Minnesota Family Council pushes marriage amendment, Sen. Marty pushes back
Wednesday, March 10, 2010 at 5:00 am
- 6 Comments
On Monday, the Minnesota Family Council and several GOP lawmakers held a press conference announcing their intent to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in Minnesota. MFC warned that same-sex marriage could be legal in Minnesota as soon as next year, citing legislation and comments by Sen. John Marty, a candidate for governor. Marty shot back Monday night saying, “I stand by my commitment to equality. We can pass marriage equality legislation and sign it into law next year.”
At the press conference, MFC president Tom Prichard warned of “real dangers to our culture” and said that a bill by Sen. John Marty that would make same-sex marriage legal could become law next year, and to prevent that from happening, Minnesota needs a constitutional amendment.
“What it will do is have a dramatic impact the institution of marriage, right of conscience and freedoms and every aspect of society will be impacted,” said Prichard of same-sex marriage.
Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, said, “This goes to the structure of power of the people of Minnesota. Allowing them to vote on this important issue is fundamental to our society.”
Marty replied in a press release Monday night saying he has every intention of pushing the bill to legalize same-sex marriage into law next year.
“I stand by my commitment to equality,” he said. “I am confident that we can give Minnesota LGBT families the same rights that other families have — the right to have each other and their children qualify for the health care benefits they get at work; the right to visit each other in the hospital; the right to inherit each other’s property, and hundreds of other rights that other families take for granted.”
Marty said that in 2003 conservatives began the push to ban same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution, often playing to Minnesotans’ prejudices. “Same-sex marriage was a concept most Minnesotans were not familiar with,” he said. “Even so, their efforts failed. Now, after years of public discussion and as more people are getting to know wonderful gay and lesbian families, minds have changed.”
Here’s the full press release by Marty’s campaign for governor:
John Marty Response to Minnesota Family Council’s Call for Constitutional Amendment on Same-Sex Marriage
Yesterday morning, the Minnesota Family Council and several Republican lawmakers attacked Senator John Marty’s comment that a marriage equality law could be signed in Minnesota as early as next year. They urged passage of a constitutional amendment to block such action. Here is Senator Marty’s response to their challenge:
“Seven years ago, Minnesota had a very vocal debate about same-sex marriage. Proponents of a constitutional ban fought hard for its passage. In 2003, the opposition to same-sex marriage was strong, but much of that opposition was based on fear and misunderstanding. Same-sex marriage was a concept most Minnesotans were not familiar with. Even so, their efforts failed.
Now, after years of public discussion and as more people are getting to know wonderful gay and lesbian families, minds have changed. People who opposed marriage equality have been rethinking the issue and the change is happening faster than some politicians realize. Acceptance is growing month by month, not decade by decade.
The proposal for the constitutional amendment is dead. Over numerous conversations in communities throughout the state, Minnesota values have come to the forefront, and Minnesotans are rejecting discrimination against same-sex families.
I stand by my commitment to equality. I am confident that we can give Minnesota LGBT families the same rights that other families have — the right to have each other and their children qualify for the health care benefits they get at work; the right to visit each other in the hospital; the right to inherit each other’s property, and hundreds of other rights that other families take for granted.
The promise of marriage equality for all Minnesota families is within reach. We can pass marriage equality legislation and sign it into law next year.”
Senator John Marty is author of SF 120, the Marriage Equality legislation. He is a DFL candidate for Governor and has committed to signing this legislation in 2011.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter6 Comments
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 8:19 am
We recently went through the same thing here in West Virginia, where some politicians were once again clamoring for a “Marriage Amendment” to be added to our state’s constitution. It was a tranparent attempt to pander to an ill-tempered electorate during an election year; fortunately saner voices prevailed, and the proposal was beaten back.
Amendments like this reflect poorly on states like West Virginia and Minnesota. They conflict with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This is a law that applies to all of us — Straight, Gay, Black, White (and everything in between); able-bodied or disabled; Christian, Muslim, Jew, or Zoroastrian. That’s why I like living in America.
Supporters of such an amendment insist that marriage is “sacred” according to their religious beliefs. But it is not the purpose of government nor the Constitution to make things “sacred.” If the government considers marriage to be a religious designation rather than a legal one, it has no business making any laws concerning that institution. If, as confirmed by its actions, the government believes “marriage” to be a legal contract, it has no business denying that contract to any two people, no matter what their gender might be.
