a religious sacrament” to allow non-believers in religion to get married?

3) Joe is obviously confusing “marriage ceremony” with “marriage.” A marriage ceremony – a wedding – frequently is a religious sacrament. However, “marriage” isn’t the 5-minute (or 5-hour) wedding ceremony — it is the lifetime relationship that follows the ceremony. And when a marriage is recognized by the government, that brings with it civil rights and responsibilities.

4) Although not stated by Joe, the “religious” nature of marriage argument usually leads to the argument that churches will be forced to offer weddings to gay couples. That too is a red herring — it simply doesn’t happen. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t recognize re-marriage of a divorced individual, and even though every state in the U.S. does allow such re-marriage, the Catholic Church has not once been forced to perform such a wedding. The same would apply to same-sex marriage.

My suggestion to the Joes of the world who want us gays to accept “civil union” as the legal status for our relationships instead of “marriage” is that they activly work to take the word “marriage” out of the laws everywhere, and substitute “civil union” for everyone — so that marriage can be kept a “religious” issue. Short of that, I’m not willing to settle for second-class status for my not-yet-recognized marriage (which celebrates its 36th anniversary next week!)

Marriage inequality is a myth.

This myth is used by the pink fascist mob to add a veneer of constitutionality over their lame argument. Everyone has precisely the same marriage rights and restrictions in the US already. Namely everyone has the exact same right to marry any opposite gendered individual based on mutual agreement. Everyone is prevented from marrying underage or having multiple spousal partners or marrying other species or inanimate objects.

These preventative measures promote domestic tranquility (unless you are or are attacked by a pink fascist mob) and apply to everyone. Want to marry a donkey? tough luck bubba. want to mary your sibling? no dice. want to mary a salad fork? get lost. want to marry someone of your same geneder? no chance. None of these limitations apply inequally to any one group so the inequality argument is completely bogus. get over it.

The exclusion of gay people from marriage, the military, adoption, etc., is not about protecting those institutions. It is about perpetuating the stigmatization of gay people and forcing them into a position of social exclusion that damages them and all of us. It is about prejudice and fear which contribute to an atmosphere of hatred that helps some justify hanging our children on fences to die and shooting them from behind while they sit in class. It is a continuation of the constant demeaning and dehumanizing of us that digs deep into too many of our souls resulting in self-destruction both quick and slow and embeds itself deeply into the fabric of our society to keep us the highest per capita victims of hate crimes, youth homelessness, and suicide. That is why gay people and those who love and support them feel compelled to continue this struggle for equality we have been fighting our entire lives.

Attack this jackass! Don’t just take this from him! From information available on the Internet: Home Phone: 218-829-0544; Business: Max’s Package Liquor 218-829-7219; 214 S 9th St, Brainerd, MN 56401; Cross Streets: Between Front St and Laurel St near the big water tower; Another Business Phone: 218-829-0587; Occupation: Small business owner [3 points of attack: 1) advertise a boycott of Max's Package Liquor in Brainerd, 2) follow his self-help voting on funeral-related bills because he also owns a funeral vehicle service and works for the coroner, 3) he sells hay!]

that’s the right addy

I am an activist who has participated in every major and virtually every human rights struggle of the past 50 years. This includes: Anti-war Movement before troops landed in Vietnam; Black Civil Rights before the March on Washington; Feminist Movement before National Organization for Women; Handicapped Rights Movement before Disabled In Action or the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill; and the Gay Rights Movement before Stonewall Rebellion where I participated in protests and demonstrations referred to as the “Three Days of Rage.”

My father was “pro bono” attorney to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in genl & Martin Luther King in particular. He represented Joseph Lowery in Supreme Court of the United States. My icon since childhood, MLK spoke of how an injustice anywhere should be considered an injustice everywhere. That is why I found it so disappointing when:
many Blacks — including Civil Rights leaders — have turned out to be sexists; many Feminists — including NOW founders — have turned out to be homophobes; many GLBT people — including organization leaders –have turned out to be ablists; and many people in physical disability rights movement have turn deaf ear to people with mental disabilities.

