Minnesota Marriage Amendment

Information, facts and articles related to the vote on Marriage that will appear on Minnesotan's ballots in 2012.

Tag: republican

State Representative John Kriesel on marriage amendment

[Cpl. Andrew Wilfahrt] gave his life in Afghanistan protecting our freedoms. He was gay. I cannot look at this picture and say, corporal, you are good enough to fight for your country and give your life, but you are not good enough to marry the person you love.

John Kriesel, State Representative
Source: South Washington County Bulletin

This quote is from Republican Representative John Kriesel’s speech before the Minnesota House of Representatives in which he argued against putting up for a popular vote whether or not we should limit the rights of marriage. He was one of only two Republicans that voted against the amendment.

Earlier this week, I posted the 5th television spot that Minnesotans United for All Families released in which they incorporate part of Kriesel’s speech.

A powerful reminder that this amendment impacts REAL Minnesotans. I hope you will join me in saying NO to writing discrimination into our state constitution.

Minnesotans United busts more myths

In this 30-second ad posted on YouTube, the mother from the very first ad Minnesotans United ran, speaks to the camera:

In Minnesota, there are certain truths we hold dear: freedom, treating others as we would want to be treated and honesty. Supporters of the marriage amendment aren’t living up to that.

Kim goes on to rebuff claims made in the recent Minnesota for Marriage ad when she states:

The truth? This amendment means no change to what schools teach. And no change to the fact that children learn their most important values at home from their parents.

The 30-second spot concludes with Kim speaking to the camera again:

The values we share and the values we want to teach our kids are why so many Minnesotans are voting No on Amendment 1. And I hope you will too.

Clearly, the reference to “Amendment 1″ was in response to Minnesota for Marriage calling it that in their commercial. You see, everyone has heard the message, “Vote No on the marriage amendment.” So, strategically, it makes sense that Minnesota for Marriage doesn’t refer to it by that name.

It’s also clear that Minnesotans United is countering amendment supporters’ Kalley Yanta with Kim. Talking to the camera in a soft voice reminds me of  Minnesota for Marriage’s second ad (sans the iPad and coffee mug).

I’m not sure if this spot will air on television, but I hope it does. Why we didn’t proactively address this concern is still beyond me, but we can evaluate our strategies next week. Right now, let’s defeat this mean-spirited amendment!

Alabama court rules same-sex partner can’t adopt partner’s child

For those that say the amendment facing Minnesotans is about “protecting” marriage or kids, take two minutes to read this story from Alabama. It’s a heartbreaking reminder of why we’re fighting hard in Minnesota to defeat this mean-spirited amendment.

Cari Searcy and Kimberly McKeand have been together for 14 years. They decided to start a family many years ago and went the route of artificial insemination. Now that their son is 6 years old, and in the first grade, an Alabama appeals court says to Searcy: You cannot adopt this child because Alabama passed a constitution amendment defining marriage.

A supporter of Alabama’s law banning same-sex marriage, Republican state Sen. Gerald Allen of Tuscaloosa, said he believes this is the first time a court has upheld a 2006 constitutional amendment that declared marriage was between a man and a woman.

“This ruling solidifies the fact the institution of marriage includes a man and a woman raising the children,” Allen said.

People like Allen are so adamant in their beliefs that they would rather deny a 6-year old the opportunity to have two loving parents than acknowledge that our society is changing.

Please understand that this amendment in Minnesota does harm to real Minnesotans. If we vote NO and defeat it, nothing changes for those people like Allen: Marriage is already defined as one man and one woman in the state of Minnesota. But if it passes, life will change for committed same-sex couples. The above is just one example of how an amendment like this can be used against a portion of our society.

We’re better than that.

Background on GOP Platform and rejection of civil unions

By now, we all know where the major party candidates running for President stand on the topic of same-sex marriage equality. What you may not know, however, is the backstory that got us here.

