MN Legislature Sends Prop 8 Copycat To 2012 Ballot

After nearly 6 hours of debate the Minnesota House voted 70-62 to send a proposed constitutional amendment which would ban same-sex marriage to be decided by voters on the November 2012 presidential ballot. The measure had previously passed the Minnesota Senate 38-27.

The Washington Post reports:

State law already prohibits gay marriage, but supporters of the proposed amendment said it’s necessary to prevent judges or future lawmakers from making it legal in Minnesota. Critics said the plan is divisive and would put discrimination into the constitution.

The amendment would define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The state Senate already passed the measure. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has no power to block it from the ballot, but said before the vote Saturday that he would fight its passage. Dayton called the amendment “un-Minnesotan.”

Rep. Steve Gottwalt, the bill’s sponsor, said voters should have the final word on the issue.
“This is not about hatred. It is not about discrimination or intolerance,” said Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud.

But another Republican, Rep. John Kriesel, described how losing his legs in Iraq began a personal transformation of his views on the issue. He said he would have supported the amendment five years ago, but has since realized that the country for which he fought should not deny the right of two people who love each other to marry.

“I’m pleading with you to vote no,” said Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove. “I’m begging you.”

So far we know that Minnesota will be voting on the marriages of other people. There are amendments pending in North Carolina and Indiana. There are also discussions in Maine, California and Oregon about going to the ballot to repeal previously passed anti-gay marriage amendments.

MN Poll Shows 55% Oppose Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment

A poll has been released which shows that the proposed "Son of Prop 8" constitutional amendment in Minnesota to ban marriage equality is facing majority opposition 55% against, 39% for. Although this is encouraging news, I    would remind folks that early in the Proposition 8 fight there were multiple polls showing 55+ percent opposition to Proposition 8 and after a public advertising campaign filled with lies and deceit the ballot measure passed 53-47 in California in November 2008.

The more important poll question in Minnesota is whether a majority of likely voters supports marriage equality, if they do, and a good campaign is run, then there's a chance (small one, I believe) of defeating the proposed discriminatory amendment to Minnesota's constitution at the ballot in 2012.

MN Senate Approve Prop 8 Copycat Measure 38-27

The Minnesota State Senate has approved a constitutional amendment by a vote of 38-27 that would ban marriage equality, despite the existence of a state statute that already bans the practice. In Minnesota, a constitutional amendment can be put on the ballot after passing the state legislature by a simple majority in one legislative session.

The discriminatory measure has been hotly debated with almost all Democrats opposing the measure and Republicans supporting it, generally with religious-based arguments about "defending marriage." A recent editorial in the state's largest newspaper blasted such thinking in opposition to the legislation and a video of testimony of State Rep. Steve Simon asking "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves if he wants them around?" has gone viral.

Republicans won control of both houses and the measure is expected to pass the State House, as well. In the Senate, all but one Democrat opposed the measure and all Republican voted for it. In the House, there are 72 Republicans and 62 Democrats (before the 2010 election there were 47 Republicans and 87 Democrats). Just goes to tell you what Republicans do when they get majority control of legislative bodies.

The question which would be presented to voters if the Senate version of the amendment is approved by the Senate is:

Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

So, with wording eerily similar to 2008's Proposition 8, in 2012 a NO vote would be needed to preserve the possibility of marriage equality in Minnesota, although marriage equality would be banned by statute in the status quo. A yes vote would insert the language into the constitution and would require another amendment to be  passed by voters to repeal it and enact marriage equality.

Hat/tip to TowleRoad and @xavierla

READ: 2012 Anti-gay Attacks To Be Well-Funded

This report from American Independent is pretty chilling. "Ignite An Enduring Cultural Transformation" is a plan by anti-gay groups to take advantage of the Republican gains due to the 2010 election to pass anti-gay, "pro-family" and anti-choice legislation in the next two years.

Here are some scary excerpts from the report:

The campaign, which largely targets states where Republicans won control of legislatures or governorships, has garnered the support of Republican political superstars such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va.), Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and Rep. Trent Franks (Ariz.). The groups intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban “transgender bathrooms.”

Family policy councils — a creation of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family in the 1980s — have launched the Ignite plan in 15 states. Each family policy council has a three-prong plan to achieve their legislative goals over the next two years: lobbying for legislation, mobilizing pastors and social conservatives and supporting candidates that have backed their initiatives. Each group has used a stock brochure containing nearly identical wording to explain their plan and to solicit funds. In many cases, an Ignite plan was launched with an anonymous matching-grant donor.

