Still no budget? Engage in political theatrics...
Even though he can't keep it off the ballot, Gov. Mark Dayton today vetoed the bill that proposes a constitutional amendment [allowing the people to vote on] marriage to show his strong opposition.
... No previous governor has tried to veto constitutional amendment legislation, Peter Wattson, the governor's counsel said. But he said the veto has no practical effect. -- Twin Cities Pioneer Press
Local YNN reports that "Capping off a statewide tour, hundreds of MayDay for Marriage ralliers are bringing their message to the Capitol" and includes this video:
This report from The Capitol suggests that NY republicans understand where their constituents are on the question of marriage:
In private conversations around the Capitol, top Democratic lawmakers expressed serious misgivings about the likelihood that any bill would pass this session. At a certain point, they said, political reality takes over: The Senate is controlled by Republicans, and so far not a single Republican senator is willing yet to stand with Bloomberg and Quinn for gay marriage.
... Senate Republicans have little to gain politically from voting “Yes” on gay marriage, the numbers suggest. Even if the governor is willing to cut a deal behind closed doors to bring the issue to the floor, some Republican senators who vote for gay marriage would still face a very real threat to their seats.
After the Minnesota legislature voted to allow Minnesotans to vote on the definition of marriage, HRC sent out an alert to its national email list telling their supports to "voice your anger and disappointment" at the legislators (presumably on both sides of the aisle) who voted for the bill.
Many of HRC's supporters evidently opted for "anger" over simple "disappointment" in their letters to MN legislators, as Rep. Tony Cornish can attest:
From the start, right after my vote, I received e mails calling me a “bigot” and much much worse, describing in detail horrific things that I should do to my own body, and people talking about my “obituary.” It wore on me, so about the 300th letter I got like that, I replied, “Give it a rest!”
It’s just kind of disturbing I guess, when my district asked me overwhelmingly to put this on the ballot, that I should get such letters.
In the Washington Blade:
Equality Maryland will likely lay off its four remaining staff members and could be forced to close if sufficient funds aren’t raised to cover costs, according to its board president, who blames the organization’s former executive director for the crisis.
... The flap over Meneses-Sheets’ termination has offered a glimpse into how state LGBT rights groups interact with national groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Freedom to Marry and the Gill Action Fund.
“The **** has hit the fan,” Meneses-Sheets said, “[the board] realizes there are major problems with the LGBT Caucus and that the national groups have their own agendas that have nothing to do with supporting Equality Maryland. They’ve gotten no money and they’re panicking.”
She claims that at the time she left the organization, there were rumors that HRC would keep Equality Maryland out of future efforts to pass a marriage equality bill, following this year’s failed attempt.
Minnesota nice on display in the Fergus Falls Journal's letters to the editor section:
Although I understand some of the reasons for it, I was disappointed to read that the reporter could not find any minister who was willing to publicly state their position on the gay marriage issue, except two. And, unfortunately, the two who shared their views spoke in support of legalizing gay marriage.
... as an ordained minister, and as a concerned citizen of this great country, as well as someone who has been a student of the Bible for more than 35 years, I will unequivocally state my view.
... through my experiences in the entertainment industry and other related fields, I have interacted with many individuals who live the homosexual lifestyle. For the most part, I found these individuals to have many wonderful characteristics and value as human beings.
And I will also say that if I saw anyone verbally or physically abusing someone because of their homosexual orientation, I would come to their defense in a second. The reality is, gay or straight we all need a Savior.
In the Twin Cities Pioneer Press:
Graffiti was discovered on the Cathedral of St. Paul last weekend and police are investigating it as a possible hate crime.
White-colored upside-down crosses were spray-painted on five of the six main doors on the Summit Avenue side, according to a police incident report. It occurred between Friday night and Saturday morning.
Police received an initial call about the incident Saturday and generated a police report Monday.
The graffiti was quickly removed, said the Very Rev. Joseph Johnson, the cathedral's rector.
… “It was dealt with immediately,” Dennis McGrath, spokesman for the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, said today. “It’s been removed. It could have been a prank, it could have been kids, it could have been somebody with an angry vendetta against the church.”
Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:
With Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) and his wife filing for divorce last week, The Oregonian reports that every lawmaker who has represented Oregon's 5th congressional district has divorced while in office.
Raymond Belair also serves as general counsel to Family First of Eastchester and the Children First Foundation of Eastchester. He writes (and mentions our NY "Consequences" Ad in the second paragraph):
Recent news stories about the homosexual lobby's push for so-called same-sex marriage have been heavily fortified with statements about love for all people who find themselves in love. That's fine. But there is no valid reason to raise that point in this discussion, since everyone has a right to love whomever they wish. A radical redefinition of marriage — where marriage is devalued to the point of losing its very nature — is the real objective. Such redefinition is neither necessary nor desirable. The real story here is political coercion to force an agenda upon citizens who do not accept a false premise regarding marriage reinvention
... A further baseless claim of the homosexual lobby is that SSM poses no threat to natural marriage or the nuclear family. But a history of such legalization in other states belies that claim. There is a television spot running in New York that makes a valid point regarding consequences "for kids." It is entirely predictable that after SSM is approved that elementary-school students could be subjected to re-education about homosexual marriage being "normative"; this has happened after SSM passed in Massachusetts. A parent there objected to his 6-year-old's required attendance at programs favorably depicting homosexual marriage. The school board rebuffed him, asserting authority to teach "civic values" in conformity with the Massachusetts SSM law, and that it was good for children to be taught things their parents would never approve of. In California, a first-grade class took a "field trip" to the same-sex wedding of their teacher, who felt it was a "teachable moment." Even if the parents agreed to the attendance, why should such an agreement even be asked of them?
Dear Marriage Supporter,
Shortly before midnight Central Time on Saturday, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted 70-62 in a bipartisan majority to let the people of Minnesota vote on a constitutional amendment to protect marriage. Following passage in the Senate earlier this month, the amendment now heads to the 2012 statewide ballot to be voted on by Minnesota voters.
Congratulations and thanks to each of you who made phone calls, emailed, prayed, or contacted friends to support passage of the amendment through the House. And special thanks to the Republican leadership for bringing the amendment to a vote, and to the Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Majority for their tireless efforts, especially over the past several weeks.
Yesterday, NOM issued a statement promising our support for the upcoming ballot measure campaign, and in the weeks ahead we will begin to focus on how we can support the campaign. But before turning our attention to November 2012, I'd like to ask Minnesota residents to take a moment to say "Thank you!" to the state legislators who voted to send this amendment to the voters.
Click here to send a message thanking your state legislators today!
Many of these senators and representatives have been under intense pressure in recent weeks, as same-sex marriage advocates have tried to peel away the votes needed to defeat the amendment. Let them know they did the right thing in trusting their constituents to have the final say on marriage. Send your message today!
Faithfully,
Brian S. Brown
President
National Organization for Marriage
P.S.: Your support makes these victories possible! Already this year, together we have shocked the pundits with victories in Maryland and Rhode Island, and marriage amendments are now moving forward in Minnesota and Indiana. But we're still in the thick of it in New York, as gay marriage advocates pull out all the stops in an effort to round up 6 more votes in the state senate. The Prop 8 and DOMA litigation is headed for the Supreme Court, and the Minnesota amendment campaign will require millions to educate voters and combat misinformation. With your help, we can meet each of these challenges. Would you make a donation of $25, $50 or $100 today to help protect marriage from wherever the need arises? Thank you!
Victory in Minnesota is encouraging North Carolinans to call for their right to vote for marriage, in the op-ed pages of the Winston-Salem Journal:
Marriage serves as the basis for social organization; it is not a consequence of it. Marriage signifies a particular relationship among the many unions that individuals freely enter; it's the one between a man and a woman that has two obvious goals: mutual support and procreation of children.
No other type of relationship, by definition, can fulfill both goals without the direct or indirect involvement of a third party. To Christians, marriage remains the cornerstone of society, not some government response to the most recent group of discontented Americans.
