A local politician recently got into hot water over comments she made that appeared to compare public assistance to feeding stray animals.  The person in question is not important nor is the course of the furor over her remarks.  The situation is similar to what is happening throughout our broken, leaderless democratic republic on a nearly constant basis.  A “talking point” that appeared clever was used as a substitute for rational policy discussion.

In the follow-up on the outrage the politician in question sent a guest editorial that deflected criticism through a long, rambling discussion about “leadership” and “compromise” in the legislature.  It occurred to me that very few people understand that “compromise” itself is not an end, but a means to achieve an end – consensus, the way work is done in our system.

Continue reading →

Minnesota voters will confront the issue in simple black letters on a white ballot this November. “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”  This “Marriage Amendment” is the most controversial of what is likely to be many ballot questions, and the sides are already gearing up for a fight.

In support of the Amendment there is “Minnesota for Marriage”, a coalition of groups that lobbied the Legislature to put the question on the ballot in the first place.  Their arguments are heartfelt, clearly defined, serious – and ultimately misplaced.  It is worth taking the time to refute their position carefully so that this issue can be defined by what it is – a Civil Rights issue.

Continue reading →