I’ve already shared several articles and blogs about how support of same-sex marriage made it into the Democratic Platform (here and here). The following provides a little bit of background on the Republican Platform.

In late August, the Republican platform committee voted on a proposed plank that would have added the recognition of civil unions for unmarried couples – both gay and straight – to the party platform. The plank, proposed by Rhode Island representative Barbara Ann Fenton, did not pass.

Even though the proposed plank was defeated, there was still an attempt to clarify the language around “traditional marriage.” According to Politico:

…Nevada representative Pat Kerby tried to amend the traditional marriage section to say that every American should be treated “equally under the law” as long as they are not hurting anyone else. He said that the GOP should focus on an economic message, not waging the culture wars.

However, Kansas Secretary of State, Kris Kobach disagreed. In fact, he contended that the government still “condem[s]” activities like drugs and polygamy even though they aren’t hurting anyone else. (Sad to see love between two people compared to drugs and polygamy.)

But it wasn’t just Kobach that spoke out. There were many others willing to speak out against civil unions. The final result:

The GOP will maintain its official support for a constitutional amendment that would “protect traditional marriage” by defining it as between a man and a woman.

Yes, you read that right: The GOP maintains it’s support for a constitutional change to “protect traditional marriage.”

Of course, this is just one issue within the Platform, however, it’s a pretty big one for most reading this blog. Educate yourself on the Platforms from both sides and then cast your vote this November.

I’m standing with the guy that opposes amending the Minnesota state constitution to limit the rights of committed same-sex couples.


Note: You can learn more about the discussion and see more quotes from the platform committee via Politico.

The fight of my generation

I really see this as the fight of my generation… One day, once my generation comes into political power, we will look back and think it was silly this was ever on the ballot.

Elizabeth Minneman, Former Chairwoman, Minnesota Teenage Republicans
Source: Star Tribune

Minneman shares her thoughts in a recent article from the Star Tribune. The article highlights the gap between younger and older voters on topics like the marriage amendment:

From California to Maine, an overriding thread that stitched together residents across the country is that younger voters tend to oppose the amendments and older voters generally support them.

The Trib looks at various techniques each campaign is doing to attract voters that might otherwise vote for the other side. Amendment supporters ran a “she said yes” contest at the state fair to attract younger voters while the NO side has used Garrison Keillor to attract older voters.

It will be interesting to see how these strategies impact the polling numbers in NOvember.

Minnesotans United first television commercial

Well, it’s official. Minnesotans United has released the first official television commercial of the campaign! You may remember that moving television commercial put together by Freedom to Marry in August. In that commercial, Duluth grandparents Yvonne and Fred Peterson talk about love and ask “Why shouldn’t other people be able to enjoy the happiness and the love that we’ve enjoyed through our lifetime?”

In this new commercial, John and Kim – Catholics and Republicans – talk about the discussions they’ve had with a “gay couple” that moved into their neighborhood and how “they were the most wonderful neighbors.”

The commercial concludes with:

It’s ok to take a second look.
And when you do, vote no.

I’m going to pause from sharing my commentary on this commercial just yet. Instead, I’d love to hear from you. What are your thoughts? Observations? Drop me a note or share in the comments.

Gay Marriage in 2012 cartoon

Obama Gay Marriage Cartoon

Ha! It would be funny if it wasn’t true. Though, Republicans like Madeline Koch give me hope. There are many Minnesotans – on both sides of the aisle – that support equality and will vote NO in NOvember.

Wheelock Whitney: In My Lifetime

Minnesotans United for All Families posted a new commercial to their YouTube page earlier this week featuring long-time Republican Wheelock Whitney. In July, I shared an opinion piece from the St. Cloud Times where Whitney wrote:

Marriage says “family” in a way no other word can, and we should encourage our fellow citizens to honor the love, commitment and responsibility that marriage demands.

