Politicians Who Favor Discrimination

In May, 2011, Minnesota politicians voted to pass a proposed Constitutional Amendment which would deny equal rights to all Minnesota citizens. Past proposed amendments to Minnesota’s Constitution have always sought to expand equal rights, not deny them.

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

– George Santayana, 1905

Irrational fear, hatred, and bigotry have left many stains on our nation’s otherwise proud history. What is amazing is that some politicians, in 2011, believe that it’s still alright to vote in favor of discrimination.

The few politicians who were willing to speak openly about their proposed Constitutional Amendment gave the same arguments used by politicians in the 1950s and 1960s as they opposed Equal Rights for Blacks.

There is NO valid state interest in adding discrimination to Minnesota’s Constitution.

It’s important that the names of the politicians responsible for yet another setback in our nation’s long struggle toward true freedom for all be available for generations to come. Their names appear below.

Please do not use this list to harass these poor misguided souls. If you do, you’ve missed the intended message. Help educate them, and hold them accountable, but do not  harass them.

If you happen to meet any of these individuals at a family gathering, a social affair, or in work setting, it might be very appropriate to ask why they support discrimination. Everyone – especially their children and grandchildren – should ask them about their vote.

Listen carefully to their answers. Do they repeat the same irrational reasons given by past opponents to equal rights to justify discrimination? Do they say they are only following their religious teachings? Do they believe that their religious views, no matter how faulty, must be added to our nation’s laws? If so, which religious views? All of them, or just the ones they believe in? Why can’t they see that discrimination harms our nation?

Critical listening and open discussion is needed to shine a light on those who would advocate discrimination. Eventually, all politicians must learn that irrational fear, hatred, bigotry, and discrimination have no place in this great nation. Only then will we have a truly free nation.

In May, 2011, the following Minnesota politicians voted (SF-1308) for a proposed Constitutional Amendment to deny Equal Rights to all:

Rep Jim Abeler (R-Anoka)

Rep Bruce Anderson (R-Buffalo Township)

Rep Diane Anderson (R-Eagan)

Rep Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck)

Rep Sarah Anderson (R-Plymouth)

Rep King Banaian (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Bob Barrett (R-Shafer)

Rep Michael Beard (R-Shakopee)

Sen Michelle R. Benson (R-Ham Lake)

Rep Mike Benson (R-Rochester)

Rep Kurt Bills (R-Rosemount)

Sen David M. Brown (R-Becker)

Rep Mark Buesgens (R-Jordan)

Sen John Carlson (R-Bemidji)

Sen Roger C. Chamberlain (R-Lino Lakes)

Rep Tony Cornish (R-Good Thunder)

Rep Roger Crawford (R-Mora)

Sen Gary H. Dahms (R-Redwood Falls)

Sen Theodore J. "Ted" Daley (R-Eagan)

Rep Kurt Daudt (R-Crown)

Rep Greg Davids (R-Preston)

Rep Matt Dean (R-Dellwood)

Sen Al  DeKruif (R-Madison Lake)

Rep Bob Dettmer (R-Forest Lake)

Rep Denise Dittrich (D-Champlin)

Rep Connie Doepke (R-Orono)

Rep Keith Downey (R-Edina)

Rep Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa)

Rep Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton)

Rep Dan Fabian (R-Roseau)

Sen Michelle L. Fischbach (R-Paynesville)

Rep Mary Franson (R-Alexandria)

Rep Pat Garofalo (R-Farmington)

Sen Paul E. Gazelka (R-Brainerd)

Sen Chris Gerlach (R-Apple Valley)

Sen Joe Gimse (R-Willmar)

Rep Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe)

Rep Bob Gunther (R-Fairmont)

Rep Tom Hackbarth (R-Cedar)

Sen Dan D. Hall (R-Burnsville)

Rep Rod Hamilton (R-Mountain Lake)

Rep David Hancock (R-Bemidji)

Sen David W. Hann (R-Eden Prairie)

Sen Gretchen M. Hoffman (R-Vergas)

Rep Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville)

Rep Joe Hoppe (R-Chaska)

Sen John Sterling Howe (R-Red Wing)

Rep Larry Howes (R-Walker)

Sen Bill Ingebrigtsen (R-Alexandria)

Sen Michael J. Jungbauer (R-East Bethel)

Rep Andrea Kieffer (R-Woodbury)

Rep Debra Kiel (R-Crookston)

Rep Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake)

Sen Amy T. Koch (R-Buffalo)

Rep Lyle Koenen (D-Clara City)

