A no vote for the Vote Yes billboard

Vote Yes Billboard., a photo by Urban Camper. on Flickr.

A Vote Yes on the Marriage Amendment in the Uptown area of Minneapolis has become the victim of an apparent "No" vote in the form of a barrage of pink paint spattered across the billboard.

The Minnesota Marriage amendment debate - Vote No

With the election season getting extra dirty and divisive now that we are a mere month away form election day, I felt the need after seeing one too many divisive political ads and obnoxious lawn signs to share with you my one long-winded stance on politics this year - let's see what my thoughts are on the "One Man, One Woman" Minnesota Marriage Amendment.

I am so grateful that our City Council voted, overwhelmingly, not to publicize our mayor's (and others) opposition to the marriage amendment! I happen to agree with the marriage amendment wholeheartedly and will vote a resounding "yes". My city does not speak for me, nor should they put the entire Shakopee community under only one political umbrella.

So by the logic of commenter "mary" it's not right for a city government to make a basically non-binding vote resulting in a statement that its council members agree or disagree with a proposed constitutional amendment but it is right for a slim majority of already biased voters whose own preconceived notions about what the "One Man, One Woman" type marriage amendment means to slam the door shut for future generations to (wisely) repeal a bigoted constitutional amendment that strips away the rights of a few out of fear, misunderstanding and a lack of willingness to accept that which you don't understand or approve of (never mind that Minnesota already has a law on the books banning same sex marriage, this constitutional amendment would simply show future generations that their ancestors were flat out hateful bigots incapable of understanding something they are unfamiliar with).

I have seen hundreds of opinions spread across just as many online venues in the comments of how the "Vote No" side of this proposed Minnesota marriage amendment would lead to people marrying children, incestual relationships and people marrying dogs. Those are some of the most uninformed people whose only purpose on this Earth in the area of political discourse is to fear monger. A dog cannot consent to any sort of sexual relationship with a human, it is still illegal to have sexual relationships with a minor and incest is legally and morally wrong as well so those arguments are entirely null and void and only serve as a distraction from the real issue - same sex marriage.

While I doubt I will see same sex marriage (especially using the term "marriage") fully legalized in Minnesota within the next twenty years because money talks and with the strong backing of the Catholic church as they ask their parishioners to fund huge ad buys supporting the Minnesota marriage amendment, the voice of acceptance (Vote No) has a much harder time being heard.

Shakopee city councilor Jay Whiting seems to have the best statement on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment which was discussed at a recent Shakopee City Council meeting (read it here)

But the real debate here (to me, at least) is whether or not a state should ever get to decide who can or cannot do something which is already legal for a majority simply because they are a supposed minority. Are gay and lesbian Minnesotans any different in any areas of their lives outside of their sexual preference? Would it be acceptable to deny marriage rights to your African-American neighbor simply because they are African-American? Should your neighbors who secretly enjoy the fun they have in using their sex swing not be allowed to marry because of how they live their lives in their bedroom?

Maybe if you're one of those people who are uncomfortable with the behavior of a gay or lesbian couple you should examine how you or your straight friends behaved as teenagers. I bet you at least knew of that couple that was always making out in public. There are people who were offended or made uncomfortable by that behavior but it didn't end in a constitutional amendment barring public neckers from getting married. Why should gay and lesbian couples be treated any differently?

If it boils down to marriage being for couples who love each other, thing about that fact that just over half of all marriages end in divorce. Is there any sanctity left in marriage after looking at that statistic alone? Is it wrong that gay marriage, were it to ever be legalized instead of potentially banned twice as it would be if this amendment passes, could be seen as a huge economic stimulus? Marriages cost money. There's a cake to buy and decorate, flowers, a photographer, suits, tuxes, dresses, gifts, doves to release, a horse-drawn carriage, a reception with a dinner and a dance and either a band or a DJ. The money spent at a wedding alone makes the attempt to doubly ban same sex marriage in Minnesota seem un-capitalistic. Just remember that if you vote yes on the Minnesota marriage amendment that you are keeping people apart who truly love each other. You are keeping loving couples from property rights in the event of death. You are keeping loving couples in a supposedly accepting state (Minnesota) from being able to easily make important life and death medical decisions in times of crisis. And if you're thinking that marriage leads to paying fewer taxes, you need to go back and look at your income tax returns because there's no such thing as a tax break for being a married couple.

In the end, all that both the Minnesota Marriage Amendment proposal and the Voted I.D. proposal have done is to drive a deeper wedge between political parties in Minnesota. Two votes no just make sense this November.

