LGBT issues poised to be hot debate at the capitol
Wednesday, November 17, 2010 at 1:55 pm
After years as a low-profile issue at the Minnesota Legislature, same-sex marriage is likely to become a source of controversy next session. New Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate bode well for efforts by the Minnesota Family Council and the Catholic Church, both of which hope to place a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2012. Republican leadership has been mum on the prospect so far, and despite long odds, LGBT advocates hope to advance a few key provisions of their own in 2011.
The Minnesota Family Council, which holds incredible sway with the majority of Republicans in the Legislature, has made the amendment a clear priority.
“Obviously, we’re going to work hard to firm up our support and get it on the ballot, and you know the message is we believe the people should decide the definition of marriage — not the courts or backroom political deals,” the Family Council’s Tom Prichard told OneNewsNow, a Christian website.
In a fundraising pitch for Give to the Max Day on Tuesday, the group said the money would go right to the marriage push. “The recent turnover of both House and Senate has cleared the way to pass a marriage amendment and put it on the ballot in 2012. This is a huge opportunity to protect marriage. Help us seize this moment with the funds to finish the job.”
“God has been ever so faithful to meet MFC’s budget needs to get us this far. I’m most thankful for His provision through your continued support and partnership!”
The group racked up 83 donations on Give to the Max day, compared with OutFront Minnesota, which got 273 donors to give. OutFront is advocating against the amendment.
“You can count on OutFront Minnesota to lead the opposition to any anti-GLBT legislation or constitutional amendment,” executive director Monica Meyer said in an email. “And if a proposed amendment succeeds in getting onto the 2012 ballot, we will fight it.”
She added, “OutFront Minnesota has been taking the cause of marriage equality to the people for years and the results are clear: poll after poll shows more Minnesotans favor marriage equality every year. Presumably the next two years will show more movement toward equality.”
The Minnesota Family Council conducted its own poll before the 2010 election which showed 54 percent of voters supporting marriage as between “one man and one woman,” compared to 40 percent who said it could be “any two people.”
The poll focused on Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and showed he would win the race handily if he focused on opposing gay marriage; “voters strongly support a gubernatorial candidate who supports defending marriage,” the group said. Emmer completely avoided the issue on the campaign trail and currently trails DFLer Mark Dayton by 8,700 votes. A recount is likely later this month.
The Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage spent big money for the survey, but neither Emmer nor Dayton would have a hand in “protecting marriage,” as the Council’s Chuck Darrell explained after the election.
“Our opponents were publicly boasting that they would legalize same-sex marriage in the nest session assuming that they could retain the legislature and elect a governor who supported homosexual marriage,” he said. “Well, it looks like the Lord had a different plan and turned control of both houses over to pro-life, pro-family majority.”
He continued, “What that means is that we can pass a marriage amendment and put it on the ballot in 2012. Why? Well, an amendment only needs to be passed by both houses before being placed on the ballot for the next election — it completely bypasses the governor.”
But will evangelical conservatives see resistance from Republicans who ran on a “jobs and economy” platform largely devoid of social issues? That seems to be the indication from GOP leadership.
Future House Speaker Kurt Zellers told MinnPost, “If it isn’t about jobs, improving the business climate, it’s not a priority.”
And to TheUptake he said, “If that’s something that you care about and something you want to work though in your church or your synagogue or your mosque, you can’t get there if you don’t have a job.”
Future Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch echoed those sentiments.
“I am a social conservative, but we’ve had a conversation with the caucus,” she said. “They ran on the budget, the economy and jobs. We talked about how this is not the time to be messing around [with social issues]. We’re going to be unified on that.”
But Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple Grove broke from the leadership.
“The statement I’ll make is that there’s a keen interest by a majority of the members of both chambers to define marriage, and to allow the public to do so,” he told the Associated Press just after the election.
Republicans won’t only have to contend with the Family Council on the issue of an anti-gay marriage amendment; the Catholic Church in Minnesota will be looking for payback for the DVD campaign that Archbishop John Neinstedt launched just before the election that cost more than $1 million. That campaign urged voters to vote for candidates who would work to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
Following the election, the archbishop’s paper, the Catholic Spirit, defended the DVD campaign and spoke of the importance of an amendment.
“Whether the DVD can achieve its objective of getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot remains to be seen,” the paper wrote. The church is seeking a broad ban on rights for same-sex couples. “And because it seeks to morally guide the broader culture, the church does not support civil gay unions under any title.”
St. John Vianney Seminary rector Father Michael Becker said, “All of heaven is summed up in a consummation of a love affair, that Jesus Christ is marrying the church, that God is marrying his people.”
He said that’s why opposing gay marriage is the most important political issue. “The best way we can describe heaven is to speak about marriage. Is marriage just to be one other political issue, very low on the totem pole? Well, if all of heaven is summarized as a wedding, that’s pretty significant.”
Gay marriage isn’t the only issue of concern to the LGBT community or to evangelical conservatives.
