A week ago, on Thursday, April 27, I attended justFair lobby day, a lobbying effort on behalf of the GLBT community organized by OutFront Minnesota. As a straight ally of gays and lesbians, I hadn’t been very active in the cause recently beyond contacting legislators via phone or mail. I felt I should go to this event. And so, forgoing paid employment for most of the day, I drove up to the cities. Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of Star Tribune articles recently caught my attention.

Buried in the Metro section of May 3, the first article concerned a family from Eden Prairie, Minnesota. Phil and Randi Reitan, along with their son Jacob, who is gay, were arrested in Colorado Springs, Colorado, for trespassing on the grounds of Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian organization that opposes homosexuality. The family carried a letter that they wanted to deliver to the organization’s leader, Dr. James Dobson. Approximately 150 supporters of the Reitans watched as they were arrested on May 2.

The Reitans belong to a group known as Soulforce, a national faith-based group that protests the propagation of anti-gay messages in churches. Several hundred Soulforce members participated in a rally held just outside the Focus on the Family campus on Sunday, May 1.

The article has this quote from Phil Reitan about his attempt to deliver the letter: “I said, ‘I’m an attorney. I’m a Christian. I’m a father who loves my family more than anything. This is important because every day Dr. Dobson assaults my family. We need to get this message to him so we’re going to deliver [the letter].’ ”

“We wanted to say focus on our family for one day, Dr. Dobson,” said Jacob Reitan. “See how we did it. We aren’t just here to deliver a letter, we’re here to deliver ourselves to him.”

Soulforce founder Mel White said the Reitan’s act was part of their effort to bring national attention to the issue. “When the Reitans walked into that mass of cameras and said, ‘We love our gay son,’ whoever hears that will be moved,” White said. “That’s a message to the nation that’s never been seen. It wasn’t for Dobson. We’re using Dobson to send a message to the nation.”

I recommend reading the letter that the Reitan’s attempted to deliver. For more information, see Soulforce’s press release about the protest, Focus on the Family’s article on the same, and articles in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

On the U.S. Senate Filibuster

The second article that caught my attention was an op-ed piece. Former U.S. senators from Minnesota, Walter Mondale and David Durenberger, recently co-wrote a Star Tribune op-ed piece against the proposed rule changes in the U.S. Senate that would end the minority party’s right to filibuster judicial nominees.

The two make a persuasive case that ending the filibuster would, in their words, “profoundly and permanently undermine the purpose of the U.S. Senate as it has stood since Thomas Jefferson first wrote the Senate’s rules.” They argue that these rules–which now allow any senator to speak for an unlimited period of time unless there is a 60-vote majority in favor of ending debate–create a more deliberative body than the U.S. House. And that deliberation produces better courts, they argue. “This Senate rule has led to a stronger, less partisan, truly independent court,” they write. Ending the filibuster, they argue, will mean that “[t]he courts will be seen less as independent tribunals that transcend politics and instead will become, increasingly, agents of political passions.”

The op-ed piece represents a bipartisan effort, since Mondale is a Democrat and Durenberger is a Republican. As a moderate Republican, Durenberger finds himself increasingly on the margin of his party. Last fall he endorsed Sen. John Kerry’s health care plan as superior to that of President Bush.

Among others, conservative columnist George Will has argued against ending the filibuster for approval of judicial nominees. He argued instead that Republicans should focus on gaining a 60-seat majority in the Senate.

For another view of the recent history of the filibuster as it relates to judicial nominees, see an analysis by David Espo of the Associated Press.

Legislators and citizens across the country have a very real and pragmatic question before them: Should a state, or the nation itself, pass a constitutional amendment preventing same-sex couples from marrying or entering into a marriage-like union? South Dakota voters will face this question in 2006, and Minnesota voters may be forced to consider it as well in the same year.

Let’s first look at the text of the proposed amendments in South Dakota and Minnesota. In South Dakota, House Joint Resolution 1001 has been passed by both chambers of the South Dakota legislature. Its proposed constitutional amendment reads as follows:

“Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. The uniting of two or more persons in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other quasi-marital relationship shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota.”

In Minnesota, the state Senate is considering whether or not to put an amendment before the voters. The proposed amendment, as stated in Senate Bill 1691, reads:

“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”

My own views on the issue are straightforward, and I arrive at them with no hesitation: Such amendments unjustly discriminate against gays and lesbians who wish to enter into a legally recognized partnership, whether that partnership is called marriage, civil union, or domestic partnership.

In writing this column, I’ve struggled with what more I want to say on this issue. Others can speak more knowledgeably about the legal and religious arguments on both sides of this issue. However, I do want to briefly express why I feel strongly about the issue.