Less than .05% percent of GLBT people have participated in movements for Black Civil Rights, Feminism, Handicapped Rights or Gay Rights. Overwhelming majority of GLBT people — including leaders, lawyers and law students — never heard of Loving case prior to Same Sex Marriage.

The Civil Rights Movement made a conscious decision not to make major the issue of interracial marriage. We did not believe that IR would further energize existing activists or activate substantial numbers of non-participants. However, we did believe that IR would mobilize our adversaries on every other issue of concern to the Movement. This is precisely what has happened as result of making SSM lead GLBT issue.

Surveys show only 15% of GLBT people have interest in ever getting married. Perhaps this is why 85% of GLBT Californians did not participate in any way in “No On Prop 8″ campaign. Likewise, fewer and fewer GLBT get hitched every year in states affording any legal form of marital relationship — SSM, civil union or domestic partner.

Meanwhile Employment Non-Discrimination is concern for 85% of GLBT community. Though issues such as AIDS, Lesbian health, teen suicide and elder care are of greater import to community, they have had to take backseat to issue of concern to mostly upper middle class Whites.

Sad but true is that there are limited time, energy and resources for whatever people choose to do. Give that my work takes place outside of electoral politicss, I have the luxury to be absolutist. If one chooses to work within the system, one must accept the basic principles of compromise and incrementalism.

Though I may approve of neither the views nor the actions of Minnesota
State Senator Koering, I am not sure that he is any less brave, bold,
courageous, or hyprocritical than most GLBT people leaders and posters.

[...] was particularly impressed by theexplanation you gave KLKS radio: Koering, who is gay and a Republican, said he would vote against it because [...]

All that these diehard GOPErs can think about is MONEY. How much money does it cost to recognize the civil rights that GLBTs already OWN but are denied by the homo-haters and other psychopaths that throw their mental problems around as if it were confettit at a Mardi Gras party?

The following is a letter I wrote to Paul:

—–

Hello,

I had recently read development whereby you are refusing to support same-sex marriage because the state of Minnesota has more important items on the agenda. Many upset gay people are sending emails to you regarding your stance, and your assistant is replying to these emails with a rather-poor letter that describes this issue of gay marriage as pointless.

I can understand the argument that there may be more important matters to tend to than gay marriage, such as the economy and military action; however, I believe that no matter should be left completely ignored or discarded, as the entire ship is important at all times, and we must never lose sight of the big picture in the face of our crises. President Barack Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 just nine days after assuming office, while he has been spending the plurality/majority of his time focusing on the economy.

I do understand that you represent constituents who are conservative and may not agree with gay marriage. At the same time, though, you were sworn above all to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States and the state Constitution of Minnesota, and I would think that this takes the highest priority over all.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states the following:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The State Constitution of Minnesota starts with Article I, Section 1:

“Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.”

To me, and I would hope to you as well, gay people are deserving of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and gay marriage is an appropriate means to achieving such things as straight marriage has been for straight people over the last two centuries. Gay people are also deserving of security, benefit and protection from the Government, and such things are achieved through marriage, whether gay or straight. I know you are gay, and I know you are deserving of all of these things, like everyone else is, and I especially know that you can personally relate to the struggle that many gay people face from marriage discrimination. Our Constitutions are meant to protect everyone, including you and me, and even though you serve a constituency that more or less may be of a certain mindset, that should never overrule the laws of the Constitutions that you are sworn to uphold and protect, for yourself and everyone else.

I am disappointed as to how any person considers gay marriage to be pointless, and I am confused as to how an openly-gay person considers gay marriage to be pointless. If gay people are not legally allowed to marry the ones that they love, then these rights are being denied to them, and that is unconstitutional. I can tell you that the majority of gay citizens in America do believe in being able to legally marry the ones that they love, and they don’t consider this issue to be pointless. After all, it’s their very lives that they want to live, and there is nothing more important than being able to live one’s life, as you would like to live your life, and as I would like to live my life.

