The Fight for Marriage, and Marriage Equality

A Tale of Two States

    Coming back to roost from a season of volunteerism for pro-same-sex marriage campaigns, I honestly thought I would be writing a very different column.  The greater struggle for marriage and equality should have been in Minnesota, not in Illinois.  After all, Minnesota had Michelle Bachmann and a large Tea Party Caucus with which to contend.

    What happened?

    I propose that there are three key differences between the Minnesota experience and that in Illinois.  Minnesota did not have prior “civil unions” on which to fall back, Minnesota’s pro-same-sex marriage coalition was broad and deep, and Minnesota’s LGBTQ community is not irrevocably tied to the Democratic Party (DFL).  In fact, Libertarians and Independents formed a significant block of pro-same-sex marriage supporters in Minnesota.

    Last fall, on-line interactions between bloggist Will Kohler and IL State Representative Rita Mayfield indicate key differences between Illinois’ challenge and Minnesota’s movement from struggling to defeat an anti-gay amendment to passing full marriage equality.  Mayfield’s now famous comment is… “A civil union between two men or two women is supposed to be fundamentally the same as a civil union between a man and a women[sic]. What am I missing?”

IL Rep Rita Mayfield (D)

    Mayfield seemingly felt that gays and lesbians already had it all.  She was barraged by religious lobbyists while according to her comments, no one from her district had yet bothered to sit down with her to discuss how the differences between same-sex unions and marriage-equality impact their personal lives as her constituents. 

    In Minnesota, I watched the floor debate in Sen Jim Carlson’s office with a couple, Jim and Steve, who had personally taken the time to confront Carlson with the issue and to educate him with the real-life consequences of not being able to marry to his constituents.  Carlson admits that they changed his mind.

    To many outside of the LGBTQ community, civil unions for gays seem like a huge “gift” to a new-fangled and still too-little understood minority group. 

OutFront Minnesota's Lobbying Day

    Attending OutFront Minnesota’s GLBT Lobby Day at the State Capitol was a great first assignment as Managing Editor at Lavender.

    Beautiful weather, visionary speakers, old friends, and a good cause combined for a successful rally, as thousands of queers and their friends prepared to engage their legislators in dialogue regarding the effect potential legislative decisions might have on our lives and basic civil rights.

    I was glad to be part of this community again.

    Dialogue and community are two inter-related concepts, each meaningless without the other.

    I reflected on this relationship last fall, when I had to decide whether to change my residency to Montana, where I had returned for family business.

    At the time, petitions were being circulated in Montana to bring up for referendum a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

    Certain home-schooling advocates were fighting for the right to pull their children out of public schools – in part to prevent them from being exposed to the “institutionalized normalization of the GLBT lifestyle.”

    As a taxpayer, they wanted me to be a part of their community, but as a gay person, they would tolerate me only if I remained silent and pulled out of the active communal experience.

    I realized that my Minnesota driver’s license not only represented better shopping and access to a full-scale symphony orchestra, but also entitled me to participate fully in active dialogue with my community, without fear, and without having to negotiate away my basic rights.

    While queers in Minnesota are not yet able to marry, they do have the rights to adopt children, enter into political discourse without fear of reprisal, be treated with dignity and acceptance in public schools, not be discriminated against in the workplace, and, in certain jurisdictions, register civil family arrangements publicly.

    Regrettably, Minnesota is the exception rather than the rule.  The strength of our rights hinges on our participation in each election, and on our ability to maintain an active dialogue with the broader community.

    So, I am back in Minnesota, and while being Managing Editor might be taking the concept of dialogue a bit far, I am relieved to have an opportunity to work within a community that shares my concerns; values me for who I am; and maintains the active tradition of dialogue necessary for communicating, addressing, and protecting our common interests as a proud GLBT community.

Originally published 15-28 April, 2005, v 10 no 258

Lavender Magazine

Minneapolis, Minnesota