Paul Koering, Minnesota State Senator and openly gay Republican, told KLKS radio that he's against The Marriage and Family Protection Act. That legislation would allow same sex couples to marry in Minnesota. His reason for saying no? Because other issues like the state's budget deficit should be the focus, not gay rights.
To his credit, Koering has been open about his sexuality since 2005 after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and same sex marriage. But since then he's been very cautious about pushing for gay rights.
In his interview with Raw Story he says, “I think some of the gay activists will be upset with me for this, but sometimes I think an agenda is pushed so far and so fast that people have no alternative but to push back, and I think that sometimes you have to move slowly.”
Too far, too fast, too hard? From the looks of Koering, I thought he'd have plenty of cushion for the pushin'.
– Bumble Bee
Someone has an opinion you don’t like, so you respond with a derisive comment about his appearance( or was it his sex life?)? Real mature, Bee.
Poor Bee. You can’t win for losing. Personally, I thought the last comment was funny. And let’s face it – voting no for equality because you want to discuss the deficit instead? If that isn’t a dodge, what is? He’s against the act because he thinks that’s what voters want, not because he thinks it’s right or wrong.
take away the opposite sex marriges too if you want to focus on saving money for the state… >.>
Was it necessary to make reference to his appearance? Get a life….not all gays are 6’1″ 170 taned, blue eyed, blond hair. Whatever happened to diversity?
Two thoughts.
First – pushing for legal marriage equality at a point when the voters aren’t ready to embrace it, only results in travesties like Proposition 8, where voters overrule the court and enshrine the ban in the state constitution – making our work that much harder. We got rid of state sodomy laws because the US Supreme Court recognized a growing consensus around the country that private sex acts were not a criminal issue. If the court applied that standard today, they’d clearly have to rule that there’s no right to marriage, because the vast majority of the states have imposed a constitutional ban on it.
Second… E-man was right. The comment about Koering’s weight was on par with a third-grader calling a kid “queer” because he has to wear glasses. Sheesh… I realize this site isn’t run by the New York Times but if you want to have ANY pretense to integrity, grow up.
I think what he means is that he fears for his seat should he make this an issue.
He’s clearly sensitive about his wallet.