Sen Benjamin A. Kruse (R-Brooklyn Park)

Rep Morrie Lanning (R-Moorhead)

Rep Ernie Leidiger (R-Mayer)

Rep Mike LeMieur (R-Little Falls)

Sen Ted H. Lillie (R-Lake Elmo)

Sen Warren Limmer (R-Maple Grove)

Rep Kathy Lohmer (R-Lake Elmo)

Rep Jenifer Loon (R-Eden Prairie)

Rep Tara Mack (R-Apple Valley)

Sen Doug Magnus (R-Slayton)

Rep Pat Mazorol (R-Bloomington)

Rep Joe McDonald (R-Delano)

Rep Carolyn McElfatrick (R-Deer River)

Rep Carol McFarlane (R-White Bear Lake)

Rep Denny McNamara (R-Hastings)

Sen Geoff Michel (R-Edina)

Sen Jeremy R. Miller (R-Winona)

Rep Mark Murdock (R-Ottertail)

Rep Pam Myhra (R-Burnsville)

Sen Carla J. Nelson (R-Rochester)

Sen Scott J.  Newman (R-Hutchinson)

Sen Sean R. Nienow (R-Cambridge)

Rep Bud Nornes (R-Fergus Falls)

Rep Tim O'Driscoll (R-Sartell)

Sen Gen Olson (R-Minnetrista)

Sen Julianne E. Ortman (R-Chanhassen)

Sen Mike Parry (R-Waseca)

Sen John C. Pederson (R-St. Cloud)

Rep Joyce Peppin (R-Rogers)

Rep Branden Petersen (R-Andover)

Rep Duane Quam (R-Byron)

Sen Claire A. Robling (R-Jordan)

Sen Julie A. Rosen (R-Fairmont)

Rep Linda Runbeck (R-Circle Pines)

Rep Tim Sanders (R-Blaine)

Rep Joe Schomacker (R-Luverne)

Rep Peggy Scott (R-Andover)

Sen David H. Senjem (R-Rochester)

Rep Ron Shimanski (R-Silver Lake)

Rep Kirk Stensrud (R-Eden Prairie)

Sen LeRoy A. Stumpf (D-Plummer)

Rep Chris Swedzinski (R-Ghent)

Sen Dave A Thompson (R-Lakeville)

Rep Paul Torkelson (R-Nelson Township)

Rep Dean Urdahl (R-Grove City)

Sen Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake)

Rep Bruce Vogel (R-Willmar)

Rep Doug Wardlow (R-Eagan)

Rep Torrey Westrom (R-Elbow Lake)

Sen Pam Wolf (R-Spring Lake Park)

Rep Kelby Woodard (R-Belle Plaine)

Rep Kurt Zellers (R-Maple Grove)

We must never allow them, or us, to forget. Please share this list of names with everyone who believes in Equal Rights. Post it on your blog or on your social networking site. Make it easy for search engines to find, so that their ancestors will know the truth.

Disgraceful Abuse of Power (Equal Rights In Peril)

My compliments to those Democrats (and one Republican) who stood on the floor of the Minnesota House and spoke so eloquently in support of Equal Rights for all Minnesota citizens.

 

The proposed Constitutional Amendment under "debate" on the House floor - the first ever proposed Constitutional Amendment in Minnesota to deny Equal Rights, rather than expand those rights - perfectly reflects modern-day Republican views and values. They believe that they were elected into office to cut - no matter what the consequences. Throughout this session, they've voted to cut all sorts of programs in this once proud state. They've voted to throw the poor and senior citizens under the bus, so why not vote against Equal Rights for everyone too?

 

The only arguments heard on the House floor by proponents in support of the proposed Constitutional Amendment centered on letting the people vote. The House author of the proposed amendment refused to answer repeated questions about the merits of the amendment or his thinking in authoring it. Instead he kept repeating only his prepared words - that the amendment gives Minnesota voters the opportunity to vote on an existing law. 

 

What a crock of "Bull Whoee." The original law was wrong, and now he wants to enshrine it in Minnesota's Constitution. 

 

Equal Rights are granted by the US Constitution. Revoking them should not be subject to pandering wrong-minded politicians and the bigoted special interest groups who support them. No politician, no special interest group, no group of voters, and no wrong-minded judge should ever be allowed to deny Equal Rights to American citizens.

 

In 2012, Minnesota's voters will, for the first time ever, vote on a Constitutional Amendment to deny Equal Rights to Minnesota citizens.

