Minnesota Independent » gay rights

Target flap could turn Minn. gov’s race into national battleground

Jon Collins — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:55:28 +0000

Tom Emmer rollerblades at a recent campaign event. Photo: Emmer for Governor, Facebook

This morning, Minnesota Republican candidate for governor Tom Emmer was the subject of a posting by New York–based Gawker titled, “Meet Tom Emmer, Target’s Favorite Right-Wing Nutjob.”

Outrage over Target’s $150,000 donation to pro-business MN Forward because of the group’s support of Emmer (who’s been linked to anti-gay groups) has cascaded from local media to international news. The attention drawn to the race, and to Emmer himself, could transform a state race into a national battleground as partisan dollars fly to the region to back up each candidate’s values.

With a federal court decision on the constitutionality of California’s gay marriage ban expected this afternoon, gay rights is lined up to become a premier issue in the 2010 election. Already, MoveOn.org is pushing a national Target boycott. In this climate, Hamline University political science professor David Schultz told the Minnesota Independent that there’s a possibility these campaigns will spark outrage from progressives and supporters of gay rights that translates directly into financial support for the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, which will be decided in the primary election this coming week.

“This could completely change the equation in the race. Emmer has already said he’ll accept public financing, so he’s limited in how much he can spend. Third party groups are clearly going to control the balance of power,” Schultz said. “Let’s say Dayton wins the [primary] election: a millionaire candidate with deep pockets supported by progressives around the country who are upset with corporate spending — Emmer could just get dwarfed in how much money he could raise and spend in his campaign.”

But despite weeks of bad press, including a sustained campaign from Abe Sauer of The Awl blog, the Emmer campaign hasn’t done much to address recent controversies. Schultz said the Emmer campaign has so far violated a really simple rule of politics which is ‘“define or be defined.”

“Whether he is a crackpot or not, I leave that to other people to make a judgment call on, but clearly groups are defining him as a crackpot and defining where he stands on the issues,” Schultz said. “The more he’s got to spend time undoing that damage, the less time he can spend going on the offensive or getting his message out.”

But attention to the race, specifically from progressive donors, could transform the governor’s race into the same sort of national battleground as the congressional race between Rep. Michele Bachmann and Tarryl Clark, which would benefit Emmer.

In the same way that Emmer might get a fringe reputation from progressives, he might actually become the hero of some very conservative people, Schultz said. “His persona, as it’s being defined right now, is going to attract a lot of people and repel a lot of people at the same time.”

Because of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, third parties can spend unlimited amounts of money in support of a candidate, bringing the possibility that national issues from both left and right could swamp state concerns.

Third party independent expenditures are not controlled by the candidates,” Schultz said. “What it will mean is the candidates will lose control over the race, and their spending and their messaging almost becomes secondary to a larger national agenda.”

On same-sex marriage ruling, Obama risks alienating his base

Sahil Kapur — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:09:18 +0000

The gay community was ecstatic last Thursday when a District Court judge in Boston ruled unconstitutional parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Gay-rights activists who had been frustrated with the Obama administration’s halting approach to its promised repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” finally saw tangible progress, as Judge Joseph L. Tauro declared that same-sex couples are entitled to the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.

President Barack Obama. Photo: WDCpix

“Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves,” Tauro argued. “And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit.”

Gay-rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign hailed the decision as an important step toward equality, while social-conservative interests like the Family Research Council slammed it as an affront to traditional values.

But the Obama administration could be setting up same-sex marriage advocates for another disappointment as it weighs an appeal of Tauro’s ruling. And both options for the administration come with risks: Challenging the ruling would be perceived as a major snub by the gay community, whereas standing behind it would give Republicans a powerful political weapon to use against Democrats in the November elections.

“President Obama has two choices: lose the gays, or lose the House,” said Michael Rogers, a Washington-based activist famous for outing closeted gay lawmakers who block the advancement of gay rights. “At least that’s how many leaders in the gay community see it.”

Appealing a court ruling that challenges established federal law is viewed as a Justice Department obligation, regardless of White House policy preferences. And lawyers close to the issue expect that to hold in this situation.

“We fully expect that the Obama administration will appeal the decision,” said Janson Wu, an attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) who argued on the winning side of the case. “It would be unusual if they didn’t.”

The Obama administration is in no hurry to announce its plan of action; spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said only that the Justice Department is “reviewing the decision.” A decision not to appeal the ruling would amount to a break from longstanding precedent in order to champion same-sex marriage, pitting national Democrats against the majority of Americans on a hot-button issue ahead of an already harsh midterm election climate.

“Polling indicates that DOMA is really popular in the public nationwide,” said Patrick Egan, a political scientist and expert on LGBT politics at New York University, “and there’s a lot of resistance in both houses of Congress to repealing DOMA, even among Democrats. So they realize that’s pretty much a political loser for them.”

But challenging Tauro’s decision would mean fighting to reverse what the gay community, a strong Democratic constituency, considers important and long-awaited progress. To some activists, a court battle could morph the community’s perception of Obama and the Democratic Party from sympathetic allies into outright adversaries.

