Immigration issues are not my strong suit at all and I don’t have new and different insights to offer, but my sense of the viability of the bill in Minnesota is this:

It doesn’t have a chance.

While there have been significant immigration raids in Minnesota in the recent past (meatpacking plant in Worthington, ABM Janitorial Services), I like to think that Minnesotans, on the whole, are not so xenophobic, but Minnesota, on the whole, is not that diverse, so white folks here are perhaps feeling less “threatened.”

Plus, both houses of the state legislature are controlled by the DFL. I’m not sure that will change in the next election cycle; if it does change, I still don’t think a vote on this matter strictly follows party lines.

But then there’s the crazies that elected and then re-elected Michele Bachmann, so… *shrug*

As the RaceWire article points out, the irony of the introduction of this bill in contrast with May Day demonstration turnout is notable. That this bill is presented as a “public safety” issue doesn’t even make sense to me.

Here’s the full text of HF 3830.

(via @QMcCall3)

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure – the ones who are driving the action – we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white.

…

Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

(via Ann)

Family Equality Council Invites Rep. Bachmann to Gay Parenting Conference
Urges LGBT Parents to Visit MN Congresswoman’s Office Monday

Boston, MA–Today Family Equality Council, the lead national organization advocating on behalf of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender families, invites Rep. Michele Bachman (R-MN) to attend the nation’s largest gay parenting conference in Minneapolis this Saturday, April 10.

“Considering what the congresswoman has said about LGBT people and their children, I call on her, from one mother to another, to show up at our conference tomorrow and meet the people she is demonizing,” said Jennifer Chrisler, FEC executive director. “The congresswoman says she’s about family values – yet she clearly doesn’t value all families. She says she’s about Christian values, but she doesn’t act like a Christian towards families like mine.”

Thirty years of scientific research has proven that sexual orientation has no bearing on parenting ability and that children raised by gay parents are just as healthy and well-adjusted as other children. The American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, Child Welfare League of America and the National Adoption Center all recognize that gay people can be good parents and, thus, have issued statements opposing restrictions on parenting by lesbians and gay men.

“Rep. Bachmann should meet LGBT parents and their kids who reside in Minnesota and across the country,” said Chrisler. “She would see there are a whole lot of qualified loving parents ready, willing, and able to adopt many of the 500,000 kids currently in foster care in the United States. If the congresswoman can’t make it Saturday, we urge conference attendees– LGBT parents– to show up at her district office on Monday morning.”

FEC is leading the national campaign to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, H.R. 4806, federal legislation that requires every state to look at the best interest of the children when making placement decisions as opposed to focusing on the sexual orientation, gender identify or marital status of the prospective parents.

On Saturday, Chrisler will lead panel discussions on parenting and will introduce the keynote speaker, B.D. Wong, a Tony Award-winning actor best known for playing Dr. George Huang on NBC’s Law and Order: SVU. The conference runs from 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. at Anwatin/Bryn Mawr School, 256 Upton Ave. South in Minneapolis, MN.

The Family Equality Council works to ensure equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender families by building community, changing hearts and minds, and advancing social justice for all families. For more information, visit www.familyequality.org.

The first is a summary of the testimony including comments from Marry Me Minnesota founder Doug Benson who was in the minority among same-sex marriage advocates for his displeasure with the hearing.

“This hearing should have happened last year,” Benson told TheColu.mn after the hearing adjourned. Benson said he believes a marriage equality bill had enough support in the Civil Justice Committee last year to pass one bill out of committee and refer it to the full House for a vote. With a change in committee membership, however, Benson said it was uncertain if a vote Monday would have succeeded.

The second is a video from Minnesota Capitol News’ Marty Owings.

Saurday, October 10th – 3:00-5:00pm
Minneapolis Urban League – 2220 16th Ave N, Minneapolis
[facebook event]

This should be a really interesting event. I know marriage equality is not the be all and end all of civil rights issues for anyone, but I think this will be a really good discussion for three reasons.

1. The path to marriage equality is different from state to state depending on their respective constitutions and existing laws, so it’ll be good to shed some light on the specifics of the situation in our own state.
2. Minnesota has this weird political environment where you often times can’t tell which way the population is going to swing on an issue.
3. Mandy Carter is awesome.

For more info contact OutFront Minnesota Community Organizer Kelly Lewis at 612-822-0127 x110 or klewis@outfront.org.

Co-sponsored by:
COLOR CoordiNATION, Minneapolis Urban League, OutFront Minnesota & Shades of Yellow

[x-posted at Cinna.MN]

Short answer: Yes.

Full transcript at Crooks & Liars.