As you continue to serve your term as State Senator of Minnesota, I hope that you reflect on what is right, just and fair, not just the majority mindset of a particular constituency but to all of us, including you.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter. I hope that any response that I may receive is thoughtful and respectful in return.

Regards,
Sean Chapin

The MN State Senator is protecting his own butt! A Person from Northern Minnesota hes listening to his voting district he Represents! They dont want to hear about “Gay Marriage” in Minneasota!

Minneasota may vote Democratic pretty much most of the time! But Nothern Minneasota in more Concerative when it comes to “Gay Marriage” I hate to say as a gay man but “Gay Marriage” in Minneasota might take a while to be legal in this State! But I hope I am wrong to!

Matt

[...] chew gum at the same time, like Andrew said. Which reminds us of the similar attitudes of a certain out gay Republican and his clueless, brown-nosing, blanket-e-mail sending [...]

On a similar note, both the Minnesota state senate’s only Jewish Nazi and its only black member of the Ku Klux Klan have joined that gay Republican in opposing proposed hate crimes legislation.

theworldisnotenough
Comment posted February 20, 2009 @ 10:19 pm
Would you people kindly not reference or make analogous homosexuality and slavery? You do understand this just makes black people, well all people, dig their heels in on the homosexual marriage issue, right? Comparing this issue to slavery does not shame anyone into supporting your position. If it can’t win in California where can it win? 0-30 nationwide. Furthermore if gays really want that type of moral authority they can try slavery for a few hundred years then another hundred years of gay jim crow laws, oh throw in a civil war for good measure.
—-

Sorry about that. We don’t mean to undermine just how awful slavery was.

We’re only comparing how unfair it is.

Sorry if we offend you in any way- we really don’t mean it. We’re just… I think a lot of you guys will agree we’re simply angry about the current situation at hand.

No offense meant!

Tom
Comment posted February 21, 2009 @ 9:31 am
Re: Joe’s argument around the proposition that “Gay marriage is not an equality issue, it is a redefinition of a religious sacrament.” That is clearly a falsehood; to wit:

1) If marriage is only a religious sacrament, then why are governments involved in defining marriage at all? Yet essentially every government in the world does define marriage. Clearly, it’s a civil institution.

2) If marriage were only a religious sacrament, then atheists wouldn’t want to get married, would they? Is it a “redefinition of a religious sacrament” to allow non-believers in religion to get married?

3) Joe is obviously confusing “marriage ceremony” with “marriage.” A marriage ceremony – a wedding – frequently is a religious sacrament. However, “marriage” isn’t the 5-minute (or 5-hour) wedding ceremony — it is the lifetime relationship that follows the ceremony. And when a marriage is recognized by the government, that brings with it civil rights and responsibilities.

4) Although not stated by Joe, the “religious” nature of marriage argument usually leads to the argument that churches will be forced to offer weddings to gay couples. That too is a red herring — it simply doesn’t happen. The Catholic Church, for example, doesn’t recognize re-marriage of a divorced individual, and even though every state in the U.S. does allow such re-marriage, the Catholic Church has not once been forced to perform such a wedding. The same would apply to same-sex marriage.

My suggestion to the Joes of the world who want us gays to accept “civil union” as the legal status for our relationships instead of “marriage” is that they activly work to take the word “marriage” out of the laws everywhere, and substitute “civil union” for everyone — so that marriage can be kept a “religious” issue. Short of that, I’m not willing to settle for second-class status for my not-yet-recognized marriage (which celebrates its 36th anniversary next week!)
—

Tom-

I want to congratulate you on your over-the-internet-where-you-have-supporters recognized marriage. =D congratualitons on your 36th anniversary.

^^

Sean-

when you get a reply from the senator, will you please post it here? I’m interested in seeing if he actually reads it and comes with a thoughful reply. =D

[...] support to a Minnesota measure that would expand most couple entitlements to same-sex couples. Via the Minnesota Independent: State Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, told KLKS on Friday that he will not vote for the Marriage [...]