[...]

In several states — such as Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and West Virginia — Ignite plans seems to be targeted at getting anti-gay marriage amendments passed.

It will be interesting to see how the ides that believe in progressive values of fairness and equality for all will respond to this onslaught on those value.

MN Largest Paper Endorses Marriage Equality

Minnesota is undergoing a debate over whether the state legislature should pass a constitutional amendment to the voters to decide whether or not to insert a ban on marriage equality into the founding document of the North Star state.

Now the largest circulation newspaper in the state, The Minnesota Star-Tribune, is weighing with a decisive editorial urging support for marriage equality ("Don't put bigotry up for a vote," May 5, 2011):

Many of our nation's civil, human and women's rights laws might never have passed if they were put to a vote. Instead, those advances usually came through legislative and court decisions that valued human rights more than special-interest politics. 

Minnesota already has the curiously named Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prohibits same-sex couples from marrying. That's the status quo in many other states as well, although there's no evidence that heterosexual marriages need to be "defended'' from gay and lesbian unions.

Loving relationships between two men or two women have absolutely no impact on other matrimonial commitments. Nor do they pose any threat to the institution of marriage or family life, as the amendment backers claim.

And yet opponents of marriage equity say a constitutional amendment is a necessary backstop that would prevent the courts from overturning existing law.

In reality, enshrining this form of bigotry in the state's premier governing document would be a step backward. Rather than reinforce an already discriminatory law, core values of equity and fairness should compel Minnesotans to repeal DOMA and extend marriage equity to all.

We understand that emotions on this issue run deep. The debate hits numerous religious and moral hot buttons, for secular and sacred reasons. Concurrent with their beliefs, religious organizations may indeed decide who they will marry with their blessings.

However, government is not and should not be a church, synagogue or mosque. Marriage under the law is a next-of-kin, legal arrangement that includes important property, benefits, child custody and health care rights. Those legal rights should be available to all couples.

You should probably go ahead and read the whole thing and if you live in Minnesota, contact your state legislators and tell them to vote NO on the proposed constitutional amendment.

Hat/tip to Joe.My.God.

WATCH: Devastating Testimony Against MN Marriage Amendment

State Representative Steve Simon (DFL) testified in opposition to a proposed anti-gay constitutional amendment to "restrict marriage as between a man and a woman," which in Minnesota needs to pass both houses by a simple majority this year and then be approved by a majority of voters on the ballot in 2012 to become law.

Rep. Simon asked a devastating question which should surely give even the most ardent heterosexual supremacist pause before a final vote on the measure: "How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves if he wants them around?" (Simon was responding to the fact that much of the opposition to marriage equality and support for writing discrimination in the Minnesota state constitution appeared to be religiously motivated despite the fact that the state only licenses civil marriages which does not influence who any church has to marry or recognize as married.) The House committee later voted 10-7 to pass the amendment to the Senate floor.

Republicans have a brand new majority in both House and Senate as of the 2010 so they should have the votes to put the measure on the ballot. It does not require Democratic Governor Mark Dayton's signature, who has expressed his opposition to the measure and his support for marriage equality.

Interestingly, at least one House Republican, Afghanistan veteran John Kriesel has announced that he will oppose the measure.

The Minnesota Star-Tribune quotes Rep. Kriesel:

"I look at it as: We are all equal," said the first year representative from Cottage Grove.

"It is not right. I can't do it. I'm very upset about this vote. I don't like it. I think it sends the wrong message. You live once in your life and I've learned that the hard way," said the military veteran, who lost his legs while serving in Iraq Afghanistan. "You never know when it is going to be your time. People fight to find happiness....You find someone you love and now other people are saying because I don't consider that normal, you can't do it?"

"It's just wrong," Kriesel said. "There is not anything that can move me on this."

He may be only Republican lawmaker to oppose the amendment. He said he is "working hard" to bring other colleagues along.

Let's hope there are more fair-minded Republicans like Rep. Kriesel in the Minnesota Legislature.