Rather than wait to see what the Beltway elite decide, North Carolina should pass its own protection of marriage amendment to settle the gay marriage issue once and for all.
Numerous polls over the years consistently show that the majority of people in North Carolina want marriage defined as being between a man and a woman.
Related: "Thousands Rally in NC for Marriage Amendment!" (May 19th)
The gay blogosphere has been trying to claim that Jim Daly of Focus on the Family has given up on protecting marriage. Today he makes clear he hasn't, and knows why:
... I’ve been following the ongoing marriage debate in the New York state legislature. Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared the legalization of same-sex marriage his number one priority. Supporters are waging a clever, celebrity-driven and well-funded campaign, suggesting that all they want is “marriage equality.” In fact, what they want to do is redefine this multi-millennial institution.
... In each example of social reengineering I’ve noted [no-fault divorce, cohabitation, etc], progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.
Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you can’t change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.
Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.
This week, [Bed-Stuy Patch] asked Bed-Stuy residents for their opinions on the contentious issue:
“I don’t agree," said Michael Vest. "I think men are supposed to marry women; that’s my view from a Christian perspective.”
Jason Coleman, a 26-year-old computer tech walking along Fulton Street back to work, concurred. “I don’t care what the next man does, but God didn’t intend for two men to get married nor two women. That just makes everything untraditional. After you pass same-sex marriage you’re just throwing religion out the door.”
“It’s not a good idea to have same sex marriages,” said Wendy, a resident walking along Fulton Street. “It’s about Adam and Eve, not Steve and whoever.”
“I don’t believe in same-sex marriage, but to each their own. If that’s what the people want to do... but I don’t believe that it should be a law,” said another Bed-Stuy resident who declined to give her name.
“I don’t support same-sex marriage, so I can’t condone trying to accept it,” said Bernadette Okeke, an administrator who works in human resources.
While most Bed-Stuy residents we spoke to were in favor of traditional marriage, there were still some who agreed with the governor’s position:
“You love who you love,” said Jennifer Sales, a 48-year-old cook who has a gay daughter. “It’s not for us to judge. When it’s time to meet the maker, we’ll know if it’s right or if it’s wrong.
Nushin Arbabzadah writing in the UK Guardian (the embarrassing part of this story is the liberal western reporters' assumption they had universally changed the meaning of the rainbow):
If you are gay and proud, Afghanistan is quite likely the last place on earth to show it publicly. How, then, are we supposed to make sense of the recent very conspicuous appearance of the rainbow-coloured gay pride symbols all over the streets of Kabul and other urban centres?
... Even more remarkably, Afghan drivers seemed to have little concern about using their cars to openly advertise being gay and proud of it. In a country where social conservatism sometimes results in gay men sharing their life with their partner of choice and an arranged wife so as to keep up appearances, there was certainly something very unusual about this apparently new openness.
Needless to say, Pajhwak's reporter soon discovered that Afghans who had decorated their cars with the rainbow symbol had no idea what it stood for. For them it was just the newest car fashion accessory but, on learning of its meaning in the west, drivers immediately started removing it.
Todd Hartch writes at Public Discourse that "Rather than trying to escape our bodies, we should see that our bodies make union with another possible". In doing so, Hartch confronts the underlying assumptions behind the pro-SSM arguments proposed by NYU Law Professor Kenji Yoshino:
... Yoshino’s own words reveal the failure to take seriously the embodied nature of human persons that is at the heart of his case for same-sex marriage.
... at the core of Yoshino’s argument is a desire. He never makes a philosophical defense of person-body dualism but nevertheless lets its implications infuse his political program. Same-sex marriage, for instance, is a classic example of an attempt to assert that bodies do not matter, that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into “marriage,” regardless of whether their bodies are complementary and oriented toward procreation. Yoshino’s dismissal of what he calls the “common procreation argument” for conjugal marriage is based not on a refutation of the argument in “What is Marriage?”—he does not engage the main threads of that argument seriously and refuses to offer his own definition of marriage—but on this desire to transcend the limitations of biology and to allow human beings to be whatever they want to be.
