Gay GOP Minnesota Lawmaker Koering Says No to Gay Rights Bill
Minnesota gay Republican lawmaker Paul Koering says he will not vote for a marriage equality bill which was reportedly "gaining traction" and attracting sponsors in the state senate last week.
The Minnesota Independent reports: "State Sen. Paul Koering, R-Fort Ripley, told KLKS on Friday that he will not vote for the Marriage and Family Protection Act, a bill that would make Minnesota’s marriage laws gender-neutral, allowing same-sex couples many of the rights currently denied by Minnesota statute. Koering, who is gay and a Republican, said he would vote against it because the state faces bigger problems."
The paper adds: "Koering came out in 2005 after voting against a constitutional amendment to ban civil unions and same-sex marriage pushed by then-State Sen. Michele Bachmann. He is one of very few openly gay elected Republicans in the United States and was re-elected by his conservative Brainerd-area constituents in 2006, despite a hard push by religious right activists to defeat him for his votes on gay rights."
Last week the bill had 5 sponsors, and 23 co-sponsors.
As part of Freedom to Marry week, hundreds of activists rallied at the state capitol in Minnesota last week in support of the Marriage and Family Protection Act. Openly gay Minnesota state senator Scott Dibble spoke at the rally. Watch his speech at the rally, AFTER THE JUMP...
what a douchebag.
thanks for posting his email address. please give him a piece of your mind everyone.
Posted by: ryan | Feb 18, 2009 12:56:53 PM
Check out his website biography at
http://paulkoering.com/biography/index.html
Single, Roman Catholic? Nothing about his being gay even though he came out in 2005. I just do not understand this open self loathing attitude. I will pray for him to change his backwards views on gun control, abortion and equality for all people.
Posted by: dctopman | Feb 18, 2009 1:07:57 PM
I'm at a complete loss as I read this story. How can a gay person deny his own? How does equality limit his work on "more important issues?" Someone in the MN Republican party has dirt on this guy, that's the only reason I can see that he'd do a complete turnaround from his 2005 position.
Posted by: JerzeeMike | Feb 18, 2009 1:40:00 PM
The level of hypocrisy that Sen. Koering is displaying here is astonishing. You CANNOT be a gay man and not vote for a marriage equality bill. Saying "the state faces bigger problems" as a valid reason to vote 'no' is ludicrous and insulting. The ONLY reason that someone in his position would vote no is to save his job. Period.
This pretty much sums up the concept of a gay Republican. I guess they must all have short term memories. From what I recall, President Bush tried to write discrimination into the Constitution by making marriage only between a man and a woman. That should have been the final straw for any gay person. The Republican party does NOT care about you. Unfortunately, Sen. Koering didn't get the memo.
Posted by: David in Houston | Feb 18, 2009 2:11:24 PM
@JERZEEMIKE - you may be on to something. Think he slept with Beau Breedlove? LOL.
Posted by: Jay | Feb 18, 2009 2:12:16 PM
(F)reddy: True, but we can try.
Posted by: David D. | Feb 18, 2009 2:14:05 PM
JOHNINMAHATTAN: Thank you for posting the contact info for this despicable waste of the gay gene. I'm writing him right now.
This is the kind of mentality that we queer Midwesterners are just now getting mad enough to stand up and fight against - sometimes even from our own ranks. So sad.
Posted by: Dale Fecker | Feb 18, 2009 2:20:33 PM
Another self hating "gay" republican, he's looking out for his gig in the government and nothing else.
Posted by: Sebastian | Feb 18, 2009 2:23:42 PM
It'd be nice if he just simply stated that he cannot be re-elected if he votes for the bill. Or he could say that he's voting the way the majority of his constituents want, but his excuse is almost purposely thin.
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2009 3:13:37 PM
Self hating? This guy is in love with himself. His only regret in life is that he couldn't be an oppressive, misogynistic heterosexual with kids to fuck up. He's clearly willing to do anything and say anything to maintain his position and assuage the concerns of his bigoted constituency. That would have given him a shot at more political power (being straight with kids). Maybe he's receiving ex gay therapy...and we can watch with amusement as this ship sinks beneath the waves.
This expresses that the overriding concern for every republican politician is the love of self as the premier concern. And if you think I'm being partisan, alan keyes, larry craig, could be his backup singers. It would be helpful, I think, if instead of referring to these things as gay republicans, we just referred to them as republicans.