Senator Al DeKruif, bigot and hypocrite

Below is a letter I sent to my Minnesota state senator on May 12, 2011 when I was first extremely riled up at the proposal to place a constitutional ban to outlaw gay marriage on the ballot for the 2012 election. I've never been one to be happy with politics but to see a question regarding the rights of a minority taken up by the increasingly backwards thinking Minnesota GOP makes me nothing short of angry.

Dear Senator DeKruif,

I am taking time to write to you today regarding your recent vote on the bill that places a constitutional question on the 2012 ballot banning same-sex marriage.

I find it appalling that the Minnesota Senate, yourself included, feel it to be necessary to propose a constitutional amendment for an act -- same-sex marriage, civil unions, etc. -- which itself is already not legally recognized in the state of Minnesota. It boggles my mind that a fellow citizen of outstate Minnesota would feel that such an amendment is necessary in a state which seems to pride itself on being forward thinking and accepting of our neighbors. Even voting to allow such a proposal to move forward seems to be both backward thinking and borderline bigoted in nature.

In a time when our state is facing a fiscal crisis, high unemployment, drastic cuts to education and the continuing extinction of the middle class, I am forced to wonder what the logic is behind such a divisive bill being introduced -- much less allowed to proceed forward and land in the hands of voters. Where are the priorities? Is this act simply pandering to the hard core conservative base? Is it about protecting the sanctity of marriage -- so sacred that approximately 50% of "traditional" marriages end in divorce? This sort of rubbish is what gives elected officials like yourself a bad name and makes me wonder what the priorities of government truly are. Shouldn't we be protecting the rights of individuals instead of ensuring that the future rights of a minority of Minnesotans are never allowed to see the light of day?

I hope that further issues such as this one are swiftly shot down in favor of actually fixing our state's shortcomings in education, transit and infrastructure. Again, a potential constitutional amendment prohibiting an act which is already not recognized is redundant and sets our state -- a culturally progressive shining star of the country -- back a number of decades.

Thank you for your time,

[Contact Information redacted]

Even more disgusting to me is that nine days has passed without so much as an automated reply acknowledging the receipt of my letter by a man whose wages my taxes pay. I guess that's what happens when a liar who ran on a platform of job creation votes to allow a question on the ballot which only further strips the rights of a few. Maybe Minnesota State Senator Al DeKruif can add hypocrite to his platform as well.

Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver are so done

From bodybuilder to actor to governor to divorcee -- that's the string of landmarks for Austrian import Arnold Schwarzenegger who is splitting from his Kennedy-related Maria Shriver. What is more shocking that the divorce of a relative power couple living in California is the factt hat they were married for a whopping 25 years.

I'm not a fan of either of the two -- Arnold Schwarzenegger is only a borderline OK actor and while he definitely hasn't taken himself too seriously (remember "Twins"?) he seems to have almost no direction in his life as of late. A venture in to politics from an immigrant actor just screams "look at me -- look at what I'm doing now!" He had nowhere else he could have gone after being governor due to the fact that he's an immigrant. His movie career is basically done unless the "Terminator" franchise comes back for another installment. And now with his divorce looming, his future seems to be bleak.

Maria Shriver, too, seems to come to the end of her road in the public eye. I remember her having some bit reporting role for NBC about 20 years ago and that alone was kind of the pinnacle of her career. What has she done since then? I'm sure she was involved in some charitable work along the way because what else do Kennedy heirs do after their time in the limelight has faded? But what will she do now? Will she end up -- jacked-up face and all -- anchoring the 10 PM Saturday evening news on the sixth-rated TV station in Sacramento, California? Will she marry tattooed Nazi Jesse James and take up a career in the adult film industry? Doubtful on both accounts. She'll probably just go away like every has-been should which would be refreshing to see.

The best part about this non-story is that it will fade in a day and we can get back to talking about how much of a spoiled brat Justin Bieber is and hearing endless ploys for the taxpayers of Minnesota to fund a Vikings stadium.

The best argument ever for gay marriage

After last week's elections across the country, rumors are swirling that the new Republican majority's number one priority is the move forward on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. That's their number one priority? Never mind that millions of people are losing their homes. Forget that the nation's infrastructure is falling apart. Let's not even mention that America is teetering on the brink of lising its superpower status because we've shipped all of our manufacturing and technical jobs overseas but let's ban that gay marriage because it makes a few old white guys uncomfortable -- possibly uncomfortable about their own closeted homosexual feelings. But, hey, let's take away something from a few that's widely accepted for the majority. Let's make an unfortunately discriminated few feel even less accepted. Yeah, that's the ticket.

