800px-minnesota_state_capitol1A bill that would rectify discrimination in Minnesota statutes and allow domestic partners to make end-of-life decisions for each other is being strongly opposed by the Minnesota Family Council. The reason? The measure discriminates against married couples, council President Tom Prichard charged.

Prichard made the argument during testimony Friday over the Final Wishes Act in the state House Civil Justice Committee.

The measure would protect the interests of people in a domestic partnership. For instance, if one partner in a same-sex couple died, the bill would allow the surviving partner to make the final determination of what happens to the body. The bill also applies to people who choose to live together in an interdependent relationship but for one reason or another choose not to marry.

Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, the chief author of the bill, explained that current state law denies many the right to make important decisions.

“The last thing that we do as we go through that process is determining those last wishes. It is sort of a sacred process,” she said. “It’s the last thing we do for that loved one and I think the laws in Minnesota have a closed eye to some Minnesotans on this issue.”

But Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council charged that the measure would unfairly give legal benefits to same-sex couples.

“What you are doing is you are giving a benefit or a legal recognition to a group that doesn’t have the attendant legal responsibilities,” he said. “It is an unfairness to married couples, giving [domestic partners] legal rights but not the attendant responsibilities.

“You are now creating a domestic partner status. As far as the establishment of domestic partner status, I think this is really unfair. It is discriminatory on one level, because it doesn’t include other people.”

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, got to the crux of Prichard’s opposition, however.

She asked, “Doesn’t this bill really just elevate domestic partnerships to be the next step to same-sex marriage?”

Prichard responded, “Domestic partner status is really just marriage by another name. This is clearly a stepping stone.”

But Murphy disagreed. “I think Minnesotans are engaging in a discussion of [same-sex marriage], but I don’t think it’s time yet. I think it’s going to take Minnesotans time,” she said. “We have to recognize that certain Minnesota statutes discriminate against Minnesotans. We should resolve that separate from the issues you raise.”

The bill passed the Civil Justice Committee by a voice vote.