Senator Tim Johnson has spared South Dakota the embarassment of having the last Democratic Senator who supports marriage discrimination against non-heterosexuals:
After lengthy consideration, my views have evolved sufficiently to support marriage equality legislation. This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets; it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom [Senator Tim Johnson, press release, 2013.04.08].
With a tip of the hat to Ken Santema (Ken! write more!), this evolution makes Senator Johnson a Libertarian:
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships [Libertarian Party Platform, Plank 1.3, as adopted May 2012].
The state Democratic Party welcomes Senator Johnson's safely timed political evolution, as well as that of his North Dakota counterpart Heidi Heitkamp:
Last week, our McGovern Day speaker, Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, announced her support for marriage equality. This week, our very own Senator Tim Johnson joined Senator Heitkamp, thousands of South Dakotans, and millions of Americans in advancing the cause of equality for all.
We have a lot to be proud of as Democrats at this year’s McGovern Day on Saturday, April 20. Join us in recognizing the hard work Democrats put in and the bold stances we make in red states to advance equality everywhere by supporting your South Dakota Democrats at McGovern Day [SDDP blog post, 2013.04.09].
I hope Senator Johnson will take retirement as his cue to become a liberal lion on other important issues, like perhaps dropping the pro-corporate baloney and evolving to oppose Keystone XL. Of course, he could secure his legacy simply by continuing to get stuff done, as Dr. Newquist reminds us he's doing for Indian Country.
And for you devotees of inside baseball, spit this into your speculation bucket: maybe Senator Johnson's announcement is more than just good conscience. Maybe he's signaling to all South Dakota Dems that we don't have to be afraid to run as true progressives. Maybe he's staking out ground for his son Brendan to run as the kind of progressive who can stir excitement from out-state donors eager to take South Dakota back. Maybe he's signaling that if Stephanie Herseth Sandlin wants to compete for a Democratic nomination, she'll have to evolve on gay marriage as well.
(The last three Senate Dems waiting to join the 21st century: Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.)
I am so moved by his outpouring of support.
It really is nice to know he has sufficiently evolved. :) :)
Glad you pointed out this is the Libertarian view. I've found them to be generally AWOL on the social issues despite their harping on fidelity to the Republican Party Platform. Their stance here reveals them to be RINOs too.
Let's look ahead at marriage evolution. What's next? Gay couple infertility health coverage where taxpayers foot the bill for IVF and surrogacy? We are fools if we think marriage evolution stops at gay marriage. Who then are we to say this or that can't marry what or who they love?
Religious liberty will be a casualty of marriage evolution as it becomes discriminatory and prosecutable for a guy like me to only promote and perform traditional weddings.
Disagreement isn't hate. It's not hate for me to love only what God loves. We already have marriage equality. I have the same rights as a gay person. I can't marry anyone I love, neither can they. We deny marriage to lots of people, not just gays.
Moral decline has historically precipitated the decline of civilizations. In light of that, looking ahead, what side of history is Sen. Johnson now on?
Glad you got that off your chest, Rev. Hickey? Now go wash your hands.
Did you vote to end the statute of limitations on child abuse cases, too?
Moral decay: what a sanctimonious ass.
pass the collection plate, judas.
Is the power on at your house today, Rep. Hickey? Watch out for fallen wires.
Montana GOP House moves to strike homophobic statutes:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_ba5827a4-1533-5e3d-8f75-8edfeea34ea5.html
Rev. Hickey,
Your concern that "[r]eligious liberty will be a casualty of marriage evolution as it becomes discriminatory and prosecutable for a guy like me to only promote and perform traditional weddings" seems a bit hyperbolic and too reliant on the slippery slope analogy.
For the purposes of debate, I'll accept the concern as real. I would suggest that part of the problem comes from the Republican party emphasizing the 2nd amendment at the expense of all others and expanding the security state to make the 4th amendment virtually meaningless.
The 1st amendment should cover speech, religious practice, and peaceable assembly. I welcome Republicans such as yourself to the effort to protect all civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights not just the second amendment.
In my opinion allowing civil unions would have been entirely sufficient. As far as law more evolved than marriage, and better so people could do as they wish within their belief system, and if they attend church, let the church and their position on marriage reflect that. Live and let live.
Gay people want all the boring things married people take for granted: recognition of spouse for legal reasons, insurance, and other protections for financial planning.
Sometimes I think what really scares homophobic people are how similar gay people are to themselves rather than any big differences.
if marriage does keep evolving, civil unions for all would be a logical next step.
Rev. Hickey, what part of "This position doesn't require any religious denomination to alter any of its tenets" is unclear to you?
MTLEG just voted to repeal the state's sodomy laws.
"if marriage does keep evolving, civil unions for all would be a logical next step."
