Self-loathing hypocrite Republican in Minnesota

[Brittain33]

There is no contradiction in opposing giving positive rights to people, even if they are like you.

I find it very unlikely he actually believes that gay couples shouldn't have the right to marry, and I don't believe he said so when he gave his explanation. He just doesn't care to fight this battle right now when it's not close to being won.

[Brittain33]

Two gays can go to a lawyer and write up a contract including the same 'benefits' in marriage anyway.

No, that's not true at all. I don't care if you're trolling or not, but for the benefit of others, this is simply not the case.

[Brittain33]

There is not a single legal right that a heterosexual person possesses that a gay person does not.  None.

1. The right to adopt children in the state of Florida. The questionnaire asks people if they are homosexual or bisexual.
2. The right to serve in the military without fear of being fired for one's private life.

This is without discussing recognition of our relationships.

[Brittain33]

I love how everyone until now thought Vanderblubb had a great sense of humor when to me it was obvious that all his offensive remarks were 100% serious.

He's been goring my particular ox for as long as I've noticed him, and it usually isn't worth responding. I'm responding to a few specific bogus points here lest people pick them out and think they're true despite the fact Vander Blubb said them. I've seen that "gays can get the same rights if they just hire a lawyer" thing a million times before.

[Brittain33]

We also have 6 openly gay members in the state legislature -- all Democrats.

Having gay representatives is becoming a non-event in Massachusetts, too. The Senate Minority Leader is gay, but not openly so. It's a Mark Foley situation where he isn't leading a double life BUT nobody talks about or acknowledges it. He votes for gay rights when it comes up. Easy to do when you're 1/5 of the entire caucus.

[Brittain33]

I'm not sure why this guy is required to feel a certain way just because he's gay.

He does feel "that certain way" but chose to vote against his beliefs.

I didn't call him a hypocrite or self-loathing, FWIW, but it's not correct to state that he's somehow being forced to vote against his conscience on gay marriage or something. He didn't say he was opposed to gay marriage; he gave a somewhat lame excuse for why he voted no and we've been fleshing out the real reasons, which are related to his position in a conservative district at a time when this bill won't pass anyway.

[Brittain33]

Do you know that for certain?

What would be the cost in him saying "I oppose same-sex marriage," if he truly feels that way? It's how his district feels. He'd get some crap from gay activists, but I don't think they're big in Brainerd. I doubt he's reading this thread. Instead, he dodged the issue. I can sort of respect that, which is why I didn't call him a self-loathing hypocrite.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As people with experience of human interactions, we do have a sense of how people's brains work. There are some patterns of behavior that make sense, and some that do not. That's the basis of all we talk about here, if you think about it.

It is very, very hard to imagine an out gay man in politics opposing gay civil marriage on a personal level. The arguments against do resolve, in the end, to a decision that gays must have fewer rights and jump through hoops because of the importance of intangible tradition, and that our relationships will never be full ones. I suppose it's possible for someone to be gay, out, and oppose gay marriage, but it's like that legislator in Kansas who opposed women's suffrage even though she was in government; really extraordinary. It is possible for someone to oppose same-sex marriage on tactical grounds, which is something different.

Or maybe he's single and bitter and thinks same-sex relationships are for other people, so he wouldn't mind screwing them over. I don't get that vibe from his statements, though.

[Brittain33]

His vote was not about tactical positioning for gay rights.  It was about the tactical advancement of his own career.  Why care about anyone else so long as your own position is secure?

One could argue that tactical positioning for his own career could be tactical advancement of gay rights in the long run. Koering helped keep an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment off the ballot in Minnesota in a previous legislature. A Republican replacement surely would have banged the drum for it. He has value for gay rights even if he didn't support them on this issue.

I haven't studied this bill's progress in Minnesota, but if it not close to passage this year, there's not much advantage to him in supporting it. I think that if such a bill came closer to passage on the backs of legislators with less conservative districts, he would join the wave to make it happen. But now, voting yes is a quixotic gesture. This is why I cut him some slack and assume the best case. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'll probably forget about Koering by March anyway.