All Politics is Local
Click me to see why I'm the title of this post!
Excuses
I
have been very sporadic in my blog updates which is due in part to the fact
that, at one point, I was down to one panelist for the discussion on Tuesday
night at 6:30pm in the Edina Performing Arts Center (which, by the way, you
should totally come to). So anyway, after a few days of little sleep and a
countless number of phone calls, e-mails, and cans of diet coke, I officially
have at least three panelists for the event (2 against the amendment and 1 for
it). Now, I can finally start blogging about my interviews.
Story Telling
This post is going to combine the interviews I conducted with local political
figures. Now, due to some trouble with scheduling, I had to interview Rep.
Keith Downey and Sen. Geoff Michel by e-mail and Rep. Steve Drazkowski by
phone. I did manage to meet with Sen. Scott Dibble in person. I hope to convey
the main arguments of all of these men in an accurate and concise manner. This may
be more difficult to do, however, with the responses from Rep. Steve
Draskowski.
You
see, when we discovered that it would be impossible to meet in person, the representative
and I decided it would be best to do an interview by phone. I said I was available
on Wednesday to speak anytime after 3:00pm (I had an interview with Sen. Dibble
at 1:30pm that afternoon and babysitting plans at 6:00pm). I had come to the
conclusion that even if I was babysitting, I could do the interview because my
friend, Emily, was coming with and could take over while I was busy. I failed
to consider the fact that sometime between 3:00pm and 6:00pm I would be
driving. So, at 5:15pm I got in my car and started driving down the road when
my cell phone started ringing. I, being the responsible driver I am, pulled
over to answer it. It was, of course, my highly anticipated interview with Rep.
Drazkowski. I hectically reached for my interview questions and began taking
notes while I ran through the extremely noisy wind back to my house (Luckily, I had
barely driven down the road). When I got back, I had to scribble a note down to
my mom to go pick up Emily while I was on the phone. I remember Rep. Drazkowski
saying at one point “It sounds like you’re double-tasking.” Boy, was I
ever. In short, I will not be quoting
Rep. Drazkowski directly very often.
The Interviews
Are you for or
against the Marriage Amendment?
Rep. Keith
Downey:
For
Sen. Geoff
Michel:
For
Rep. Steve
Drazkowski:
For
Sen. Scott
Dibble:
Against
Was it
necessary to put this issue to a popular vote?
Rep. Downey stated that it
is necessary to have a popular vote on the issue of defining marriage because “The legislature wrestles unsuccessfully and
continually with a wide variety of attempts to change the current legal
definition of marriage, some that fully redefine marriage and others with
piecemeal changes. Even with the definition in state law today, the
current situation will only result in unending legislative proposals, judicial
decisions and lawsuits.”
Sen. Michel
and Rep. Drazkowski supported
the idea of ‘letting the people decide’ as well.
Sen. Dibble disagreed. He
said “I think it’s totally unnecessary
and wholly inappropriate to put the Marriage Amendment up for popular vote
because I don’t think we subject minority people to a popularity contest.
That’s not the way our system is designed.”
Some who are in
favor of the Marriage Amendment have said that it is to protect Minnesotans
from activist judges who could make the
decision to allow gay couples to marry. What is your reaction to this
statement?
Rep. Draskowski agreed
completely with the idea that Minnesotans need the Marriage Amendment to
protect them from activist judges from making the decision to allow gay couples
to marry.
Sen. Dibble stated that “[The idea of an activist judge] runs
counter to the idea that we have the judicial system as a co-equal branch of
the government to help sort out and resolve tensions, and disputes, and
differences. To use the expression ‘activist judge’ is a deliberate attempt to
undermine the authority and the legitimacy of the judiciary as a branch of
government. It’s designed to make some people who belong to the majority
community emotionally view themselves as somehow the ones who are receiving
unfair treatment.”
Both
Rep. Downey and Sen. Michel failed to answer this question in their e-mail
responses. They did, however, both mention the fact that they think the people
rather than judges should decide on the Marriage Amendment. Sen. Michel did
said that he is “not comfortable with
politicians or judges or lawsuits making decisions on the fundamental
definition of marriage.”