This is logical immediately. Leave marriage ritural to churches. Cleanly separate church ritual from government to the benefit of both. Of course doing that removes this fear-generating issue as a replacement for discussion of significant issues.
@Steve Hickey, are you saying one has to be a libertarian in order to call a liberal Republican a RINO?
Rep. Hickey's argument sounds like one they used to defend laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites in the '50s and prior.
Cory - can the Senator assure me that we won't have a new protected class of people in a short amount of time once the govt gives the green light to gays? No. That means what has happened elsewhere will happen here. It's now a hate crime in Canada to preach Romans 1.
Conservative: huh? A RINO is a republican in name only and that fits liberal republicans and libertarian republicans the same. It has always humored me that the libertarians (friends of Ron Paul) are in our party holding the liberal republicans feet to the fire. As I tried to point out above... they aren't very faithful to the party platform either.
I see a couple of posts down that Rep. Hickey is one of those whose word and name don't mean much. He signed the Grover Norquist taxpayer protection pledge to "Oppose and vote against any and all attempts to raise taxes." then he voted for a bill that raised school tax levies.
Moral decline indeed. You should be focusing on rebuilding your own integrity right now rather than fretting that others will have the same marriage rights you now enjoy.
["conservative", check your e-mail. I want to know you're not a sockpuppet.]
Better take Kal Lis's advice, Steve, and tell your party to fight as hard for the 1st and 4th Amendments as it does the 2nd. Actually, fight harder: the 1st Amendment protects your religious freedom better than a gun ever will.
Rev. Hickey,
Neither Canada nor Britain has the 1st Amendment protections that U.S. has
Darn it, R! Don't you understand it would be a lot easier for all of us to keep our promises if gay people would just quit falling in love?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg6Jrsjq7zw
Rev. Hickey,
You mean to tell me that "moral decline" is loving someone? Or, in other words, as long as this loving is not documented by the State then it is not a part of the "moral decline" which you allege?.... Do I have you right?....Well definitely "Right."
Steve,
LGBT members do not have the same rights as you. The difference is that they can be fired in SD for being gay. Do you think that gays choose that lifestyle? Who in their right mind what want to be discriminated against on a daily basis?
Thank you Senator Tim Johnson!
I've never really understood this issue. If a church doesn't want to marry gays I completely understand that stance. But its contract law, marriage is a contract, contracts as far as I know are signed ordeals between two consenting adults. If by having that contract you are entitled to federal benefits I don't think they can be denied.
" it simply forbids government from discrimination regarding who can marry whom" It is so nice to see so many people agreeing with the new position of Senator Johnson's "evolution". It appears the Senator believes one should be able to marry whomever he/she wants. In this statement the Senator indicates there is no reason why we should forbid a son to marry his dad if they truly love each other. Or brother and sister. Or Mother and daughter. Or daughter and father for that matter. There is a reason for definitions. Do you have any problem with these scenarios? If so, why are you willing to discriminate against a certain group of people? What kind of hater are you?
I sorry but to me the idea of two men or two women wanting to marry each other is simply ABSURD regardless of any religious or social equality view on the manner. Yes there still are some us who hold this antiquated point of view. Does anyone really look at their young children and imagine them growing up to be gay?
Also there is plenty of sociological research out there on the high percentage of gay relationships which are secretly open and the massive number of sexual partners for the average gay male for anyone who thinks there is no difference between straight and gay. You people need to wake up.
Discrimination and a chilling effect on the First Amendment rights of a minority segment of the US population is at the core of repealing DOMA. Expect South Dakota's stupid law affirming it to die in the dustbin of Barnes family genetics.
Oh, and 'Archer?' i am hetero and have had more partners than all the commenters in this thread combined.
Next: cannabis rights.
Ok Archer, being gay is more difficult than being straight, so a parent wouldn't wish that for their kids, but they are gonna be what they are regardless. The lesbians I know (remember they're women) say the idea of open relationships is very strange. It seems odd to me too, but some gay men (let's remember they're men) do choose to have sex outside of what they still see as a committed relationship. Whatever percentage that is varies a lot depending on the research. There's just a difference in the sexes (which is reflected in straight relationships too) as well as gay men not having a legitimate way to live their lives. There are still way too many closeted gay people, which as you might guess, don't have healthy ways of looking at sex.
I do agree with one thing Mr Hickey has to say:
"Glad you pointed out this is the Libertarian view. I've found them to be generally AWOL on the social issues..."
I really wish the libertarian and the 'keep government outa my life' portions of the Republican Party would speak up more on social issues. If they did, perhaps the Republican Party would be able to embrace more young members. However a social stance of non-inclusion makes it hard for youth to follow the Republican Platform.