Today in Expecting More

[Content Note: Hostility to reproductive rights; homophobia; ableism.]

Early this year, marriage equality came to Minnesota, in large part because of the massive efforts of Minnesotans United for All Families and its affiliated PAC. It's now supporting pro-equality candidates.

The Star-Tribune [Minneapolis-Saint Paul]:
Republicans, including Sen. Branden Petersen and Rep. David FitzSimmons, returned home to blistering attacks from supporters and energized challengers eager to take them on. The National Organization for Marriage vowed to spend $500,000 to defeat any Republican who voted to legalize same-sex marriage. Minnesotans United formed a political-action group and vowed to defend them.
Minnesotans United argues that this is all there is to the story. However, it turns out that a lot of the candidates it is supporting have poor records on reproductive healthcare. The Minnesota Chapter of the National Organization of Women is calling them on it:
Earlier this summer, MN United PAC released the "Minnesota 15" — a list of 15 legislators who voted in favor of gay marriage and could now be vulnerable in the next election. That includes five Republicans and 10 rural House Democrats. MN United PAC has been seeking donations to support their campaigns for reelection since session ended, but MN NOW said 11 out of those 15 legislators did not did not receive 100 percent ratings on a pro-choice voting report card.

...Project 515 executive director Ann Kaner-Roth, who is leading fundraising and campagin efforts for MN United PAC, said their coalition has always been "laser focused" on gay marriage.
Some folks with ties to Minnesotans United have been not-so-subtle in their [CN: ableism] response to MN NOW. Which is definitely neat, in that as a woman in a same-sex marriage, I definitely love it when pro same-sex marriage supporters attack pro-woman groups.

Your organization is named Minnesotans United For All Families (with an implied emphasis on "All"). Whoops!

In case anyone out there needs any convincing of why it's a shitty idea to support anti-choice candidates, here's a few talking points:

• Plenty of LGBT folks need access to reproductive healthcare.

• There are a lot of folks that won't ever vote for anti-choice candidates (see above). I "get" the argument that all the options in rural areas, but a) we should expect more and b) BULLSHIT, maybe you folks don't leave Minneapolis much, but there are plenty of pro-choice folks in the suburbs and rural Minnesota. I used to be one.

• Coalition building is pretty important. It's going to be pretty awkward when gay and lesbian folks (I'm not sure how much Minnesotans United cares about bi and trans* people) have some non-marriage issue that they need allies on and you need NOW's help unseating the politicians you helped elect. Likewise, I've heard the argument that MN NOW didn't do much for marriage equality (and I believe it), but, um, why would they given that you don't give two shits about their agenda/a good portion of Minnesotans' bodily autonomy.

• You know how a lot of folks don't really like Dan Savage? That.

• I wonder (I actually don't wonder) if any of these candidates support policies that harm LGBT people and potential allies. Like, do any of them support racist and classist public school financing formulas? That might not be good for a lot of gay and lesbian students, or children of same-sex couples.

Feel free to use the comments to discuss these or any other reason for not financing the campaigns of anti-choice politicians.

In closing, let me just paraphrase Flavia Dzodan*: "My activism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit."


*You know Flavia's great, right? You should probably pay attention to some of the stuff she says above and beyond that oft-quoted remark.

Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.

blog comments powered by Disqus