It is a powerful statement on the importance of marriage that same-sex couples desire to join the institution, and permanently limiting their freedom to do so is wrong, unjust and unfair.

In the new commercial, running exclusively online, Whitney shares:

I think freedom should be made available to everyone. When my son told me that he was gay, it was a shock. Didn’t take me very long to realize that he deserved the same kind of happiness. Things change; I want it to change in my lifetime and I don’t have that many years left. So I’d like to start with defeating this amendment.

The 30-second clip ends with a white screen that encourages viewers to protect freedom and vote NO.

Amendment support strong with various groups of voters

Last week, I shared a story from MPR that spoke about the strong support marriage amendments have received from the African American community. In response to the post, some have asked the question, “Why would we single out the African American community, when we don’t do that with other groups?” In response, I would say that analysis does indeed single out many groups’ level of support. Polling numbers are sliced and diced in a plethora of ways. When we do that, we continue to see common trends around the support for marriage amendments:

  • Higher support among older Americans
  • Higher support among Republicans
  • Slightly higher support from males
  • Higher support from those that have less education
  • Higher support from those that identify as Catholic

Now, does this mean that all Republicans will vote for the amendment? Of course not! Thankfully, we’ve got many Republicans on our side (we’d have no hope of defeating this thing in Minnesota if we didn’t). Similarly, it does not mean that all African Americans will vote for the amendment either. However, ignoring trends from previous elections because we don’t want anyone to feel singled out is a sure way to lose this election.

We need to talk about what the reality is and find ways to influence those voters. Just the other day, the Washington Post shared the story titled: “Obama and same-sex marriage: Will his stance cost him the African-American vote?” In the article, the Post shares the words of Reverend William Owens, a minister and vocal opponent of marriage equality:

Claiming to speak for thousands, he connected the prevalence of same-sex marriage to the collapse of the African-American family. And he threatened the president with a widespread revolt by black voters on Election Day. “He has not done a smart thing,” Owens said.

The Post references how other news organizations had picked up the story with headlines like, “Obama’s support for gay marriage ‘might cost him the election’” and then goes on to talk about how that reality is not a likely outcome.

However, if pre-polling and exit polling numbers are any indication, it is likely that many African Americans will vote for the marriage amendment (along with Republicans, males, older voters, less-educated voters and others). The question that we need to ask is: How do we make sure we amp up the conversations we’re having with ALL of these folks.

I still don’t fully understand how anyone (regardless of who it may be) could vote to limit the freedoms of another group within the state constitution.


Note: As I find analysis of polling numbers, I’ll continue to post. It’s not to single out any group (Republicans, Catholics, African Americans, etc.), but rather to highlight where we may need to do some extra work. If you’ve been following me since the beginning, you understand that my approach through all of this centers around two things: 1) Defeating this amendment and 2) Love. We all need to come together and figure out how we defeat this thing, and sometimes, that’s going to require us to have some uncomfortable conversations. Through all of this though, we need to remember why we’re fighting: because of love. Together, I think we can beat this thing in Minnesota, but make no mistake, it’s going to require a lot of work to do it. I hope you’re with me.

Susan Kimberly on marriage amendment

Susan Kimberly, the former interim president of the St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce, starts off her letter to the editor with a quote from Dick Cheney, “Freedom means freedom for everyone.”

Kimberly goes on to talk about how, as a Republican, opposing this amendment actually aligns with her party’s values. “We believe this amendment represents excessive government intrusion into the personal lives of Minnesotans and defies our belief in limited government.” She applauds General Mills and other Minnesota companies that have come out against the amendment.

Another example of individuals taking action and speaking out against this mean-spirited amendment. How about you? Have you thought about writing a letter to the editor of your local paper? If you do, please drop me a note and share it with me. I’d be happy to post some of the letters I receive!