“The courts are putting Obama and the Democrats in a pretty difficult spot that will probably force the administration to continue to defend this law that’s unpopular with its base,” Egan said. “They have to make arguments about why DOMA should be constitutional, and those arguments are going to go against the grain of gay and lesbian groups. So it really puts them in a bind.”

Apparently sensing a political opportunity, Republicans are already pouncing on the White House’s lack of displayed enthusiasm for DOMA in the face of the Thursday ruling.

“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable,” said U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, according to Politico. “The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress.”

Smith’s attack could be a preview of GOP attacks to come in anticipation of November, which could further damage Democratic prospects in socially conservative regions during an election cycle where — as even the White House admits — the House of Representatives is up for grabs.

The administration has a complex relationship with DOMA, defending it last year in a court briefing, citing executive obligation, even while signaling Obama’s opposition to the law. “The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,” DOJ’s Schmaler said last September.

One progressive strategist with Democratic clients in the November elections acknowledged the perils of supporting Tauro’s ruling, but nevertheless said the White House’s wisest course of action would be to stand by it quietly.

“They’ve already pissed off the gay community unnecessarily, defending DOMA in court, and doing it while comparing being gay to incest and bestiality,” said the strategist, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I know we have to worry about Blue Dogs, but Democrats are in serious danger of not only losing gay votes, but losing money from the community too, and having more Dan Choi-like protests.”

While support for same-sex couples’ rights is trending upwards, polls suggest that a majority of Americans continue to believe the concept of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual unions. The split is both generational and regional — younger Americans, for example, have more positive views toward same-sex marriage, and support is higher in the Northeast than in the South.

“We’re not going to see a repeal of this law anytime soon,” Egan said. “But polling nationally indicates that, if the current trends continue, a majority of Americans will support legal same-sex marriage sometime in the next decade, perhaps by 2014 or 2015.”

And if same-sex marriage is to be legalized in a sustainable manner, the most viable path may be through the legislative process — a long and thorny one — rather than the courts. The story of California in 2008 serves as a cautionary tale against bypassing the legislative route, when a court ruling that legalized gay marriage led to the passage of Proposition 8, which created a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

“What we know from previous experience is that you actually need a supermajority of Americans to overturn a law like DOMA,” Egan added. “You need to overcome a filibuster, and you need a lot of members of Congress convinced that it’s not electorally risky to vote to repeal the law. So you need a lot more than 50 percent of Americans supporting same sex marriage.”

Seeking a Third Way: Progressives and evangelicals unite to end the culture war

Andy Birkey — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:21:23 +0000

A coalition of progressive and evangelical leaders are calling on Congress and President-elect Barack Obama to work toward ending the culture war and finding common ground on issues like gay rights, abortion, immigration and torture. Organized by the think tank Third Way, the coalition announced its road map to ending the culture war, called “Come Let Us Reason Together” (PDF), and has already held meetings with congressional leaders, progressive organizations and evangelical churches.

The central aim of the agenda is to find areas of mutual agreement among evangelicals and progressives. For gay rights, that means a focus on employment nondiscrimination laws for the LGBT community with an exemption for religious institutions. In reproductive health, it means finding ways to reduce the need for abortions by “preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting pregnant women and new families, and increasing support for adoption.”

The agenda takes an encompassing approach to immigration: “We agree that we need secure, compassionate, and comprehensive immigration reform. We support policies that create an earned path to citizenship and protect families, while securing our borders and treating American taxpayers fairly.”

Torture is one area where both sides seem to have found common ground. The coalition rejects torture as un-American and immoral.

Tony Jones

Among the dozens of evangelical leaders who have signed on is Tony Jones of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis. In his letter of support he wrote, “My hope is that President-elect Obama and the new Congress will embrace this governing agenda, which includes policies that represent real progress on historically divisive issues: reducing abortions and ensuring workplace equality for gay and lesbian persons.” Jones continued, “Together, this growing group of faithful persons represents a new path forward in America that models a positive religious presence in the public square.”

Another signatory is Paul de Vries, a member of the board of the National Association of Evangelicals. “There is one Lord Jesus Christ, and he has many issues,” wrote de Vries. “Tragically, while the Democratic and Republican parties each have at least an attenuated sense of some of his issues — each party seems tone-deaf to some others. Nowhere has the failure to be faithful to Truth and to listen to one another been more acute than on issues underlying the so-called ‘culture wars.’”

During a recent conference call with reporters, a number of evangelical leaders explained why they agreed to be a part of this effort to end the culture war. Probably the most profound example was Jonathan Merritt, founder of the Southern Baptist Environment and Climate Initiative.

“As a committed Southern Baptist, I know all too well the ‘culture war’ mentality. It is a mentality that often speaks without listening, divides rather than unites and promotes destructive partisanship,” he said. “At the same time, I am proud of the unwavering moral stances that conservative Christians, including Southern Baptists, have taken. We remain committed to important issues like the traditional marriage and protecting life conception.”

He continued, “Yet conservative Christians must also live out the other tenets of our faith, including compassion, charity, human dignity and the pursuit of peace. Therefore, I support this agenda because I am a Southern Baptist, not in spite of that fact.”