Posted by: TANK | Feb 18, 2009 3:44:16 PM
Paul Koering = gay Uncle Tom
Posted by: Joe | Feb 18, 2009 10:56:12 PM
uncle tom
Posted by: KFLO | Feb 18, 2009 11:31:46 PM
A walking, talking piece of shit.
Posted by: Tom | Feb 19, 2009 1:27:58 AM
He did get elected which implies there's a healthy supply of insecure insular constituents, but Minnesota on the whole isn't particularly backward. Otherwise the bill(s) wouldn't be getting traction in the first place, for starters. So, what is the makeup of his district? Is he movable or oustable?
Also, I'm thinking of a Reagan era Louis Malle film where he interviewed people in small town Minnesota and brought up homosexuality. A great peek at (Midwest) American life it was.
Posted by: satori | Feb 19, 2009 1:34:06 AM
His comment about the state has bigger issues does not make sense. Gay marriage is not a big issue but the right is making it a big issue. What's so hard about changing some forms and giving some training? It looks like I will never be able to move back to the states with this kind of thinking!! (My husband is british)
Posted by: miker8510 | Feb 19, 2009 5:05:01 AM
That letter (Brandon Davis's) is one of the nicest respectful but firm and to-the-point letters of it's kind I have ever seen. Keep it up! And Thank You. One never regrets being appropriately polite and also real and true. The other letter is the reverse! How could that staffer become so bitter and without-sense and without-class so soon into his career. I suggest a career change. And some education, as it's been pointed out above in previous comments but cannot be repeated enough: we live in a REPUBLIC. A democratic republic, but NOT a democracy. For good or ill the people get to elect representatives to legislate on behalf of EVERYONE and to use their judgment, as is known by the district and endorsed by it via election. Two terms (and a coming out before the second) and the voters in that district know their representatives judgment. None serves any district well who punts responsibility backwards to finger-in-the-wind polling of current mood regarding important legislation. What a disappointment. If HE does not believe in the legislation then he should just say so end of story. "Representing the will of his district" implying that his and theirs are different is cowardly weasel-speak, all apologies to actual weasels. I prefer an honest enemy than a fair weather friend.
Posted by: JamesR | Feb 20, 2009 11:28:17 AM
Damn I posted that last on the wrong thread My bad.
Reposting on the letter thread.
Posted by: JamesR | Feb 20, 2009 11:32:19 AM
Freddy: Yes, yes we can.
Posted by: Allan | Feb 21, 2009 8:14:15 PM
I grew up in a family that still does not support those who find in the same sex what some find in the opposite sex. I've been reminded numerously that I would be disowned if I wasn't "straight". I personally prefer the opposite sex, but I will not stand in the way of another's happiness.
There are currently many "arguments" against this bill, but in my eyes and those I support; they're nothing less than pure childish excuses. We're a country that’s becoming accepting of many things, but not this? First it's the slavery, and then women's right to vote, but not this? By allowing African American people a right to citizenship, they're allowed to marry. Believe that I am in no way judgmental but how can one allow different cultures to be married, but not same sex?
Another argument over this bill is that the fact of faith. The way I see it is very simple. We have many different cultures with very different beliefs. Now, we allow those beliefs within reason due to the Constitutions 1st Amendment which happens to consist of the freedom of religion. If members of the gay/lesbian community belief there be nothing wrong with same sex marriages, etc., then how can we deny them that religious viewpoint?
Polygamy is another excuse used as an argument. However, I have the problem solved. Allow the gay/lesbian community the same rights we have. They're not asking for the ability to marry as me people as they want, just who they want.
Some are concerned about the children growing up in families absent of one parent or the other. They claim that the child will suffer, and as true as that may be, it's an excuse. We have children all over America who have lost a parent due to one thing or another. For example, the parent could've passed on, walked out, or been taken out among many other things. We have children and even adults who go through rough times, it's called life in a nutshell.
Posted by: BlazeGurl | Mar 12, 2009 1:54:59 PM
This guy is an idiot. He does not make any sense. He feels now is not the time to be equal. If all activist thought this way there would still be segregation.
Posted by: Anthony from cali | Feb 12, 2010 3:36:40 AM