The dumbasses who want to ban gay marriage are forgetting one vastly important thing. Weddings are a huge expenditure and the more you encourage weddings of any sort, the more the economy as a whole benefits. Think of weddings as the best for of economic stimulus ever. It all starts with the wedding license. That expenditure -- in the grand scheme of things -- is minimal but it lines the goverment coffers and keeps government employees working. That's about $35. The next step is lining up a venue for the ceremony. Some of thsoe venues are free but some cost money. More money in to the economy there. Then you need to clothe the wedding party. Should it be guys or gals, those clothes cost money. A cheap tux costs just over a hundred dollars to rent and a cheap bridesmaid dress runs a minimum of $150. Multiply that by the number in the wedding party and you've got even more economic stimulus happening. But it doesn't stop there. You may employ a wedding planner, you'll need those little bottles of bubbles to blow as the happy couple runs to their vehicle of choice which, if it's a limousine or horse-drawn carriage, is another expenditure which keeps businesses running and people employed. And don't forget about the releasing of doves. Another excellent economic stimulus.

Then, of course, is the wedding reception. Some people go small but others go big. You have to rent a venue, feed the sometimes hundreds of guests and provide entertainment. The reception can run from $5000-$10000 dollars on the low end. That amount of spending is nothing to sneeze at.

You'll also want to chronicle the events of the day so you'll need aphotographer and a decent photographer can run $1000-$10000. But the future is video and the future is now. Better get a videographer to remember the day. Look at that -- even more money paid out.

It's not just the happy couple spending money, guests at the wedding traditionally bring gifts. Figure that each couple attending the wedding will spend $50-$100 on a gift for the happy couple. Many of these guests are also from out of town so they'll need a hotel for a night or two. That's easily $100 per night.

But we aren't done yet. Nobody gets married without planning a honeymoon. Plane tickets to someplace fun or romantic, a hotel for about a week and dining and activities could run about $3000 on the low end.

All told, by my rudimentary math, a wedding stimulates the economy to the tune of $85,000. My math may not be exactly accurate but you get the picture. Weddings are big money and banning gay marriage or whatever you politically correct folks want to call it is flat out stupid. Weddings = economic stimulus and if the new Republican majority of elected representatives wants to ban gay marriage they obviously hate America and want our country to fail.

April Fools of years gone by

Blah, blah, blah. Today's April 1st. More commonly known as April Fools Day. It's some sort of free pass where you can play lame practical jokes on your boss and co-workers. You can call your wife, screaming, and tell her that you were just in a terrible accident and veer off into a bunch of jibberish and convince her that you're dying. You know, fun shit like that.

I should know because one year I convinced my old lady that I had some sort of terrible infection, apologized profusely, and asked her what it meant if it burned when I peed and my pee smelled like rotten ham. She didn't laugh.

I also, a few years ago, busted out that key command in Microsoft Windows that rotates the screen. My boss arrived to find the display on her monitor upside down. A year before that I stole the arms from her chair. Another year I taped down the hang-up button (or whatever it's called) on her phone so when she picked it up to retrieve her messages there was no dial tone.

But I'm beyond that. I even pulled a few tricks here on my blog including me angrily quitting blogging, discussed how we'd soon be homeless, had people fire off guesses about a huge November event and even our impending divorce. (Wow, my pranks are rather mean) But not this year.

This yea is all business as usual everywhere including my photo blog - MinnPics. Just be a good citizen and spread the word.

An epic tale about curtains

Once upon a time, I fell victim to the greatest of all duties. In some circles (mainly mine) it is referred to as "The Husband Errand".

It started simply enough. It was like any other wintry Sunday afternoon except that we were in Mankato for some sort of family business. We had recently purchased our house and were in the process of putting some pearls on the pig. Highest on the list were some real bedroom curtains which would keep the rising sun at bay and let this crotchety old bastard sleep in past TooDamnEarly:30.

We struck gold at Mankato's Target store. (You know, the one attached to River Hills Mall). On clearance was a package of thick, luxurious, light-blocking burgundy panels for the affordable sum of about 10 bucks. This seemed like the perfect decision and we promptly bought the package knowing that surely the Target store a couple miles from my office in the 'burbs would have piles of these curtains in stock and on clearance too. My schedule for Monday afternoon now included a quick stop at Target to adorn the other two bedroom windows and we'd be set.

Only it didn't end that easily.

I began my epic journey that cold Monday afternoon in January by stopping at my preferred Target and perusing the area known for having curtains and scoured the clearance areas only to strike out. "Fine," I said, "I'll just make a quick run over Savage way and be done with this."