South Carolina Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “you lie” at the president during his address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night. Few would doubt this was a sign of disrespect that most Americans would find objectionable. But beyond Wilson’s callous disdain for the office of President, it is important to understand the racial connotations involved, and the climate that gave rise to them.

We do not assert that Joe Wilson is a bigot; his personal racial attitudes are, perhaps ironically, beyond the scope of this incident. Rather, the consistent branding of President Obama as “other” by his opponents has created a context within which it is perceived that Obama need not be treated as other presidents have been treated. The creation of that “otherness,” while possibly motivated by racial animosity, is certainly rendered more effective as a result of deeply held negative predispositions about African Americans.

Seems obvious when you put it that way. There’s important further explanation and clarification, so do click through and read the whole thing.

(via @calinative)

…Democratic representatives Jerrold Nadler of New York, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and Jared Polis of Colorado will be introducing legislation to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act next Tuesday.

Nadler told the Bay Area Reporter in July that the bill would amount to a full repeal of DOMA, including Section 2, which advises states to disregard same-sex marriages that have been legally performed in other states, and Section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

What happened:

Jones, an administration official specializing in environmentally friendly “green jobs” with the White House Council on Environmental Quality was linked to efforts suggesting a government role in the 2001 terror attacks and to derogatory comments about Republicans.

His reason:

“What Van Jones decided was that the agenda of this president was bigger than any one individual,” said Gibbs. The president thanks Jones for his work and accepted his resignation, Gibbs said, adding that Jones “understood he was going to get in the way,” by becoming a liability to the administration.

Ridiculousness:

Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana said in a statement, “His extremist views and coarse rhetoric have no place in this administration or the public debate.” Missouri Sen. Christopher “Kit” Bond said Congress should investigate Jones’s fitness for the job.

Why it really happened:

Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck repeatedly denounced Jones after a group the adviser co-founded, ColorofChange.org, led an advertising boycott against Beck’s show to protest his claim that Obama is a racist.

James Rucker, the organization’s executive director, has said Jones had nothing to do with ColorofChange.org now and didn’t even know about the campaign before it started.

Van Jones was absolutely the right guy for that job. This is terribly disappointing. His appointment was announced in March.

Further reading: New Yorker profile of Van Jones.

When gay marriage is polled, it is almost always framed as a positive right, as in: “should the government permit Adam and Steve to get married?”. I wouldn’t necessarily say I find this framing biased — since gay marriage is only permitted in six out of the 50 states and only came about in those states very recently, it is probably the more natural, plain-English way to ask the question.

But there is a different way to frame the question that is no less fair, and flips the issue on its head. Namely: “should the government be allowed to prohibit Adam and Steve from getting married?”. This is closer to the logic embodied by the court decisions in Iowa, California, Massachusetts, and other states. Those courts didn’t create gay marriage; they argued, rather, that it was already protected by their respective state constitutions.

And it turns out that if you frame a polling question in this particular way, as Gallup and USA Today did recently, you get a very different set of responses.

Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken signed on to sponsor the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which was introduced in the Senate on Wednesday. ENDA would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment. In 29 states, it is still legal to fire someone due to sexual orientation and in 38 states for being transgender.

Minnesota became the first state to ban discrimination based on both sexual orientation and gender identity when it passed the Human Rights Act in 1993….

A House version of the bill is backed by Reps. Tim Walz, Betty McCollum, Keith Ellison and James Oberstar.

So it’s one of those things that has a ton of sponsors, but that’s okay. Happy to see our senators and representatives are down with the cause. Some of them, anyway.

Eva Young asks in the MnIndy comments:

Why is Amy Klobuchar unwilling to state that she would vote to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? ENDA covers discrimination by the private sector, but doesn’t cover the government sponsored discrimination in the military – and women are more affected than men by DADT.

A-Klo has been vague about her position on health care reform, too. I generally like her and I respect that she thinks independently. I’d like to get some better answers on these topics, though.

by Rich Broderick | 5/6/09 • Let me start by saying I have no objections whatsoever to the idea of allowing gay and lesbian people to enter into legally recognized marriages.

I can think of no reason why two people should be denied this privilege on the basis of sexual orientation any more than on the basis of race, ethnicity, property-ownership, or any other barrier that might stand in the way. Claims that somehow gay marriage will “destroy” the institution of marriage are little more than hysterical ranting on the part of the Republican base or cynical demagoguery on the part of those who simply want to manipulate the base. Ditto the equally hysterical claims that it somehow poses a threat to Western civilization as we know it.

