Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

SPEAKER 1: The first is that I think you should never put the rights of a minority group up to a majority vote. That lends itself to tyranny and the oppression of minorities. But really, the other reason is that we have a representative democracy for a reason. And at the Capitol, legislators can debate an issue in depth. They can look at the reality, not just the myths. They can reach a compromise, which is something you're unable to do as a voter on the ballot in November.

For instance, while many Minnesotans believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, most Minnesotans also believe that gay and lesbian couples and families should get some sort of recognition. But that's not reflected in this vote, and people can't go and vote to do that at the ballot box in November. But legislators could reach some sort of compromise if they really wanted to.

SPEAKER 2: Do you see a compromise here?

SPEAKER 1: No, I don't see a compromise. Because I believe--

SPEAKER 2: OK. Why not.

SPEAKER 1: Well, I believe that this sort of thing doesn't belong in the constitution, first of all, and I think that it's not really motivated by any sense that there's a problem out there in the state. I think the people that are pushing it say there's going to be a problem.

For instance, Michele Bachmann has been saying for three years that any day now, we're going to have a horde of gay and lesbian marriages in Minnesota. But, of course, we haven't seen that. We haven't seen our current law defining marriage overturned. So really, I don't see what the problem is.

And even if that were to happen, I don't see what the problem is because I don't see how that threatens other families in Minnesota. I think it just strengthens families, strengthens our communities, protects kids that are the kids of gay and lesbian families. So they could reach a compromise if they could identify what the problem is they're trying to solve. But since it's all really myth, and smoke, and mirrors, and fearmongering, I think, then it's hard to reach a compromise because there's no problem to solve.

SPEAKER 2: Let's talk about overturning the current law that exists because there's already a federal law, the Defense of Marriage Act, and there's the state law. Do you hope that the Minnesota Supreme Court would someday do it? The Massachusetts High Court did what the proponents of this amendment fear would happen, and that is overturn the state law that defines marriage as one man and one woman. Do you see a-- regardless of this amendment, do you see a challenge coming that could do that?

SPEAKER 1: I don't see a challenge coming anytime in the near future in Minnesota, but that's beside the point of what my community wants. There is a huge disconnect here between what the law says and what the reality is for gay and lesbian families in Minnesota.

There are gay and lesbian couples that get married. They get married in their churches. They get married in their hearts. They get married in other states or other countries. And that's the reality. Those families exist, and we have some sort of obligation to take care of them. I'd love to see civil unions or expanded domestic partner benefits, though, corporate Minnesota is very good about offering domestic partner benefits and recognizing those families.

But that's really disconnected from where we are in the public debate on the issue. We've just begun having a public discussion. I think one of the really bad things about a constitutional amendment is that it would cut off that discussion which is going on right now, and really should be going on around kitchen tables, and around the water coolers, and in church basements, and it would put an end to it when it's really just started.

SPEAKER 2: Michele Bachmann was on our air yesterday, and she said, since gay marriage is already illegal, that this would not affect things that exist already, such as the things you've talked about, domestic partner benefits at private corporations, even certain legal contracts that can be entered into by gay couples concerning their health care and finances and that sort of thing. How do you respond to that? She says, well, it's already in-- if those things were already in effect, even though it's illegal, this wouldn't change that.

SPEAKER 1: Well, I think that's not entirely true. Partly because--

SPEAKER 2: What's not true about it?

SPEAKER 1: If they were not interested in changing things, they wouldn't ban civil unions, which are currently not banned. And also, we've seen in other states that what Michele Bachmann is saying isn't really entirely true. It's unclear what this language would do if it were in our constitution. It's been unclear in other states what impact it would have, for instance, in Ohio.

SPEAKER 2: Give us an example.

SPEAKER 1: In Ohio, people were told that it would not extend to all sorts of things other than marriage, and yet it has. It's extended to even things like restraining orders. There's a straight couple that was not married. The woman tried to get a restraining order against her husband, and he took her to court saying that the constitution said that there's no legal equivalence to marriage because they're not married and therefore that statute doesn't apply to them. And that's actually been supported by their state attorney general.

These sorts of things are going to get decided in the courts, and the courts are exactly, I think, where Michelle Bachmann has been saying she doesn't want this to get resolved. So I think we ought to really figure this out, figure out what the problem is, figure out what the solution is, and not just throw out some language that's really not well-defined without a really good understanding of what it's going to do.

SPEAKER 2: Give me an example of how it might affect gay couples. You mentioned that restraining order situation, but that's people who ultimately would have the legal right to get married in Ohio. But how would-- what are some of the more far-ranging or far-reaching implications of a constitutional amendment that would affect gay couples?

SPEAKER 1: Well, one of the implications that is clearly contrary to what the people of Minnesota want, because most polls, every poll I've ever seen of people's feelings about this issue have shown that people support some recognition and some equal treatment of gay and lesbian families. And that is the impact it would have on civil unions and domestic partner benefits.

We have had a debate over the past few years in the state about whether state employees, for instance, should get domestic partner benefits. It was negotiated with their union at one point and the legislature threw it out. I think there are two sides to that issue. I think it's a fair debate to have. But if this amendment goes into our constitution and we prohibit the legal equivalent of marriage, then there are going to be court challenges to domestic partner benefits if they're ever offered. And I think that's not a place we want to go.