A few minutes later, I pulled into the parking lot of the Savage Super Target and hopped a tram to the back of the store knowing that this would be the end and I could make my way home. Ten minutes later, I walked out the door of that Target and to my car. I left empty handed and only mildly angry. My next destination was the Super Target in Chaska.

After slowly crawling through snarled traffic in the small downtown area of Chaska, I continued northward to the Target store where I knew these curtains were waiting for me in the clearance area of the home interiors department. With darkness approaching (it was, after all, almost 5 PM), I pulled in to the parking lot and sprinted to the store. Nobody was going to beat me to the punch for this husband errand. I would be leaving in five minutes with a bag full of curtains and be on my way home to a delicious beef roast.

The only problem with my hope-filled thoughts is that I wouldn't be going home to that beef roast. Instead I would go on to strike out yet again at both the Chanhassen and Eden Prairie Target stores and be on my way to the Edina Target location where I was told that, based on the receipt from the Mankato store, there were in fact THREE packages of these luxurious curtains just waiting for me.

After sitting on Interstate 494 for just long enough to make me even angrier and seeing the clock approach 6:30 PM, my destination was in sight. The depressing Edina Target location was a sight for my weary eyes and my hungry stomach. I found the clearance area in the husband errand department and rummaged through what seemed like hundreds of packages of curtains. The fucking motherlode, I thought. The only problem was that not one single package contained anything remotely close to burgundy. I checked one more time with the customer service counter at the hoity-toity Target locale and was told that two packages remained at the Bloomington store.

Down France Ave., back on Interstate 494 to yet another bullseye which I knew would only disappoint me. Only I knew that Target would not best me on this frigid Monday evening. It was after 7 PM and this husband errand would not end without the prize in hand.

At a full sprint, I rand through the parking lot. I was hopeful but angry, disappointed but optimistic and doubtful all at the same time. I was conflicted about the logic behind this errand. I had already spent three hours navigating the south metro of the Twin Cities for 20 bucks worth of curtains. Was this what had become of my once exciting life?

Who cares? I was a man on a mission. A mission so we'd be able to sleep past Stupid O'Clock in the AM. I navigated my way through the hopeless void known as Target of Bloomington. Skeptical in my outlook, I dug through the end caps looking for the two packages of curtains that had been promosed to me by nearly every Target store in the south metro. My shoulders slumped as I eliminated more and more shelves. Defeat was setting in.

Then it happened. Shoved completely to the back of the bottom shelf, I found two packages of the curtains which had set me on this seemingly pointless trek. Quickly, I retreated to the checkouts, grabbed a 20 oz. bottle of Coke and left the store to make my way home to some luke warm beef roast whose time had come two hours earlier.

Don't get me wrong, those curtains are great but after all that hassle, they are staying on those windows for the next 50 years. I have towonder if I'm alone in participating in insanity like this or am I a complete sucker?

It's all about the lovin'

Sex. It's a widely known fact that most people engage in it at some point during their existence. It is mystifying, too, why so many religions demonize it if it were to occur outside the sanctity of marriage.

I guess that religion exists to keep our so-called animal instincts in check. If it weren't for organized religion stifling our deep-seated desire to fornicate with each and every moderately attractive person of the opposite sex we saw, the world would be a very different place. Hell, some would say that we'd be animals but in actuality we are. I am fairly certain that we didn't just sprout from a seed, evolution took us to a higher plain -- higher than those animals who randomly jump those of the opposite sex (and sometimes of the same sex) because they are feeling like doing so.

That's why it mystified sex columnist Dan Savage as the high-brow Slate magazine took a look at how basically ignorant people are about sex and how elements of it have been stifled, not just by religion but by our political cultures who try to dictate more than they need to in the lives of those they represent. (Note that they represent us, not control us).

The fact that in a world where violence in film and on television is a common occurance and the government is still in fear of something as simple as same sex unions is absurd. I don't think that seeing either "atrocity" in person or film is going to sway a normally sane individual to commit either act. People, living of their own free will, will do what is best for themselves and those around them. I know for sure that I wouldn't go out and shack up with a gay man just because I saw it in a movie or because it was legal. Partly because I'm not gay but if a spectacular job opened up with Twin Cities gay magazine "Lavendar" I'd have no problem signing on because I am not fearful of "the gays" and I am who I am. I do what's best for myself and those around me first and foremost.

I guess I am thankful that our government and religions aren't more close-minded than they already are. I am not for all-out anarchy but the will of the people should be first and foremost, not the wishes of a select few who can't even comprehend that same-sex unions aren't a threat (well anymore than girls who wear the phrase "juicy" across their ass are a threat to teen boys).