But this amendment as currently envisioned makes no provision for law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples. As someone who prides himself as being nothing if not diplomatic, I would take simple legal equality under the law, even if the operative term is “civil unions.” If social conservatives simply wish to reserve the term “marriage” for heterosexual couples, they can have it, as long as Gay couples are treated fairly. If it becomes clear that a “Marriage Amendment” is to be put before the voters, it must be revised to include “civil unions” for Lesbian & Gay couples.
Contrary to what supporters of such an amendment claim, nothing has happened to “traditional marriage” in states where Gay couples have been allowed to marry or form civil unions. Straight couples continue to date, get engaged, marry, and build lives and families together as they always have, even where Gay couples are allowed to do the same.
In fact, allowing legal unions for all couples, Gay and Straight, is beneficial to society in general. Married couples typically contribute more and take less from society; they support and care for each other financially, physically and emotionally and often contribute more to the economy and savings. Individuals who are married are less likely to receive government entitlements. Individuals who are married statistically consume less health care services, and often give more to churches and charities. And married couples are better able to provide care and security for children; this includes Gay couples who have children through adoption or some other means.
The reason Gay and Straight couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another’s happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows. That’s what makes marriage a good thing.
In a recent column for our local newspaper, a member of The Family Policy Council of West Virginia expressed support for such a divisive and unneeded “Marriage Amendment.” I wish he would ask himself why law-abiding, taxpaying Lesbian & Gay West Virginians should be forced to subsidize all the legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities of marriage, when we are unable to take part in those same incentives? And since when do voters get to decide that the rights that apply to them should not apply to minority groups?
Pingback posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:47 am
[...] Full Story from the Minnesota Independent [...]
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:49 am
I applaud John Marty for this. Please note that Margaret Anderson Kelliher is curiously silent……
*cough* SELLOUT *cough cough*
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Who is the MFC I ask?
So I visit their website. Here is the “about us” statement from “them”, poor grammer et al:
Minnesota Family Council and Minnesota Family Institute
Minnesota Family Council (MFC) together with its subsidiary, Minnesota Family Institute (MFI), is the largest nonprofit, non-partisan, pro-family organization in the state. As a research, education, communication and public policy organization, MFC and MFI are uniquely positioned to multiply their efforts by networking with various leaders in the state who can help change hearts and minds about the importance of family. We are is strategically working in the following five areas to improve family life in Minnesota:
MEDIA
MFC stands as one of the most effective defenders of principles and policies supporting the traditional American family in what is often a hostile media environment.
PRO-FAMILY NEWS
MFC’s Pro-Family News (PFN) is an established, high-quality, conservative newspaper with original research regularly appearing in mainstream media.
LEGISLATION
MFC representatives monitor and analyze legislative activity, advise lawmakers and citizens on public policy issues, recommend legislative action, educate and organize citizens for grassroots action and speak out in the media on public policy issues.
GRASSROOTS
MFI is working to ensure concerned citizens are informed, organized and armed with the skills to influence and fight for pro-family policies.
NORTHSTAR LEGAL CENTER
The Northstar Legal Center (NLC), which was organized in 1995, actively litigates lawsuits which further the pro-family, pro-life causes and has become an important vehicle for identifying, empowering and energizing like-minded members of the legal community. Through education and research our constituents are prepared to take a stand.
So my statement about “them” is this:
Who elected you?
Who wants your input on legislation?
You claim non-partisanship, yet are partisan in a great many ways. Throw these bums (ESPECIALLY THAT TOM PRITCHARD) away from people who legislate!
And a big thank you out to Sen. Marty, for having the chutzpah to stand up to this onerous group of villians.
Comment posted March 10, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
Tom Pritchard worked for the MN Republican party before he worked for the MN “Family” Council. He’s a Republican shill. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Republican party still pays him under the table for his work.
I don’t know that Pritchard has any commitment to family, really. I don’t know of anything positive the MN “Family” Council has done to help families. Its main purpose seems to be to stir up hatred for people – especially LGBT people. Pritchard has used gay people as a meal ticket for decades. I would love anti-gay sentiment to wane to the point that Pritchard has to get a real job. But I’m sure he has been socking away the money he has scared little old ladies into donating to his organization. He probably won’t need to work by the time his organization is obsolete.
Pingback posted March 11, 2010 @ 1:19 pm
[...] The Minnesota Independent reports that the Minnesota Family Council and a number of Republican legislators do not want gays and lesbians to have any joint property rights whatsoever: On Monday, the Minnesota Family Council and several GOP lawmakers held a press conference announcing their intent to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, civil unions and domestic partnerships in Minnesota. [emphasis added] [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