SPEAKER 2: The rally yesterday featured a number of religious leaders. And clearly, you don't want to give the other side the high road on this particular thing. You want them to not have all the religious arguments there. But at times, it could be seen as a contradiction to bring up religion and then want the other side of the issue to keep religion out of state law. So why bring religion into this at all?

SPEAKER 1: Because I think there are a lot of people in Minnesota who are very religious, who have very deeply-ingrained values that come from their faith, that tell them that this is wrong, that this is discrimination, that it's not the sort of thing we should be doing with our state's time. I think they have every right to come and have their voices heard, just like I think the other side has every right to have their voices heard.

The difference is that the people that came to our rally yesterday are saying, don't hurt people in Minnesota. Don't discriminate against people. We should treat people equally. And the other side is really saying, we want to instill-- we want to put our religious values into the state's constitution to dictate how other people should live their lives. I think that's a very different way of relating religion to the state.

SPEAKER 2: Supporters of the amendment say this is about protecting children and families and the best environment in which to raise a child. A supporter of the amendment that we spoke with yesterday pointed to, as he put it, mountains of sociological data that conclude that a mother and a father is the best situation for a child. Have you seen data like that, and would you dispute that conclusion?

SPEAKER 1: This is absolutely about children and about families, and I wouldn't dispute that at all. I think that the kids in Minnesota right now that are being raised by gay and lesbian parents should have the same sort of protections, the same sort of security in their family life that children of married parents can get through the convention of marriage. And if not through that, then through civil unions or domestic partner benefits or some other sort of recognition that they're currently deprived of.

Those studies that show that children are best off raised by two parents show exactly that. The studies do not show that a man and a woman married make any sort of difference. It's a question of whether kids are raised by two parents or by one parent. And I think, really, if we were supporting our families in Minnesota, whatever they look like, whether it's kids being raised by one parent or by their grandparents, I think there are lots of loving families in Minnesota that the state has an obligation to support.

SPEAKER 2: Proponents of this amendment raise the specter, very quickly, of polygamy. And they say that once this is allowed, once the definition of marriage is broadened, that there, then, will be challenges from people wanting to define it in much broader ways that are currently illegal and perhaps even largely socially unacceptable ways, such as polygamy. How do you respond to that?

SPEAKER 1: I think it's fearmongering, really, and it's a distraction from the issue. I don't think anybody believes we're going to be legalizing polygamy in Minnesota anytime soon or certainly beastiality. I find it offensive to have the loving relationships of a lot of Minnesotans equated with those sorts of things.

But I think it's fair to ask, where do you draw the line? I think that's really what our debate is here. It used to be that we drew the line in a very different place. That people of different races couldn't get married. And I'm sure we were told at that time that if a white man was allowed to marry a Black woman, pretty soon he'd be wanting to marry something else, some sort of animal. And that's hugely offensive, and people can see that today.

It's just as offensive, to many of us, I would say to most Minnesotans, to have gay and lesbian marriage equated with bestiality. I think it pushes a lot of very unpleasant buttons for people, and I wish that the other side would stop doing that because it's clearly not true. We draw the line for being married at a certain age. That doesn't mean we have to allow someone a year younger to get married. You pick a place, you draw the line. And right now, we're having a debate about whether that line is on one side or the other of same sex marriage.

SPEAKER 2: What is the worst thing that could happen if this constitutional amendment makes it to the ballot and then is approved, in your view?

SPEAKER 1: I think the worst thing that happens is, we, the responsible adults engaged in civic life in Minnesota, are telling other people, including kids, that gay and lesbian people in Minnesota aren't the equals of other people.

And that gives permission for a whole lot of things. It gives permission for discrimination. It gives permission for abuse. If someone's less human than you, why shouldn't you beat them up or engage in hate crimes against them? I don't. And I don't want to sound extremist, but it does make it seem like gay and lesbian people aren't as good as other people, and therefore it's OK to treat them like they're less human.

SPEAKER 2: And how does the definition of marriage in this way signal that as far as you're concerned?

SPEAKER 1: It says that gay and lesbian families aren't valued by the state, and are most sacred at our highest level of government in our state constitution, that they are not equal, they're not as good as other families.

SPEAKER 2: What do you think the biggest misunderstanding your political opposition has about gay couples and gay families and their objectives?

SPEAKER 1: I don't know what the biggest misunderstanding is. But the thing that confuses me the most about what appears to be their myths about gay and lesbian families is why they wouldn't want gay and lesbian couples to get married and have that sort of stability in their lives, be productive parts of a society like many gay and lesbian couples are, be able to raise kids, have that bond of marriage.

Which is an agreement with, not just your partner, but also with your society that says, we're going to live in a certain way, we're going to be responsible, we're going to pay our taxes, and keep up our yard, and raise our kids. And it seems like that's a pretty conservative thing to want to enter into that sort of arrangement. And I would hope that if they're pro-family, they would support that.

SPEAKER 2: Mr. Cooper, thanks for coming in today, and thank you for your views.

SPEAKER 1: Thanks for the time.

SPEAKER 2: C. Scott Cooper is a legislative lobbyist for OutFront Minnesota.