All Politics is Local

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