Denise and Lyle

Monday, 23 May 2011

The big local political news today is that, in the wee hours during the past weekend, the Minnesota House of Representatives passed a bill that will put same-sex marriage restrictions on the state constitution.

Here’s an article about that.

From a law-changing standpoint, this is a completely useless amendment to propose to voters. Minnesota state law already defines marriage between same-sex couples as illegal, so whether voters decide to add this to the constitution or not, same-sex marriage will still be illegal.

But there’s another standpoint to consider: the political one. The religious conservatives who came out for the 2010 election and gave Republicans control of both the Minnesota House and Senate for the first time in decades are going to be needed again to maintain that advantage. Adding an emotionally charged amendment to the ballot is sure likely to get more people to the polls than, say, if Mary or Greg should be State Auditor.

Additionally, conservative congresspeople were voted in on a platform of balancing the state’s budget and bringing Minnesota closer to a theocracy. So, in that way, these Senators and Representatives are only doing what they promised they’d do. Maybe this will help their constituents to remember them fondly in 2012 when their names again come up for a vote.

Though I am not a fan of either of the two controlling political parties in our state, it’s pretty easy to see which is the greater of two evil regarding human rights when we look at the voting roll call for this proposal:

What’s really strange is that two Democrats voted in favor of putting the amendment on the ballot. While I whole-heartily endorse political drones breaking ranks whenever they feel the need to (I hate the slavish adherence to party policy), it’s tough to see what these Democrats hope to gain.

Presumably, since they’re both religious, they must feel that their imaginary friend wants them to make sure same-sex marriage becomes, um, illegal-er. Presuming to know what a supernatural deity desires is, of course, megalomania. But I suppose if they lacked any predilection towards megalomania, they wouldn’t have sought political office in the first place.

I say they “presumably” voted on the bill for religious reasons, because I would certainly think this squashes any chance of reelection they may have been entertaining.

Denise Dittrich, from Champlin, barely squeaked by in her latest election. Despite being the incumbent, and winning with a 19% margin back in 2008, she won with only a 1.9% margin in 2010. When Champlin residents go to the polls in 2012, I would imagine that most Democrats would no longer support her. Meanwhile, conservatives – who may have approved of her vote regarding this amendment – will likely just stick with the Republican nominee for that district.

Lyle Koenen was the other Democrat to vote in favor of the amendment.

Anyway, with a governmental shut down looming, it’s good the Representatives were able to find time late at night on the weekend to put civil rights up for legislation. Thank you, elected officials, for not shattering any of the stereotypes I have about you.

If you live in Minnesota and plan to vote “Yes” on this proposal come Election Day 2012, I would enjoy your logical arguments on why this is a fair amendment and how it will help the citizens of our once great state.