Rhode Island Trying Civil Unions "Compromise" Over Marriage Equality

Rhode Island has long been on the list of states marriage equality activists think will  likely be the next to enact marriage equality (which includes Maryland, Minnesota and New York). However, in Maryland marriage equality legislation recently died, and in Minnesota the 2010 election gave Republicans control of the legislature, which they are using to try to put a constitutional amendment prohibiting marriage equality on the 2012 ballot.

This week, openly gay (and multiracial)  Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox announced that he would try to pass a civil unions bill because he felt that marriage equality legislation could not pass both houses of the legislature.

Both Marriage Equality Rhode Island and Freedom To Marry (predictably) sent out press releases denouncing the move.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island:

The Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) board of directors issued a statement expressing staunch opposition to civil unions now being supported by Speaker Gordon Fox and restated their support for full marriage equality for same-sex couples in Rhode Island.

“Civil unions are unacceptable because they marginalize gay and lesbian couples in very significant ways. The General Assembly will essentially be legalizing a two-class system that subjects thousands of Rhode Island same-sex couples to discrimination. We cannot support legislation that establishes a second class of citizens in Rhode Island,” said Martha Holt, chair of MERI’s board of directors.

Freedom To Marry:

“Rhode Island House Speaker Gordon Fox has made a serious miscalculation.  With support for the freedom to marry topping 60 percent—higher than in any other state in the country—and with a strongly supportive governor, the Rhode Island House should send a marriage bill—and nothing less—to the Senate now.  Couples who are doing the work of marriage in their day-to-day lives, who have made a commitment in life, deserve to have an equal commitment under the law.  That legal commitment is called marriage.  Freedom to Marry is prepared to join with Speaker Fox, advocates on the ground, and a super-majority of Rhode Islanders to make the strongest case to the Senate. 

“Civil union is a separate and unequal half-step that has proven to be terribly inadequate in practice.  That’s why every New England state that started with civil union—Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Vermont—has moved to marriage.  It is also why the official New Jersey Civil Union Review Commission found that “the separate categorization established by the Civil Union Act invites and encourages unequal treatment of same-sex couples and their children.

Although I am a strong supporter of marriage equality, I disagree with MERI and Freedom To Marry here and support Gordon Fox's actions. I believe it is better to enact legislatively what you can right now to protect same-sex couples and their families, while at the same time acknowledging that you are interested in passing marriage equality in the future. Just recently, Hawaii and Illinois have done exactly that earlier this year, with Colorado coming one vote short of joining them in enacting civil unions. In Maryland, marriage equality advocates refused to support a civil unions bill and were rewarded with passage of a bill in one legislative house and bitter recriminations. New York is also only going for marriage equality. Interestingly, in New York and Maryland if you are married someplace else those states will recognize those unions under state law, so maybe the pressure is off for same-sex couples who really need the protections of marriage.

Rhode Island should be an interesting place next week. Both heterosexual supremacists and marriage equality activists will be opposed to civil unions legislations. Presumably, Governor Lincoln Chafee will sign it into law if it reaches his desk, just like he said he would a marriage equality bill.

The Providence Journal reports about the reaction to Speaker Fox's action:

Fox, in an emotional appeal to gay marriage advocates protesting outside his State House office, said his decision to support civil-union legislation was a sign of the strong opposition in both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate for gay marriage, and did not mean that he was stepping away from his drive for full-fledged marriage rights.


"I am the Speaker of the House and I am an openly gay man. This is very emotional for me,” he said. “But as speaker, I understand counting votes and what I can deliver for all of us. And I believe I am delivering rights to us today and it’s not killing the cause.”

Protester Wendy Becker, of Providence, begged him to put gay marriage to a vote, saying: “We need to let people do the right thing.”

Fox replied: “I understand that. This is the right thing for now. We’ll keep working.”

His move won support from both Governor Chafee, a strong advocate of same-sex marriage, and Senate President M. Teresa Paiva Weed, an opponent, but it was lambasted by the lead sponsor of the abandoned same-sex marriage bill, the protesters outside Fox’s State House office, and a phalanx of advocacy groups, including Marriage Equality Rhode Island.

As a same-sex marriage advocate, Chafee said he “had hoped that legislation enacting it would have reached my desk this year,” but he respects Fox’s political assessment and believes “passage of civil-union legislation would be a step forward for our state and I would sign such a bill if and when it reaches my desk.”

Paiva Weed reiterated her own support for civil unions, and said she believes this approach has “broad support” in the Senate.

I also support Speaker Fox's actions.