And therein lies the problem, at least as far as elevating the issue into a transcendent cause, perhaps the transcendent cause, of our time. Would that gay marriage did pose a threat to Western civilization as we know it, at least as it is practiced in the United States! God knows, that version of WC deserves to be threatened.

In recent weeks I have heard the push for gay marriage referred to by supporters as the Civil Rights Movement of our day. At times, supporters have even seemed to suggest that gay marriage is the most pressing issue of any kind facing us and the rest of the world. I put down such talk as reflecting the heat of the moment and the desire to score political points. Nonetheless, it does lead me to raise the following questions:

1. Will the legalization of gay marriage in the United States help end the gross and growing discrepancy of power and wealth in our society?

2. Will the legalization of gay marriage slow, halt, or reverse the inexorable destruction of the global ecosystem at the behest of a rampant consumerism practiced by, at best, a little more than 20 percent of Earth’s entire population?

3. Will the legalization of gay marriage block the path to complete domination of the world economy by those who believe in the Total Market – the subordination of all aspects of life to the dictates of the marketplace and the concomitant elevation of that marketplace to the ultimate source and arbiter of valuation, including the value of human life?

4. Will the legalization of gay marriage check this country’s insane militarization, our heedless expenditure on ever more destructive weaponry, our reckless misallocation of resources that might otherwise be directed toward improving the nation’s health, transportation system, and general infrastructure? Will its legalization hasten our departure from Iraq and Afghanistan or help prevent similar imperialist ventures in the future?

5. Will the legalization of gay marriage advance the cause of racial justice and racial healing in our country? Will it help reduce the white fear of minorities and immigrants (at least brown ones) that is the real reason why we boast the highest rates of incarceration – in both absolute and relative numbers – of any nation in the world?

6. Will the legalization of gay marriage challenge the now all-but-complete transformation of the mass media, including the news media, into the first for-profit normative institution in history — an institution whose ultimate purpose is to help perpetuate the discrepancies of power and wealth, the ecological havoc, the militarization, and other self-destructive behaviors cited above?

Answering “No,” as we must, to these questions is certainly not an argument for opposing gay marriage. But it is an argument for perspective, don’t you think?

When I was coming of age at the end of the Sixties, there were calls in the Counter Culture not to extend the right to marry to previously excluded categories of people, but to eliminate marriage on the grounds that it is just another oppressive institution within the matrix of a society grounded upon oppression.

I never thought much of that idea, but the old radical calls to abolish marriage do offer an interesting perspective when applied to today’s perception of gay marriage as the ne plus ultra of radical causes.

As a legally binding contract, marriage confers certain rights, privileges, obligations and protections that should unquestionably be extended to gay couples.

That’s the rational part of the argument. But another, less examined, motive behind the drive for gay marriage appears to be a thirst for the “respectability” – i.e. social approval – marriage confers on those who enter into it.

Given that in the U.S. “respectability” must be conferred by a society that is utterly dysfunctional, self-destructive and – well – simply lunatic, I wonder if such “respectability” is really worth the candle on the altar?

So, gay marriage? Yes. But, ideally, within the context of a much broader and more urgent campaign for social, economic and environmental justice for everyone on the planet, rather than as an end in itself.

The bill would also change the definition of civil union to mean “two parties, recognized by the state of Minnesota” instead of “a civil contract between a man and a woman,” opening proposed civil union contract language to same-sex couples.

This is separate from the already-introduced Marriage and Family Protection Act which plenty of gay rights supporters are very excited about but which most folks realize will probably go nowhere, at least as long as Tim Pawlenty is the governor. This bill would make existing legal language around marriage gender-neutral, but would leave the word “marriage” as is.

Each of these bills squarely addresses two fundamental ways of thinking on same-sex marriage. One is that same-sex couples are entitled to the same legal rights, responsibilities, and protections as hetero couples are under what we currently culturally and legally recognize as “marriage.” The other is that the government should provide the legal (“civil union”) contract and get out of “marriage” all together, leaving that to religious institutions.

They both would effectively achieve what us gay Minnesotans and our allies are hoping for. I have no sense yet of whether HF 999 – which is more closely aligned with how I think the state should operate – is more palatable to the general public or to the legislature.

An interesting twist is the possibility of the passage of the bill changing “marriages” to “civil unions” but without the gender-neutral language. I’m doubting this will happen simply because it doesn’t, in practice, change the status quo that I can see. I’ve not heard of any successful attempt to accomplish this particular separation of church and state in any state or municipality. Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

On a related note, I’ve read some things lately that have actually changed my thinking on civil unions. This, I think, has everything to do with the fact that I am now happily partnered and do actually have a reason to worry about this stuff.