If the
amendment is passed, will gay couples and/or gay people in Minnesota be harmed?
Sen. Michel stated that “if the amendment is passed, the only thing
that changes is that a court cannot define marriage and the legislature can
focus on other matters. As you point out, same sex marriage is not
allowed by current state law and this would not change.”
Rep. Drazkowski and Rep. Downey agreed, but Downey stressed that Minnesota’s human
rights statute would remain in full force.
Sen. Dibble agreed that in
terms of statute, nothing would change for gay and lesbian people if the
amendment passes. However, he also stated that if the amendment is passed, “a strong indication will have been communicated
to gay and lesbian families, [and] gay and lesbian people, that they’re second-class
citizens; that they don’t deserve to be treated fairly; and that equally, they
are some object of negative activity and scorn and disfavor; and that will
result in a real harm.”
If the
amendment fails, will those who are in favor of the amendment be harmed in any
way?
Sen. Dibble sated that “if the amendment fails, absolutely no one
will be affected negatively in any way, shape, manner, or form.”
Rep. Downey simply stated
that the law will remain the same as it is now if the amendment fails.
Sen.
Michel did not comment on this question.
Rep. Drazkowski
warned
that if the amendment fails, it will be easier for “activist judges” to change
the definition of marriage.
A question
I only posed to the representatives of Edina was the following:
The Edina City Council has stated its opposition to the Marriage Amendment, stating that it would be “contrary to the purpose of our State Constitution to protect the rights, privileges and freedom of conscience of all citizens by withholding from some individuals and families important legal rights and obligations.” As a Representative of the city of Edina, what is your reaction to this statement?
Rep Downey said “As a strong proponent of local control, I
avoid inserting myself into the local decisions of the city and the school
board. They are entitled to their own actions and positions within the
guidelines of state law. However, on a related point, I do not believe we would
be well served having separate definitions of marriage within local
jurisdictions. This would be extremely complex, especially when
jurisdictions overlap. This is best decided at the state level, which is
another value of Minnesotans voting on the statewide ballot amendment.”
Sen. Michel also mentioned
that he is against local determination of the definition of marriage.
What is the
purpose of marriage?
Sen. Dibble spoke of the
civil, social, and religious context of marriage. He stated that overall
marriage is “a means by rite of ritual by
which folks can formalize their love for each other and the commitment to their
desire to live together, and build a life from a conjunction with each other.”
Rep. Drazkowski
said
that he believed marriage was a union between one man and one woman. He said he
believed that it was the natural way that God intended.
Sen. Michel stated clearly
that he is not an expert on marriage. He did offer his position that marriage
is between one man and one woman in order to create and raise the next
generation.
Rep. Downey simply said
that he supports “the current definition
of marriage in Minnesota law.”
Some
politicians who oppose marriage equality have alluded to the idea that a family
without the presence of a father and a mother is inferior to one with the
presence of both. What is your opinion about this idea?
Rep. Downey suggested that
I ask people who are more qualified to speak on behalf of the question with a
more cultural theme.
Sen. Michel did not
respond to this question.
Rep. Drazkowski
said
he was in agreement with that statement. He said that a mother and a father are
the ideal provide their own strengths which lead to more productive children.
He referred to a family with the presence of a mother and a father the “most optimal” situation for a child to
develop.
Sen. Dibble refuted these
claims completely, stating that they have been “proven false (entirely false) by the research. You’ve just got to go to
the research. There’s a ton of good research that shows that children of same-sex
families do just as well by all the leading indicators that are measured and,
in some instances, do better on some subjects than the children of opposite-sex
couples. So they do just as well in socio-economic development, language
acquisition, academic achievement, objective health and self-esteem. There is
some indication that they do a little bit better in areas of tolerance and
compassion and understanding of diversity.”
Do you support
gay rights in regards to civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Sen. Dibble said that he is
not for domestic partnerships or civil unions in lieu of marriage. He states that having a substitute for
marriage “cheapens and devalues our
relationships.”
