Saturday, May 06, 2006

Some random thoughts on DFL politics

Posted by Craig Westover | 8:36 AM |  

I wonder if this is what the founders had in mind when speaking of a citizen government . Bill Salisbury writing in the St. Paul Pioneer Press --
U.S. Rep. Martin Sabo's retirement after 28 years in Congress has attracted a large crowd of candidates for a once-in-a-lifetime shot at Minnesota's most reliably Democratic House seat . . . . Hennepin County Commissioner Peter McLaughlin said delegates also are looking for someone under age 50 because they expect the candidate to hold the congressional seat for a long time.
Just a thought, as is this also from Salisbury’s piece --
The candidates don't differ much on the major issues. At a forum Thursday at Minneapolis South High School, they all called for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, strongly supported abortion rights and opposed a ban on same-sex marriages.
A note to Michele Bachmann bashers that knock her for her support of the Defense of Marriage Amendment: note that all the DFL candidates, and for that matter all of the liberal columnists in the Twin Cities “oppose a ban on same-sex marriage.” That’s hardly a tough call for a DFLer, but nary a one to the best of my knowledge has said they are IN FAVOR of same-sex marriage. Certainly none has made it a campaign issue like they have their opposition to Bachmann’s bill.

In fact, rather than move the Defense of Marriage Amendment to the floor of the Senate where they could have openly denounced it and taken a public stand on a very visible issue and convincingly voted the amendment down, the DFL-dominated Senate judiciary committee hunkered down and took the easy path, which while it prevented a vote, did not end the controversy. It did keep them off the hook from making a recorded vote.

In the Judiciary Committee hearing, Republican Senator Tom Neuville raised the point that if those objecting to the amendment felt it was “meant-spirited” and “discriminatory,” then they must regard the existing statute the same way. No one from the opposition commented.

While there is philosophical room to say that one opposes Bachmann’s constitutional amendment because one shouldn’t legislate through the constitution, but one still supports the statute, again, no DFLer or liberal columnist has made that specific argument. They have hedged their positions on same-sex marriage with an anti-Bachmann focus, without actually stating where they stand on the same-sex marriage issue.

My point is simply this -- if one is going to take a stand opposing the Defense of Marriage Amendment then one is obligated to also state how one feels about Minnesota’s current marriage law and how one stands on same-sex marriage itself.

Seems to me, DFLers and liberal columnists are in no hurry to be for something; it’s easier to bash Bachmann. That’s why, while disagreeing with her, I admire her. She’s willing to stand FOR something, while the DFL hide behind opposition.

[For the record -- I oppose the Defense of Marriage amendment because to legislate through the constitution is as wrong as legislating from the bench. The state has a legitimate authority to define marriage, including defining it as the union between one man and one woman or, at some future time, expanding the definitioon to include same-sex marriage. I SUPPORT same-sex marriage, repeal of the existing statute thru legislation, because I believe that marginalizing people that want to live in a committed relationship and form families has a negative effect of those people and on society in general.]