Implementing civil unions as a parallel legal status to marriage is creating a separate-but-(not really)-equal status. I still believe that. Plus, what’s to ensure that any changes to marriage law are similarly reflected in civil union law (and vice versa)?

However.

If civil unions that offer some protections — though they are not fully equal to marriage — are on the table, I’ll take them. Because some protection now is better than no protection at all. This is part of Project 515′s and Outfront Minnesota’s strategy as they pursue different themes and laws each year. Incremental, achievable progress is preferable to going for the whole shebang and not getting it.

HF 999, if I read it correctly, is not such an incremental step. It’s the whole deal. It circumvents that pesky argument over the word “marriage” that good Christian folk and President Obama take issue with. I really really really hope it gets somewhere.

University of Minnesota students are hosting a rally on Monday January 5th (1pm-5pm) as a reactionary measure to the violence in Gaza in front the state capitol in St.Paul. They will have a speaker from CAIR-MN, Council on American Islamic Relations-MN, and one from the twin cities chapter of International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network. Keith Ellison may be speaking as well. There will protests from 1pm-3pm, speakers and a press conference from 3pm-4pm, and a candle light vigil at 4:15pm for the victims and deaths of the past week.

OutFront Minnesota would like to respond to the question, “Is OutFront Minnesota doing its job?”

OutFront Minnesota works year round advocating for our community and working closely with our allies.

This year, for instance, our legal program worked with elected officials in the City of Minnetonka to revise an ordinance that penalized people for being in the “wrong” bathroom – obviously creating potential hazards for our transgender brothers and sisters. You now cannot be arrested just because someone thinks you’re the “wrong” gender for the bathroom you’re in. Our Anti-Violence program provided referrals, helped get orders for protection, and provided direct one-on-one counseling for GLBT members who were victims of domestic violence and hate or bias crimes. We went all over the state co-sponsoring screenings and post-film discussions of “For the Bible Tells Me So” – helping people talk more meaningfully about the intersection of religion and sexual orientation, and about 1,000people in all attended these events.

Our training and education team went to public schools, universities, correctional facilities, police academies, churches, and workplaces to facilitate positive, constructive conversations about sexual orientation and the way it plays out in all areas of our political and social life.

We worked with state lawmakers to again advance bills to improve the lives of GLBT people including the local government domestic partner bill. We conduct the largest GLBT lobby day in the country and have every year increased attendance at this event, reminding lawmakers and reaffirming for them that they have GLBT constituents and that their votes on our issues matter. In addition, 54% of OutFront Minnesota Action-endorsed candidates won their races for election or re-election, helping our community rely on a fair-minded majority at the legislature.

The grassroots organizing OutFront Minnesota has been doing is necessary in order to get marriage equality passed by the legislature in our state. We talk to 25,000 each year all over Minnesota to lay the groundwork for this change. Some have expressed frustration at what they perceive to be a too-slow pace at achieving this change, and people certainly have the right to their criticism and frustration. But the move toward marriage equality is not as simple as bringing a single court case and in fact, a court case could even set us back further than we would ever want to go. (Read our statement on marriage litigation at https://www.outfront.org/library/marriage.

OutFront Minnesota is proud of the work we do on behalf of our community. Vocal criticism of the organization helps us stay on our toes, always looking for ways we can do better.

We also acknowledge that given the diverse views of our community, there will at times be disagreement with our approach, tactics, and strategies.

In turn, however, we must disagree with those who claim or suspect that we “do nothing.” Our donors, members, volunteers, and straight allies would also disagree with this assertion, as would the hundreds of individuals and organizations who contact us every year for assistance, information, referrals, and guidance on a host of issues related to the work of pursuing equality for GLBT people.

We are grateful for forums like this one for enabling the community to discuss these issues with vigor.

Jo Marsicano
Communications Director
OutFront Minnesota

You may not agree with what they’re doing, but they are doing something. A lot of something. Hell, if you’re not in agreement with what they’re doing, maybe you should make an effort to get more involved in the organization. Or at least sign up for their newsletter.

Bachmann didn’t even campaign on the gay marriage issue in her congressional campaign – she campaigned on taxes, immigration scares and “drill baby drill”. If campaigning on that issue would have helped Bachmann, she’d have done it – but she didn’t. Bachmann winning by a plurality in the most conservative, gerrymandered district in the state is NOT a referendum on gays. OutFront Minnesota is just using this as an excuse for asking nothing from the Democratic Legislature. They will then continue to blame Governor Pawlenty for lack of progress. Pawlenty deserves criticism for vetoing the municipal domestic partnership bill. However, Kelliher and Pogemiller deserve criticism if they don’t get the bill through both houses.

