Self-loathing hypocrite Republican in Minnesota

[Holmes]

State Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, told KLKS on Friday that he will not vote for the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would make Minnesota’s marriage laws gender-neutral, allowing same-sex couples many of the rights currently denied by Minnesota statute. Koering, who is gay and a Republican, said he would vote against it because the state faces bigger problems.

I can not begin to comprehend the logic of not wanting to give rights to people like you. It's like a black person not wanting others the right to vote, or a woman not wanting other to have equal pay. Man, this guy is dumb.

[memphis]

Guess he'd rather keep his job than get equal rights. What would you do given that decision? It's a tough call.

[Platypus]

'there are bigger issues'

yes, there are. Gay activists who fight for marriage are a bit ridiculous, considering that homophobia is still very existant; heteronormativity is an insidious beast that affects every queer every day everywhere; and marriage itself is hardly something we should be aiming to align ourselves with.

But...we should align ourselves with equality as a means to an end.

It takes the same time to vote yes as no, and you're spending as much time commenting on how this issue is wasting it as you would if you were speaking on its merits or problems.

[Bono]

Because getting married isn't a right--or rather, it's a positive right, which is basically the same thing. There is no contradiction in opposing giving positive rights to people, even if they are like you.

[opebo]

Because getting married isn't a right--or rather, it's a positive right, which is basically the same thing. There is no contradiction in opposing giving positive rights to people, even if they are like you.

Dude, its a 'positive right' (the distinction is an absurdity of course, but we'll give you that) that is given to everybody else.  So he really is discriminating against himself.

[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.

[Ogre Mage]

It seems many gay Republican politicos don't care about gay rights so long as their personal position is protected, so this really isn't surprising.

Of course, once others have fought the battles for him, I'm sure that Koering will happily accept whatever advancements have been made.

[Lunar]

Somebody is trying to prove his conservative credentials

[Keystone Phil]

Wonderful level of debate we have here. "Self loathing" and "hypocrite."

How exactly is he a hypocrite, by the way?

[memphis]

State Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, told KLKS on Friday that he will not vote for the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would make Minnesota’s marriage laws gender-neutral, allowing same-sex couples many of the rights currently denied by Minnesota statute. Koering, who is gay and a Republican, said he would vote against it because the state faces bigger problems.

I can not begin to comprehend the logic of not wanting to give rights to people like you. It's like a black person not wanting others the right to vote, or a woman not wanting other to have equal pay. Man, this guy is dumb.

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

Not true at all. Gays can't go to a lawyer and get Social Security survivor benefits. They cannot pass on unlimited wealth tax-free. They can't file a joint tax return. There are innumerable reasons that marriage is a practical matter of equality.

[Nixon in '80]

Wonderful level of debate we have here. "Self loathing" and "hypocrite."

How exactly is he a hypocrite, by the way?

Yeah, he's not a hypocrite at all... if he went to Massachusetts to marry his partner, it'd be another story, but simply being gay and being against gay marriage isn't hypocritical.

As for "self-loathing", he could be, but that's not evidenced by anything here.

My guess is, he just wants to keep his seat. Good for him, I guess. I disagree with him, but I really don't care about his opinions, regardless of his orientation.

[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.

[Holmes]

So Vander Blubb, was it a big event in your life when you chose to be straight over being gay? I just love how people with no knowledge of how it's like are total experts on it. I was gonna respond to your post until I realized you have no idea what you're talking about.

[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.

[justfollowingtheelections]

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.

[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.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Civil rights aren't important. Who knew?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This guy is walking a bit of a tightrope in his district, which isn't radically conservative but the Republicans in it are. He had a primary challenger in 2006 who kept emphasizing that no he wasn't running just because the guy was gay even though he announced his candidacy almost immediately after his outing. He won that and the general election easily, despite barely winning in 2002 interestingly. A gay Republican in that district is a rather tricky balancing act.

Interestingly enough, one of the State House districts in that district also had a TRANSSEXUAL REPUBLICAN running for the seat. They failed to win the primary unsurprisingly and the DFL hols that seat now. I can only imagine how amusing it would be if they actually won.

[Meeker]

I bet he's going to have problems getting laid...

[Verily]

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.

No, he doesn't care to fight the battle because he'd lose his primary next year. Which might be the same thing, really.

Anyway, what interests me more is the legislation being discussed. Is Minnesota considering legalizing same-sex marriage through a vote of the legislature? I assume Pawlenty would veto such an attempt, but it would still be a first. Although there are rumblings in New Jersey of such a move in the next few months.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I haven't heard about any talk to let the bill come to a vote. It wouldn't pass anyway. Too many socially conservative Democrats. Civil unions would be doable though.

[Ogre Mage]

Off topic, about a year ago, one of the Republican closet cases in the Washington state legislature got outed -- Rep.  Richard Curtis.  He was fond of male prostitutes and was apparently quite kinky.  The details in the police report are quite spicy.  lol.  Given his absolutely horrible record on gay rights, I had no sympathy for him. 

http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/10/richard_curtis_more_shocking_details


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

[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.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I'm not understanding why this is a big deal.  Why is it any worse for a gay man to vote against gay marriage than it is for a straight man to vote against gay marriage?  The vote is the same.  If Senator Koering gave his vote to the issue, got put out of office at the next election, and then a straight man was elected in his place - the end result would be the exact same.

Senator Koering had the courage to come out and be open about his sexuality.  Given his political affiliation, and the kind of district he represents, this could not have been easy to do.  It is sad that we live in a world where being the way God made you is shunned, and I am ashamed that some members of my own Party are chiefly responsible for this temporary lapse in moral judgment.

However, Senator Koering's job is to represent the interests of his district.  He wasn't elected as "Senator Koering (R-Gay)", he was elected to represent a constituency that undoubtedly opposes gay marriage by a large margin.   Why should he be forced to ignore the wishes of his constituents just because he is homosexual?  That would only teach the people he represents that Senator Koering could not be trusted to weigh the merits of an issue honestly without regard for his personal life.

[Keystone Phil]

I'm not understanding why this is a big deal.  Why is it any worse for a gay man to vote against gay marriage than it is for a straight man to vote against gay marriage?  The vote is the same.  If Senator Koering gave his vote to the issue, got put out of office at the next election, and then a straight man was elected in his place - the end result would be the exact same.

Senator Koering had the courage to come out and be open about his sexuality.  Given his political affiliation, and the kind of district he represents, this could not have been easy to do.  It is sad that we live in a world where being the way God made you is shunned, and I am ashamed that some members of my own Party are chiefly responsible for this temporary lapse in moral judgment.

However, Senator Koering's job is to represent the interests of his district.  He wasn't elected as "Senator Koering (R-Gay)", he was elected to represent a constituency that undoubtedly opposes gay marriage by a large margin.   Why should he be forced to ignore the wishes of his constituents just because he is homosexual?  That would only teach the people he represents that Senator Koering could not be trusted to weigh the merits of an issue honestly without regard for his personal life.

Thanks for some sanity, Don. Also, while I guess this guy also opposes civil unions and I actually disagree with him on that, I'm not sure why this guy is required to feel a certain way just because he's gay.

By the way, I'm still waiting for a hilarious reason for why this guy is a "hypocrite."