I am a heterosexual male, a Christian, a husband, and a father, and I believe that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry, or at the very least to enter into civil unions. Why do I believe this? Because I’ve known many gays and lesbians over the years and I want them to enjoy the same kind of happiness I have in my marriage. Because my gut tells me that they did not simply choose to be homosexual as some kind of a “lifestyle” choice; rather, they were simply born this way. Because I do not feel that a successful gay or lesbian marriage threatens my own marriage or the institution of marriage in general. Because having a same-sex couple make a commitment of fidelity to one another makes our society better, not worse; it strengthens society by providing stability in relationships and encourages fidelity.

It’s understandable to me that there has been a powerful reaction against same-sex marriage in our country over the last several years. Legally recognizing same-sex unions goes against centuries of tradition. It involves the public recognition and sanction of relationships that many, if not most, people do not understand and, to be blunt, find repugnant.

I’m a member of the United Methodist Church, one of many religious denominations that are deeply divided on this issue. I know there are Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. I respect the opinions of the many, many people who disagree with me, and I know that they hold their views with strong conviction.

Although this reaction against same-sex marriage–and it is an essentially reactionary sentiment–is understandable, I also find it disappointing. I’m disappointed that people would deny the benefit of a socially sanctioned union to their gay friends, neighbors, co-workers, and relatives. If they do not know any homosexual people in their communities, then I’m disappointed by that too. Either there are gays and lesbians in their midst who do not feel it is safe to come out of the closet, or gays and lesbians have moved to friendlier places.

I believe that one day most Americans will look back on this era in the same way that they now look back on the Jim Crow era of racial segregation and discrimination–that is, with a sense of sadness and bewilderment that a minority was treated unjustly.

Much can and will happen on this issue. The U.S. Supreme Court may strike down state marriage amendments as unconstitutional, or it may let them stand. Traditionalists may realize their ultimate victory and attach a marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where no court could strike it down. Or, our culture may conclude that gay and lesbian couples deserve to have legally recognized partnerships and rescind these marriage amendments. I expect the latter will be the case, and that it will take some time to get there.

I’ve said before that I don’t intend to make “Northern Letter” a column that is principally about politics. But since our politics is a product of our culture, it would be foolish to ignore the subject completely. At the same time, I don’t want to focus primarily on politics or make this a strictly partisan outlet. Ideally, this would remain a column that a wide variety of people with different political outlooks would find enlightening.

Avoiding strict partisanship, I believe, requires a certain etiquette and decorum. That etiquette and decorum would preclude the following behaviors toward people and groups: calling them names other than those they use themselves; describing them using stereotypes; treating them with sarcasm, contempt, or worse; describing them in exaggerated language; and mischaracterizing or ignoring their best arguments. I’m sure that is not a comprehensive list, but it is what comes to my mind now.

Does this mean that I should censor myself when it comes to some of my beliefs and emotions? Yes, it does, but only in a limited way–in the same way that, when we are dealing with people in person, we avoid calling them names in order to keep an already tense argument from escalating into something worse. This does not mean that I pretend that I am a nonpartisan reporter all the time. I will try at times to simply present the facts and at other times to present my opinion. The former is a way to educate myself and others–and perhaps even challenge my own biases and assumptions–and the latter is a way to express my own views and at the same time be honest and forthright.

Now that I’ve said that I will try to meet this standard, readers (few though they are) are sure to point out where I fall short.

And so here we go with one of the more important political issues of our day, in my opinion: same-sex marriage or civil union. The topic is back in our regional news outlets and a source of discussion among friends and neighbors. What follows are some facts and players, as well as my opinions, with more to follow in future columns.

The state of South Dakota has committed itself to putting a marriage amendment on the 2006 general election ballot. On February 28, the state Senate easily passed a joint resolution on the issue, the House having done so earlier. See a good Aberdeen News article on the issue.

On March 8 a Minnesota state senator, Michele Bachmann (R-Stillwater), introduced a proposal for a state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. According to Bachmann, the marriage amendment would also ban civil unions for gays.

A Star Tribune article on March 9 by reporter Pat Doyle provided a balanced news story on the issue and the players involved. The story reminds readers that an April 2004 Star Tribune Minnesota Poll found that “58 percent of respondents said they would vote for a state constitutional amendment that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Thirty-five percent would oppose it.” This leaves unexplained whether Minnesotans would accept same-sex civil unions that were not called “marriages” in their legal definition.