 

Between now and then, Minnesotans will be bombarded with messages and commercials, both pro and con.

 

I have heard nothing from the Republican majority to indicate why denying Equal Rights to all should be enshrined in Minnesota's Constitution. I've heard nothing to support a legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage - in fact, all legitimate evidence supports the benefits of a loving relationship, including relationships between same-sex couples.

 

Shame on Minnesota Republicans. Shame on those equally wrong-minded citizens who elected them.

 

The fight for Equal Rights continues, despite this appalling setback. And, as with all past Equal Rights struggles, this setback will (eventually) be corrected. History shows that Equal Rights will eventually prevail. But, it's unfortunate that the once proud Republican Party has turned its back on Equal Rights, and all this country is supposed to stand for.

 

Shame on you Republican Majority.

Un-Equal Rights Amendment Nearly Set

Last week, the Minnesota Senate voted to add a constitutional amendment to the ballot in 2012. If approved, the amendment would deny equal rights to certain citizens of the state. This week, the Minnesota House is expected to vote to approve placing the measure on the ballot. Minnesota's Governor cannot veto this bone-headed legislation.

I've never been so ashamed of Minnesota's Republicans, and the downward spiral they've been forcing on this once great state.

I listened to a portion of the Senate "debate" (or at least what passes for debate these days). Among the arguments heard supporting the amendment were:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

2) Other states have approved similar amendments to their Constitutions.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

The Republican votes to place this constitutional amendment on the ballot appear to be historic. In reviewing the list of past proposed constitutional amendments (found on the Minnesota Secretary of State's web site), one finds that there have been some civil rights amendments placed on the ballot before. Yet all past proposed civil rights amendments seem to have been designed to promote equal civil rights, not to deny them.

As I reviewed the list of proposed amendments to the Minnesota Constitution, some involving civil rights stood out:

1865 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1867 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Rejected)

1868 - To authorize Negroes to vote (Adopted)

1875 - To authorize the legislature to grant women suffrage in school affairs (Adopted)

1877 - To authorize women to vote in local option elections. (Adopted)

1898 - To permit women to vote for and serve on library boards. (Adopted)

It appears that modern day Republicans have become the southern politicians of past generations, attempting to block equal civil rights at every turn.

When this country was founded, we already had a massive civil rights problem. Our "free" nation allowed slavery. Due to a political compromise designed to appease southern states (and the business interests within those states which "required" slaves in order to run viable, profitable, businesses) slavery was partially enshrined within the US Constitution. Slavery was not only allowed, but slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for taxation purposes and for determining how many representatives each state was allowed in the US House of Representatives.

I won't go into the long struggle to abolish slavery and grant blacks full citizenship, voting rights, and equal rights. There was a Civil War. And, there were many bone-headed politicians, judges, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

The same bigotry and arguments used to deny equal rights to Blacks were also used to deny equal rights to women. Like Blacks, women were deemed to be inferior. They were the "property" of - and must be subservient to - their husbands. Women were "too ignorant" to be allowed to vote.

The absurd arguments continued as each state decided whether or not to allow women to vote. While some states allowed women to vote (either in all elections, or only in some) before then, it took the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution (on August 18, 1920) to secure full voting rights for women in all states (Interestingly, the state many Minnesota Republicans seem to want to emulate, Mississippi, finally voted to ratify the 19th Amendment on March 22, 1984, after originally rejecting it nearly 64 years earlier, on March 29, 1920).

Again, along the way, there were many bone-headed politicians, Church leaders, and voters involved who made bad decisions designed to deny equal rights to all American citizens.

It took a long time, but eventually those who attempted to block equal rights were proved to be totally misguided and wrong. Yet, bone-headed politicians, along with some Churches and hate groups, once again conspire to deny equal rights for all.

The current civil rights struggle is over same sex marriage. Assuming that the Republicans have their way, the current legislation would require that the 2012 ballot have the question "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

In answer to some of the arguments heard in the earlier Senate "debate" on this civil rights matter:

1) It's the "people's right to vote" on such "monumental" issues.

No. Denying civil rights should not be up to the whims - and prejudices - of the voters. Expanding civil rights, when bone-headed politicians refuse to, is valid. But enshrining bigotry, hatred, irrational fear, and discrimination, in our Constitution is wrong.

2) Other states have similar amendments in their Constitutions.

That's no reason to add such an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution. Until Republicans took control, I mistakenly believed that Minnesota had higher standards than other states. This legislative session has severely shaken that belief.