Sen. Michel and Rep. Downey both said they would be
open to state rights or legal definitions for unmarried couples.
Rep. Drazkowski said he hadn’t
looked into that issue very much. He stated that he definitely wasn’t an they
might be used by the gay community to try to get the right to marry later on.
If it were
legal for gay couples to marry, would that change the American culture? If so,
in what ways would it change? If not, please elaborate.
Sen. Michel and Rep. Downey did not feel comfortable
making a statement on this question as neither of them claim to be experts on
marriage.
Sen. Dibble said that
culture would not change. If it were legal for gay couples to marry, he said
that it will “just make more true what we
already believe to be to true”
Rep. Drazkowski, however,
believes that marriage equality in the U.S. would “undoubtedly” change the American Culture. He said it would
redefine marriage. He warned that gay people “use a minority status to claim they are victimized” and that
everyone should be treated under the same set of laws.
If it was legal
for gay couples to marry, would religious freedom be affected? If so, in what
ways would it be affected?
Sen. Michel and Rep. Downey did not respond.
Rep. Drazkowski stated that
churches would definitely be subject to legal challenges. He mentioned cases in
other countries where churches were sued because gay people were not allowed to
be a part of their congregation.
Sen. Dibble stated firmly
that no religious organization would be forced to do or believe anything
differently if it were legal for gay couples to marry in the United States. He
also addressed the claims made by Drazkowski (though he was not prompted to do
so) by saying “[The opposition] talk
about Canada and these other places where ministers have been ticketed or
charged for speaking out [against marriage equality]… I mean, it’s Canada. It’s
not the United States. Canada doesn’t have, specifically enumerated rights of
free speech (which they should, but they don’t). It’s a whole different
country. They’ve got a whole another thing going on there.
If gay couples
were allowed to marry, how would it affect those in a committed same-sex
relationship and their families?
Sen. Michel and Rep. Downey did not respond.
Rep. Drazkowski said that he “hadn’t really thought about it.” He stated that he was aware of some “nuances”
between the rights and benefits of marriage and the current rights and benefits
for gay couples, such as extra paper work to fill out. He also stated that if
gay couples were legally allowed to marry, they would be entitled to full
health insurance benefits which would be additional costs to the job providers
and government.
Sen. Dibble said this:
[Gay couples
would be affected] in many practical ways. For example, in California [where I
am legally married to my partner, Richard] if Richard has an accident, I go to
the emergency room and if he’s not able to articulate his own needs, I can step
in as a fully empowered intervener with no question. I’m his husband; there’s
no question. I have status and I have standing to make decisions. In Minnesota,
I have literally no legal ability to say anything. I would have to call his
sister or his father, who live in California, and get them on the phone to make
these decisions and they would have to come to the emergency room. That is
unacceptable. I think that is, in practical terms, an unworkable scenario, but
the indignity of it in that moment of crisis is wholly unacceptable. That’s
just one example of a practical benefit of marriage. Then there’s this whole
idea that strong families make strong communities. Strong communities make
strong families. I got married in California. My family flew out and, even
though Richard and I had been together for a number of years, suddenly through
that ceremony, and through that process, my family had a more fullness and a
richness of understanding of who we were as a family and as a couple. What was
already good was made that much better by their just unfettered love and
support for the two of us. That was a result of having that whole process.
There’s something very important of these human rituals, in terms of forming
the bonds of community, and inviting folks to be a part of community. Gay and
lesbian couples will be more fully a part of our larger family, of our larger
civic fabric. That’s really, really important for people to be able to offer
the best of themselves, to raise kids in a safe and secure setting, to really
strengthen the social count that’s so fundamental to our democracy, and to our
way of life, and our interaction with each other, commerce, and jobs, neighborhoods,
and anyway you can think of it.
Thanks for reading! Please, leave
a question or comment and I would be delighted to respond :) Also, at
some point I will have all of the full interviews linked to my blog. You should
check those out.Kari
