Minnesota’s Arizona-like anti-Hispanic immigration policing bill is backed by representatives from very white parts of the state. How white? Here’s one way to look at it based on 2000 census data.
The big blue bars represent the percentage of white folks living in each of the bill’s supporter’s districts (all rural Republicans). The red sections on top of the blue represent the percentage of non-white-non-Hispanics within each of the rep’s districts. It seems pretty safe to assume that this bill isn’t aimed at targeting black people, Native Americans, Asians, or Pacific Islanders.
The final slice, in gold, represents the percentage of Hispanic residents in each of the HF3830 supporter’s districts. On the high end, Ron Shimanski (R)’s District: 18A (Silver Lake) is 3.1% Hispanic, while Greg Davids (R) District: 31B has a mere 0.6% Hispanic population.
Here’s another way to look at it. Below is a map of the percentage of minorities by legislative district for the State of Minnesota:
Every single one of the co-authors of the Arizona-like immigration discrimination bill represents a district that is white on this map (less than 10% of their constituents are non-white).
Is this a case of fear of the unknown?
Or pandering to the fears of the unknown?
Imagine this scenario:
Recruiter: we think you’d be a great fit for (some job) for the State of Minnesota
Recruit: I agree that it’s a great fit for my skills. I’m looking forward to making the State of Minnesota a better place.
Recruiter: Did I mention that the State of Minnesota has a great benefits package that covers you and your entire family?
Recruit: I’m gay and in a long term relationship with my partner. We’d get married if we legally could.
Recruiter: Oh, sorry to hear that. It turns out that your life partner is not eligible for the benefits you receive since he has dick like you.
Recruit: I’m sorry to hear that too. I guess I’ll have to look elsewhere to support my family. Good luck finding a heterosexual candidate with the skills you know that I possess but won’t compensate at the same rate as a heterosexual who’s been married for one day to someone they met yesterday.
If you’re smart, highly skilled, and the best at what you do, I strongly suggest finding a job somewhere other than for the state of Minnesota under Governor Tim Pawlenty.
Domestic partner benefits are nixed
House and Senate DFLers bowed to the threat of a veto by Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Thursday, eliminating language in one of their major spending bills that would have allowed domestic partners, including same-sex partners, of state employees to be eligible for health care benefits.
As I read the article, it sounds like the GOP poisoned the bill by extending the proposed benefits from same sex couples to any people who happen to be living together. At that point it was killed.
Discrimination is bad business. Hire the best available candidate and compensate them equitably.
Mary Cheney’s pregnant. Congratulations, Ms. Cheney. I hope you and your long term non-legally bound partner the best of luck. I’m sure you realize that your partner will have no rights to your child, may not be able to visit you in the hospital during childbirth, may not receive custody of your child should you happen to die before your child turns 18, and probably wouldn’t receive life insurance benefits since you can’t get married due to the political positions taken by the people who elected your father.
What will life be like for the Vice President’s grandchild? Will he or she grow up in a world where his or her parents relationship is considered second class? Dick Cheney has stated that issues like gay marriage should be left up to states to decide. Will Mary Cheney and her partner continue to live in Virginia, or will they move their family (thus jobs and taxes) to a more gay-friendly state? While Cheney clearly has the resources to do so, is that the best option we have today for gay couples?
I stumbled across this snippet of illogic over at AmericaBlog:
Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, expressed empathy for the Cheney family but depicted the newly announced pregnancy as unwise.
“Just because you can conceive a child outside a one-woman, one-man marriage doesn’t mean it’s a good idea,” said. “Love can’t replace a mother and a father.”
It’s hard to find more ass-backwards than that. Can a mother and a father replace love? Based on Earll’s logic, Mary Cheney’s child should be taken from what would likely be a loving relationship in a stable lesbian partnership and given to a married hetrosexual couple.
Potential loophole. Should gay male couples get together with gay lesbian couples, have two legally binding male-female marriages, then go back to living their content gay lives?