MI: Opinion--The wrong kind of message

Link: The Morning Sun
by Eric Baerren, Sun Columnist

Excerpt:

Many of us remember 2004 as the year that presidential politics reached its low point. It was the year that the Swift Boat vets made the argument that it was more patriotic to avoid combat than it was to volunteer for it. It was also the year of Proposal 2.

Proposal 2 was the amendment to the state constitution that legally defined marriage as between a man and a woman. At the time, the argument was forwarded that it was an entirely pointless amendment, since state law already defined marriage. Undeterred, supporters first tried to get the thing through the state Legislature, and then took the opportunity to put it on the November ballot, a nice little wedge issue that nearly carried the state for George Bush.

You might, if your memory allows the recall of events from that period, that supporters of the ballot proposal said they weren’t concerned with same-sex partner benefits, but ensuring the sanctity of marriage. At a time with divorce rates hovering at the 50 percent mark, the real danger to marriage was the prospect that how it is represented in civic society might be broadened.

[...]

Here is the thing that concerns me. The state is currently trying to right its ship, economically speaking. It is hoping to become a center for research and development in clean energy and newer, more efficient automobiles. As a citizen of this state with a vested interest (my vested interest is currently in kindergarten), I hope that this state can succeed in doing that.

To do that, the state needs to do more than simply offer incentives to businesses to locate here. It also needs to recruit the raw materials necessary to make a go of it. That means attracting young, intelligent, educated, creative thinkers who will provide the chief raw materials - smarts - to make this happen.

That means convincing those same people that Michigan is preferable a place to live in than, say, Florida or California where people aren’t bundled up like the Michelin Man for half the year. It’s not an argument that we can win in terms of weather, so it’s something we need to win in other terms.

This brings us back to Proposal 2. We aren’t exactly in a position these days to be choosy about who helps us turn the state’s economy around. Sending a message that Michigan is a state that embraces intolerance not only turns away the object of our intolerance, which is bad enough, but also those who are sympathetic to them. Those happen to be the very same young, educated, creative thinkers who we think are necessary to provide the raw materials a knowledge-based economy requires.

The sad thing about Proposal 2 - well, one of the many sad things - is that ultimately it represents an attempt to hold back a river with a pair of hands. Society is changing, and the younger you are, the more likely you are going to be accepting of homosexuality. Eventually, the constitutional amendment that gave us Proposal 2 will wither, probably killed by federal action. The chance to do something creative - address people’s concerns about the institution of marriage while also expanding human liberty - will have passed. And, it won’t be the judiciary who comes off as arrogant; but those people who sought to address the problem by stuffing it back into the closet. They will also come off looking petty, small-minded and ultimately self-defeating.

Eric Baerren is a Morning Sun columnist. He can be found on the Internet at www.michiganliberal.com and www.baerrenblog.blogspot.com and can be reached at ebaerren@gmail.com

[jw]