3) It protects something which has been in effect since the founding of our great nation.

Past discrimination should not be used to condone current or future discrimination. There is absolutely no state interest in requiring that marriage be limited to being between one man and one woman. Denying equal rights to same sex couples is discriminatory and wrong.

4) It respects and protects our religious traditions. Religious leaders support this.

Again, this is not an argument for amending the Minnesota Constitution. Some churches, and some religious leaders, have repeatedly been proven wrong in some of their teachings (And, it's important to note that some religions still deny equal rights to women). At one point or another religious leaders in various areas promoted the idea that: The earth is flat; The Sun revolves around the earth; Negroes are inferior and should not be allowed their freedom; Negroes should not be allowed to become citizens of this nation; Women are inferior to men, they must obey their husbands, and they must not be allowed to vote; Marriages between those of different religions are wrong and must be banned (even today, in some cultures, persons who ignore such teachings may be put to death); Interracial marriages are wrong and must be banned.

Bone-headed. Extremely Bone-headed.

Some Churches, and some religious leaders, still hold to their past misguided teachings. Minnesota's laws - our Nation's laws - must not be based on the misguided teachings of any Church, religious leader, or politician. There is no valid state reason to deny same-sex couples to right to marry.

5) This amendment is needed to prevent "activist judges" from deciding the issue.

This is so wrong. In recent years, Republicans have labeled any court decision that they didn't like as being the work of "activist judges." This is appears to have been designed to further erode public trust in government, laws, and the courts. Sure, there have been bone-headed decisions handed down by judges over the years. Yet, eventually the courts and/or the people have come down on the side of equal rights.

While it's far too early in this century to declare same-sex marriage as "The civil rights issue of the century," it's shaping up as such. And, Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue.

With this bone-headed and embarrassing constitutional amendment (apparently) heading to the voters, I can think of three constitutional amendments I'd like to substitute:

1) Any individual, or leadership of a group, who conspire to release a misleading, inaccurate, or false campaign ad (or issues oriented ad), shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by not less than 10 years in prison and not less than a $50,000 fine. Upon conviction, they shall permanently banned from holding elective office and voting in any election.

Rationale: To reduce or eliminate the number of false or misleading "attack ads" run during political campaigns. We don't allow businesses to run false or misleading ads to sell their products. Such ads shouldn't be allowed to "sell" politicians either. We cannot have respect for our elected representatives if they're elected on lies and misrepresentations. We need to "raise the bar" and not allow our representatives to start lying the minute the campaign starts. If they "approve" a false or misleading ad they're subject to felony arrest. If a special interest group, an "independent PAC," or even a single individual, runs a false or misleading ad, those responsible are subject to felony arrest. The stakes for the nation are just too big to continue to ignore fraudulent ads.

2) Any individual who signs or otherwise pledges their loyalty to any special interest group, regarding any issue likely to be considered as part of their elected duties, shall be permanently banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the people of Minnesota. If they are currently holding elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: Too many politicians have been compromised by pledges made to special interest groups. As such, they are incapable of representing the people of Minnesota. Like judges, we must expect our politicians to listen to all sides of an issue, and attempt to find the best solution to each. They must not prejudge the merits of any issue. They must not simply represent special interest groups. We must demand better of those who hold elective office.

3) Any politician who votes to restrict civil rights and equality for any Minnesota citizen without demonstrating a clear legitimate state interest for doing so, shall forever be banned from holding elective office (Federal, State or Local) representing the citizens of the state of Minnesota. If the politician currently holds such an elective office, they shall be immediately terminated. The vacant office shall be filled as provided by law.

Rationale: This country was built on the concept of "liberty and justice for all." Hatred, bigotry, irrational fear, or misguided religious beliefs should not be allowed to enter the Constitution or laws of the State of Minnesota. Any politician who facilitates any effort to limit equal civil rights, and equality under the law, should not be allowed to hold elective office representing the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

In spite of years of Republican statements denying it, Minnesota has been a great state to live and work. While it's suffered from years of bone-headed Republican support for only the state's wealthiest five percent of the population, and a misguided belief that honest negotiation and compromise are wrong, it still may eventually return to its former glory. Cutting programs, jobs, and safety nets for our poor and elderly won't accomplish this. Nor will simply raising taxes. A compromise of carefully cutting some programs, and adding some taxes would start us in the right direction.

Boneheaded adherence to special interest groups demanding divisive and discriminatory "social issue" legislation is not the way to go. It's 2011, Republicans. It's time to stop repeating the sins of the past.