#chuck darrell

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

Read about the 1,800-strong rally that Minnesotans United for All Families put on last night to get folks amped up to vote NO! And check out some sound advice from Chuck Darrell, Spokesman for Minnesota for Marriage about voting (I'm sure that this will be the only time I recommend this guy's advice on this blog! ;)

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

We are just getting hammered all day for signs.

Chuck Darrell, Spokesman, Minnesota for Marriage Source: Star Tribune

Darrell reports that Minnesota for Marriage, the group that supports the marriage amendment, has already given out 40,000 yard signs and expected another 25,000 to arrive at headquarters last week. (Personally, I question these numbers)

In the comments, one poster supposed that most people were keeping the signs in their garages, as Vote NO signs seem to outnumber amendment supporters' signs in force. However, a poster by the handle bethelstudent disagrees:

go anywhere that isn't the metro area, and you'll see plenty. Down in southwest MN where I live (I go to college in the TC), all you see are vote yes signs.

Sometimes, we forget that not all of Minnesota looks like the Twin Cities. In smaller towns or communities across the state, people don't always get to interact with someone who is gay, let alone in a committed same-sex relationship (I know that I moved from a very small town at a young age to be in a bigger city where I felt much more accepted).

Unfortunately, because of this limited interaction with diversity, people succumb to the scare tactics that they hear from groups like Minnesota for Marriage. That's why it continues to be so important to tell our stories, to talk to voters, to let our parents and grandparents know that we are everyday Minnesotans, just like everyone else.

While I'm glad to be surrounded by Vote NO signs in the Cities, it saddens me to hear that ANY yes signs are being given out.

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

I've yet to see one yet, but according to the Star Tribune, over two dozen signs are popping up across the state. [read more]

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

In August, The St. Cloud Times wrote about the marriage amendment, undecided voters and the constitutional provision (a blank vote helps the NO side) that is unique to Minnesota. [more]

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

Last week I posted how the mean-spirited marriage amendment received a new title from Secretary of State, Mark Ritchie. Turns out that Minnesota for Marriage has submitted a "data practices request" seeking anything they can find to get Ritchie (or the state) in trouble for changing the name of the amendment:

And basically what we're looking for is to find out any amendment-related correspondence that the secretary of state has had with either parties that oppose the amendment, or with Governor Dayton, or even the Attorney General Lori Swanson, just to make sure that there wasn't any collusion going on here to try and defeat the amendment.

Chuck Darrell, Communications Director, Minnesota for Marriage

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

We've been polling the amendment for over a year and our most recent poll shows the race unchanged with support for the amendment in the mid‐fifties. And, every time the voters get a chance to vote on marriage, they affirm marriage as between one man and one woman. We have a lot of work ahead of us, but we expect Minnesota to be the 32nd state to define marriage as between one man and one woman in its constitution.

Chuck Darrell, Communications Director, Minnesota for Marriage Source: Minnesota Public Radio

Chuck Darrell in response poll results released in early June that showed more Minnesotans opposing the marriage amendment on ballots this fall. I blogged about the results yesterday and my message  was very fitting in reading Darrell's response. It is far too soon to celebrate as Darrell and team fully expect Minnesota to be the 32nd state to write discrimination into the state constitution.

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

The amendment makes no change in rights and benefits for gays and lesbians, nor does it limit the legislature’s ability to provide future benefits if those become needed... Gays and lesbians have the right to live as they choose, but they do not have the right to redefine marriage for all society.

Chuck Darrell, Communications Director, Minnesota for Marriage Source: The New American 

Warning: Spin machine in action! Back in January, I wrote about the strategic approach amendment proponents would be taking, and the above highlights that strategy in action. Essentially, the message takes committed gay and lesbian couples out of the picture, and instead, turns it around to the right to vote. Darrell says that nothing will change - and he is right - nothing will change whether this amendment passes or doesn't pass. But if it does pass, the only way that Minnesota could make a change in the future would be by another constitutional amendment. Another fight with more money and more time.

What Darrell isn't saying should be as loud as what he is saying: Minnesota for Marriage wants to ensure that committed gay and lesbian couples are not able to benefit in recognizing their commitment in the future without a significant fight that would cost millions of dollars and require millions of Minnesotan's to stand with them. He is also saying that he wants the majority to vote on the rights of a minority. Yikes. That's a scary proposition.

[minnesotamarriageamendment]

Here's an opinion piece in response to Chuck Darrell's arguments for the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. In this response, Deborah Factor of Rochester agrees with Mr. Darrell's believe that we need to "promote family structures that foster positive outcomes for kids" and that when same-sex couples have the right to marry, they do just that. Their lives, and the lives of their children, become more secure. Factor goes on to say that by providing same-sex couples the same stability and dignity given to their heterosexual counterparts, we actually strengthen the institution of marriage across the board.

Kudos to you, Ms. Factor. I, for one, will be voting NO with you in November!