Huff Post on Wheelock Whitney

I just posted about a letter to the St. Cloud Times from Wheelock Whitney. Doing some additional digging, I found this story from the Huff Post from October of last year. Lifelong Republican, Whitney once ran for US Senate and Governor and believes in individual rights; he now is on the steering committee of Minnesotans United for All Families.

I feel it’s an attack on my family and many many many other families in Minnesota who would be affected by this, and I’m not willing to just sit by and let that happen.

An interesting read on Whitney himself, the Republican party and those who voted for the amendment to be on ballots along with those who didn’t.

Wheelock Whitney on Marriage Amendment

Marriage says “family” in a way no other word can, and we should encourage our fellow citizens to honor the love, commitment and responsibility that marriage demands.

It is a powerful statement on the importance of marriage that same-sex couples desire to join the institution, and permanently limiting their freedom to do so is wrong, unjust and unfair.

Wheelock Whitney, July 20, 2012
Source: St. Cloud Times

Take a minute to reach Mr. Whitney’s letter to the St. Cloud Times. It’s a very powerful message from a lifelong Republican and Minnesota businessman. Whitney, once part-owner and president of the Minnesota Vikings, shares that this amendment is about more government in our lives, and how that fact alone goes against what the GOP believes in.

Susan Geddes on what’s really behind the push for marriage amendments

People are getting comfortable with [gay marriage in Iowa] and that’s a shame to tell you the truth.

Susan Geddes, Iowa Republican
Source: ABC News

Geddes worked as an organizer for Mike Huckabee’s 2008 presidential campaign. Her statement is proof that the fight we’re having in Minnesota is unnecessary and based out of fear and/or hate. By allowing same-sex couples to marry in Iowa, “traditional” marriages have not stopped. In fact, over 4,500 same-sex couples have wed since 2009 when gay marriage became legal in the state and now nearly 60 percent of Iowans oppose an amendment that would ban gay marriage.

Why? Because recognizing the love of a committed same-sex couple is a wonderful thing that really doesn’t have any impact on other people. In fact, according to Geddes, folks even get comfortable with the idea. At the end of the day, love has won out in Iowa and support to take that love and recognition away continues to decline – and it upsets folks like Geddes who would prefer the rights of same-sex couples were limited.

Gay donors back GOP legislator

Last week, I shared the video of Republican, Maureen Walsh and how she spoke before the House of Representatives in Washington State in favor of marriage equality. Recently, the Seattle Times did a story on Ms. Walsh and the fact that gay donors from across the country have donated to her re-election campaign.

According to the Times:

It is a pattern that is becoming more common as more state legislatures tackle gay marriage: A Republican or a conservative Democrat takes a bold public stance in favor of same-sex marriage, and soon after, receives the support of wealthy donors trying to offset possible backlash.

This should be a clear message to those afraid to speak out against mean-spirited amendments: the LGBT community is a very loyal community. If you stand up for our rights, we will support you.

However, her opposition – Mary Ruth Edwards – is already speaking out:

After I looked up who my representative was, I said to myself: I don’t want to be represented by someone who says she is a Republican, but was a co-sponsor of the bill to redefine marriage.

It’ll be interesting to watch how those who vote in favor of marriage equality will be affected in the fall.

To Ms. Walsh, thank you again for standing up for equality and love.

Oh that Michael Brodkorb!

Do you recognize the name Michael Brodkorb? Well, if you followed the Amy Koch story this past December, you probably saw his name a couple times. You see, Brodkorb had an affair with Koch, then majority leader, and he was fired one day after Koch resigned abruptly.

Well now, according to Boston.com, Brodkorb is threatening a $1.5 million wrongful termination lawsuit. Not only that, his attorney threatens that a public lawsuit could expose more than a dozen other Capitol affairs.

Ironic, the folks so worried about “defending marriage” in the state of Minnesota might want to look in the mirror. Brodkorb is helping Minnesotans see how absurd the defending marriage claims are, and instead, he’s exposing amendment proponents in office for they hypocrites they are.