That was in response to this comment in Doug Grow’s article by an OutFront representative:

Still, both she [Monica Meyer] and Duran have concerns about a backlash. They point to the re-election of Rep. Michele Bachmann as a reason for GLBT rights advocates to be wary.

I read that as saying that the kind of climate and mindset of the citizens of CD-6 that can re-elect Crazy Michele Bachmann is also the kind of climate that is not as open to civil rights for gay people. Not that Michele Bachmann herself is a threat. Because, face it, her cohorts in Congress know she’s a little crazy and she’s got virtually no seniority. I don’t think she could do a whole lot of damage if she tried.

Now, whether OutFront is falling down on the job is a whole different story. I honestly don’t pay them enough attention to have an opinion on that particular topic.

Do you?

First, some basic information.

For ongoing information in the Join the Impact movement, go to jointheimpact.com. You can follow Join the Impact on Twitter: @jointheimpact. There’s additional (and I assume ongoing) information on organizing efforts at the Join the Impact wiki. This page was the hub for organizing Saturday’s protests. The wiki also has instructions on how to share your photos, videos, and stories. For more on local organizing efforts, you can also join the Impact Twin Cities – Marriage Equality Now! facebook group. The New York Times has a story on the nationwide protests with a mention of Minneapolis.

Originally uploaded by swirlspice.

Estimates of attendance at Saturday’s Minneapolis rally are varying wildly. I guessed there were about 1,000. That NYT article said “more than 1,000.” The Star Tribune said “more than 700.” One of the speakers said “a couple thousand” and that’s what they’ve posted on the facebook event page.

However many people were there, representatives from local activist and advocacy organizations, representatives of a couple lgbt-friendly religious organizations, and local politicians addressed the crowd. Nobody said anything new and different. It was chilly out (glad I wore my long underwear) and it didn’t help we were in the shadow of the government center. But the crowd was enthusiastic and the majority of those gathered took off marching towards Loring Park for “community-building” after the rally was over. I thought Minneapolis CouncilMember Gary Schiff gave the best speech. Focused, meaningful, relevant, and hopeful.

Originally uploaded by swirlspice.

I’ve not yet heard or seen anything on how the Saint Paul rally went.

I’d love to hear your take on yesterday’s events. Were you at the Minneapolis or the Saint Paul rally? What did you see? Leave a comment or, better yet, submit a post.

(I had to go back and change “non-white” which, ironically, seemed more inclusive to “racial minority” which still bothers me.)

The New York Times has national exit polling data on the presidential race.

The early exit polling data the Star Tribune has did not include enough non-white people to provide a representative sample.

MSNBC also did not have enough non-white people to provide a representative sample beyond an aggregate non-white group, but they did have a number of questions on how the race of the candidate impacted people’s decisions. CNN had a similar, more-detailed breakdown.

Short answer is that Minnesotans of color, much like the rest of the nation, broke more heavily for Barack Obama than white voters. Completely unsurprising.

My thanks to Jason for asking for my input. We had an abbreviated conversation on the topic a few weeks ago. I’m glad to see he followed through with the story. I was also happy to see that some points I thought were important made it into the story on account of the fact that the other interviewees were able to articulate it more eloquently than I could.

I’ll also add that I’ve gotten tremendous value from the Racism and White Privilege discussion series I’ve been attending. It really helps just to have concrete definitions to work from. You absolutely must attend if Rainbow Families offers it again next year.

Here are the main points I’d like to convey on whether or not it’s fair to call Barack Obama “the first black president”:

1. Race — a label applied to people based on skin color/features — is different from culture and ethnicity. We all notice race. We all subconsciously assign a race to people (or do so consciously if we’re confused by what we see). The problem is when people associate assumptions (usually) based on culture/ethnicity to the race label they’ve assigned to someone and treat people differently accordingly.
2. Multiracial people’s self-identification varies widely (largely due to varying cultural/ethnic experiences) and is almost always different from how other people label them.
3. It doesn’t necessarily matter if people call Barack black/african-american vs mixed. It’s what assumptions they make and responses they have based on whatever label they give him.
4. This whole concept of race/ethnicity/privilege is not simple. People don’t really know how to talk about it and white people are afraid of offending people of color. It’s hard enough for people to grok that someone “different” is in the White House; we, as a society, can’t even go there with the biracial part yet.

Agree? Disagree? Anything I missed?

!!!

Minnesota delivered for Barack: 54.0% Obama/Biden, 43.8% McCain/Palin (and 1.0% Nader/Gonzalez).