How The DFL Can Avoid The “Overstep” Label on Gay Marriage

Posted on by

A popular post mortem for Minnesota Republicans being drummed out of office in 2012 is that “they overstepped on social issues, especially spending all their time trying to ban gay marriage, instead of focusing on the bread-and-butter issues.”

 Is the DFL Now Overstepping Too?

So, are DFLers now doing the exact same thing by pursuing legislation legalizing gay marriage?

The situations are not entirely analogous.  There are important differences between what the Republicans did on gay marriage, and what the DFL is doing:

  • NOT THE CONSTITUTION.  The DFL is making the change through the normal legislative process, not through constitutional micromanagement. Many Minnesotans, even some that weren’t wild about gay marriage, simply didn’t like the idea of playing  political games in the Constitution.
  • GIVING, NOT BANNING.  The DFL is proposing to GIVE a right, not ban one.  Banning a right felt mean-spirited to many.  Giving a right is an easier political sell. Not easy.  But easier.
  • POST-WIN GLOW.  A multi-million dollar election was held just a few months ago, and that election 1) educated Minnesotans on the issue, and changed a lot of minds and 2) led to a pro-gay marriage win, which provides political cover to proponents of gay marriage.  Consequently, it is now less credible to charge that the DFL is “out of touch with Minnesotans” for promoting gay marriage.

The Mushy Mandate

Still, the DFL does run the risk of being punished by 2014 swing voters for overstepping.   There is a simplistic appeal to the narrative “Minnesotans voted Republicans out of office because of their obsession with gay marriage, and now the DFL is doing the exact same thing.”  You can expect a lot of the news coverage to have that tone.

And in fact, it is a mistake for the DFL to assume that all 52.5% of Minnesotans who voted “no” in November 2012 want to legalize gay marriage.

Presumably, some who voted “no” in 2012 were essentially voting for the status quo, and in the status quo, gay marriage is illegal.  Others likely voted “no” because of process issues, such as they didn’t like using the Constitution for micromanagement.   Still others may have voted “no” as an anti-bully statement more than a pro-gay marriage statement.

Moreover, many of the 1,550,864 Minnesotans who voted “no” in 2012 won’t be coming back to the polls in the non-presidential 2014 elections, and legislators have to be worried about facing the smaller 2014 electorate.

Still, the 2012 vote “no” win is undoubtedly a mandate.  It is politically safer to legalize marriage now that it was before November 2012.   But it is a mushy mandate.

Avoiding  The “Overstep” Label

To decrease their chances of being slapped with the dreaded “overstep” label, the DFL needs to do three things:

  •  ACT QUICKLY.  First, they need to pass the gay marriage legislation swiftly and efficiently.  The perception that “the Legislature is spending all its time on divisive social issues” is always a compelling issue for swing voters.  So, DFL leaders need to pass gay marriage in a hurry, leaving ample time for other work, and other headlines.
  • MAKE HEADLINES ON NON-SOCIAL ISSUES.  Second, DFL leaders need to produce on other issues that are more important to swing voters.  If the GOP-controlled Legislature had passed a jobs bill, major tax reform, and education improvements, swing voters wouldn’t have been so troubled with their gay marriage focus.  The DFL needs to deliver headliner accomplishments on high priority issues, so they are not vulnerable to charges of “the only thing they accomplished was legalizing gay marriage, and that does nothing to help me.”
  • DON’T GO INTO OVERTIME.  Finally, the DFL needs to get its work done on time. If the session ends in a timely manner, it becomes more difficult to sell the “they spent all their time on gay marriage instead of their ‘real’ work.”  It’s difficult to overstate how much the missed deadlines and shutdowns irritate swing voters.

Legalizing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and it needs to happen.  But the DFL does need to mind the politics, because this is a politically perilous move.

– Loveland