Similar state amendments passed by even greater margins in the 2004 elections, including one in North Dakota. According to the Star Tribune, the earliest date that a possible amendment could be put before Minnesota voters would be the 2006 election. Seventeen states have added same-sex marriage bans to their constitutions, and another 19 are considering marriage amendments. Minnesota Public Radio also aired a similar news story following Bachmann’s announcement.

The Democratic response to Bachmann’s announcement, as described in the Star Tribune article, seemed misguided to my mind–and please note that I am a Democrat myself. Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson (D-Willmar) said, “I know that Senate Democrats will want other constitutional amendments.” Apparently this would involve constitutional amendments relating to health care, the environment, and gambling.

Johnson has essentially disarmed himself of a potentially useful argument that constitutional amendments should be rare and only used in exceptional circumstances. In other words, we should not clutter up our constitution unnecessarily.

Republicans, of course, believe the amendment is necessary, pointing out that some courts have found state marriage statutes that outlaw same-sex marriages or civil unions to be unconstitutional. The amendment is an understandable move by Republicans, even if it is an ugly one, in my opinion. I do believe that the Republicans are institutionalizing discrimination against a minority–in this case a sexual minority, one that our culture has only recently begun to recognize and accept publicly. More on that in the future.

Besides the parties, advocacy groups involved in this issue include OutFront Minnesota, a gay rights advocacy group, and the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), a traditional values advocacy group. The MFC web site has a page devoted to Minnesota for Marriage, which it describes in this way: “Minnesota For Marriage is a nonpartisan grassroots group of Minnesotans working to pass a State Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman, with no other relationship being recognized as marriage or its legal equivalent.’” Look at the group’s web site to find the online version of their video, “The Battle for Marriage in Minnesota.”

Both Outfront Minnesota and MFC plan rallies in April, and MFC plans to run radio ads and notify local clergy to talk about the issue.

If you have strong feelings on this issue, I suggest you contact your state representatives now.

The long election season is over, and George W. Bush has defeated John F. Kerry in the presidential election. Was it a broad victory for Bush, as so many claim, or a narrow one? I will leave my opinions for later in this column and give those who prefer facts a chance to exit at the appropriate time. Let’s start with a simple overview of the results, with special attention to the region.

The national distribution of Democratic “Blue” states and Republican “Red” states from the 2000 election hardly changed this year. New Hampshire shifted from Bush’s camp to Kerry’s, and New Mexico and Iowa are likely to be counted for Bush rather than the Democrats, though the latter two are so close that they could change once absentee and provisional ballots are counted. Ohio and Florida stayed in Bush’s column, and that proved to be fatal to Kerry’s chances.

In the Upper Midwest, the Dakotas went for Bush by lopsided margins, as expected. In South Dakota, Bush won 60 percent of the vote and Kerry 38 percent. In North Dakota it was 63 percent Bush and 35 percent Kerry.

The “swing state” and “battleground state” labels applied before the election to the other three states in the region–Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin–proved accurate. Bush won 50 percent of the votes in Iowa and Kerry 49 percent, with only about a 13,000 vote difference according to the preliminary count. Wisconsin was extremely close as well and yielded the same percentages, but with Kerry as the winner. Minnesota gave Kerry a win similar to Bush’s in the national popular vote–a 51 to 48 percent victory. (Does that make this a “swing” or “battleground” country? More on this later.) This is the same percentage of votes that Kerry received in Michigan and Pennsylvania, two other battleground states. All the other swing states in the country produced closer races, with the exception of Florida, which gave Bush a decisive 52 to 47 percent win. This latter win, along with the razor-thin victory in Ohio, was one of the great achievements of the Republicans in this election.

Other significant successes by the Republicans at the national level included gains of four seats in the Senate, giving them a 55-45 margin (counting Jeffords as a Democrat), and a gain of three seats in the House, which now has a 30-seat Republican advantage.

Did Bush have coattails in the region? The picture is too mixed to say yes. Republicans did score important wins. In South Dakota, Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic minority leader, lost his seat to John Thune in a close race that received much national attention, and in Iowa Senator Charles Grassley was reelected by a wide margin. That leaves North Dakota and Wisconsin with two Democratic Senators, and the rest of the states in the region with one Senator from each party, giving the Democrats a 7-3 edge. The Republican governor of North Dakota, John Hoeven, won again easily.

Democrats did well too. Two incumbent Democratic Senators, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota won their races handily. The Dakotas gave each of their single U.S. House seats to Democrats too. In South Dakota, Stephanie Herseth won again; she had won a special election in June after Republican Bill Janklow vacated his seat. North Dakotans, meanwhile, reelected Earl Pomeroy by a wide margin.

Democrats also made important gains in the Minnesota state House, gaining 13 seats and cutting the Republican-Democrat ratio to 68-66. These gains probably came as much from Republican missteps as from John Kerry’s coattails. Republican leadership in the state House has been criticized for tax cuts that led to large budget deficits and significant cuts in spending for education, transportation, and human services.

While both parties registered gains against each other in a variety of political offices, all of the races in the U.S. House went to the incumbents. Fourteen Democrats and nine Republicans from the region will return to office.

The North Dakota anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment passed with 73 percent of the vote. The amendment adds two sentences to the state constitution that will rule out any type of domestic or civil union for same-sex couples: “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage, or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.” Similar amendments passed easily in 10 other states as well. Conservatives felt energized by these results and renewed their calls for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment to extend the same prohibitions nationwide and prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from overturning state amendments. The federal amendment failed to get the two-thirds majority support in Congress that it needed earlier this year.

As I was writing last week about the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment in North Dakota, I almost added a sentence about the amendment being likely to get conservative Christians out to the polls. I deleted the sentence because it seemed too partisan for a section of the column in which I was attempting to give straight facts, but I regret doing so, because the conservative Christian vote proved to be so crucial for the Republicans, particularly in Ohio, which passed a similar amendment by a wide margin.

Finally, voter turnout was high. Minnesota burnished its reputation for civic engagement, recording the highest turnout of any state in the nation–75 percent of voting-age adults. This compares to 60 percent nationally. At 72 percent, Wisconsin’s turnout was quite high as well.
* * *
Those are the facts. Now for more opinionated commentary.

Was Bush’s victory large enough to be a confident “mandate”? Not if you consider the popular vote and the Electoral College vote. As I mentioned above, a margin of three percent in a state would lead most people to designate that state a swing or battleground region. It only seems logical to conclude that a three-percent victory for Bush in the national popular vote means that this is a swing or battleground country. The Electoral College vote was even closer, because a razor-thin margin in Ohio decided the entire election.

Judging by his past actions, including those in recent days following the election, President Bush will undoubtedly lead as if he had won by a much wider margin. That is, he won’t consider that he risks alienating the near majority of the country that voted against him. He’ll be able to ignore this near majority all the more easily because of Republican gains in the House and Senate. Those gains are what make the loss so much more decisive for the Democrats, to be compounded further when Bush appoints Supreme Court justices. There is likely to be a great potential for backlash in future elections, and Democrats will be quick to pounce.

As journalist Mark Shields noted on the News-Hour with Jim Lehrer, Karl Rove will be crowned a genius for engineering the two Bush election campaigns–one in 2000 that failed to win the national vote and questionably won the electoral vote, and one in 2004 that saved a highly unpopular, vulnerable president from being voted out of office and again barely won the electoral vote and modestly won the popular vote. But, as Shields continued, no one would be calling Rove a genius if he didn’t have a lot of luck on his side. In particular, Ralph Nader’s participation in the 2000 election almost certainly cost Gore the election.

This year, Republicans were fortunate that events of the last year produced a wedge issue that brought out the Christian conservative base: gay marriage. In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court (the perfect state to stoke conservative ire) legalized same-sex marriage, and subsequently same-sex marriages were performed in San Francisco (the perfect city to do the same) and other localities. I’m not cynical enough to believe that conservatives put anti-gay marriage amendments on 11 state ballots just to win the presidential election; they were greatly concerned about a significant shift in our social traditions. But I am cynical enough to believe that Bush supported a Federal constitutional amendment to get out the base. He thereby lost the gay vote but gave leaders fuel to light fires under the feet of religious conservatives.

As a result of the state marriage amendments and their restrictions against even civil unions, gay people who want to be in partnerships will be denied a host of legal rights. Thanks to these amendments, the state will not encourage the substantial minority of people who are born gay to make a lifelong commitment to a single partner. Because of these amendments, the state is denying a large number of human beings the benefits–practical and emotional–that a socially sanctioned partnership provides.

I will let Andrew Sullivan, a talented writer who happens to be gay, sum up this issue:

“In eight more states now, gay couples have no relationship rights at all. Their legal ability to visit a spouse in hospital, to pass on property, to have legal protections for their children has been gutted. If you are a gay couple living in Alabama, you know one thing: your family has no standing under the law; and it can and will be violated by strangers. I’m not surprised by this. When you put a tiny and despised minority up for a popular vote, the minority usually loses. But it is deeply, deeply dispiriting nonetheless. A lot of gay people are devastated this morning, and terrified. We have seen, and not for the first time, how using fear of a minority can be so effective a tool in building a political movement.”

—–