Ann Kaner-Roth of Project 515, a group that is working to eliminate the 515 ways Minnesota statute discriminates against same-sex couples, said it’s too soon to know what issues they will tackle with a new Republican majority.
“Like everyone else, we are waiting to see how the new legislature will approach various issues, who the legislative leadership is, what committees are created… Not to mention the conclusion of the gubernatorial race as well as the handful of other races still in recounts,” she said. “So, it’s a bit too early yet to talk about our specific legislative approach for 2011, but we remain committed to full equality for same-sex couples and their families.
She added, “And we’ll continue to educate legislators and others around the 515 statutes that currently discriminate against these families in our community.”
Outfront’s Meyer said that anti-bullying measure will be a top priority as they have picked up Republican supporters in the past. The issue has become a critical policy for the LGBT community following four suicides in the past year that advocates say involved students who were harassed because they were LGBT or their peers thought they were LGBT.
“OutFront Minnesota will continue to lead efforts to pass safe schools legislation to protect students across Minnesota from aggressive bullying and harassment,” Meyer said in an email. “This legislation passed with bipartisan support in 2009, and can again in 2011, this time with a governor who will sign it into law.”
The Minnesota Family Council lobbied heavily in 2009 to defeat any changes to the state’s anti-bullying measures.
8 Comments
Comment posted November 17, 2010 @ 2:52 pm
Ultimately it won’t really matter which states allow or deny marriages or civil unions for Gay couples, once the Supreme Court of the United States addresses this issue.
While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t define “marriage,” the federal government has complicated the issue by taking a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of tax law and Social Security (among the 1,138 legal benefits, protections, and responsibilities that are automatically bestowed on couples once they marry). Therefore this is not an issue that can be left up to the states to decide individually, since it wouldn’t do for a Gay couple that is legally married in Iowa, for instance, to become automatically UN-married once they decide to move somewhere else.
Religious beliefs are irrelevant to this debate, because (1) the United States is not theocracy, and (2) churches will continue to be free to conduct or deny ceremonies to whomever they want.
Procreation and parenting are irrelevant, since (1) couples do not have to marry to have children, and (2) the ability or even desire to have children is not a prerequisite for getting a marriage license.
This is simply a matter of equal treatment under the law.
The quest for marriage equality by Gay couples has absolutely nothing to do with Straight (i.e. heterosexual) couples. Nothing is changing for them. Nothing is happening to “traditional marriage.” Most people are Straight, and they will continue to date, get engaged, marry and build lives and families together as they always have. None of that will change by allowing Gay couples to do the same. This is really not any sort of a “sea change” for marriage, since the only difference between Gay and Straight couples is the gender of the two persons in the relationship.
Comment posted November 17, 2010 @ 3:21 pm
Oh, there’ll be a fight, with the loudest homophobes clamoring to save their marriages by denying rights to LGBT folks… but everything the majority leaders are saying points to this: Anti-marriage bans are a losing issue in this economy. They only serve to distract voters when unemployment isn’t so disastrously high.
The only thing that will change their mind is continued pressure from the anti-equality side… and apathy from the pro-equality side.
Comment posted November 17, 2010 @ 4:51 pm
The points made by Chuck are very relevant. Marriage is a legal concept involving legal rights (like inheritance or court testimony) and is recognized as more than a religious bond by the government (in for example, having different tax status for married people, and SS benefits). Corporations also are involved in the civiil definition because they give, for example, health care benefits to spouses. By what right does anybody get to say “we decided what marriage is at it excludes a whole group of people”? On face, that seems to violate equal rights, not to mention a true sense of morality. This is a civil rights issue, not a religious issue–and, of course, the government has no right deciding religious issues or making laws based on religious dogma, if it were a religious issue.
Comment posted November 17, 2010 @ 5:36 pm
Chuck – nicely done.
I’m really surprised that the right wing loons haven’t responded yet.
But they don’t deal well with reason and logic.
Comment posted November 18, 2010 @ 9:03 am
The Minnesota Family council is not a religious organization and it is not an organization that cares about families. It is strictly a political organization and its only aim is to increase the turnout of Republican voters. It is an arm of the Minnesota Republican party, and it is allowed to hide the identity of its donors. That should be challenged.
As for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the MN Constitution, the Republicans will keep it off the agenda this year and pretend to focus on jobs – about which they have no clue and no rational plan. Next year, they’ll fire up the anti-gay marriage issue and put it on the ballot for 2012 when they’re interested in pumping up Republican voter turnout again. The Republican party’s only real agenda is keeping themselves in power.
Comment posted November 18, 2010 @ 11:57 am
@Thomas Butler – Don’t worry, we are here. Reasoning and logic are my specialty, because I worship the only true and living God – who is reasonable and logically as proven my by vastly intelligent design.
The problem with Gay-marriage is that it has nothing to do with marriage and everything to do with power. As the data from countries with same-sex marriage show, 96% don’t get married when given the opportunity. They don’t want to be married. They just want the state to approve marriage so they can force the culture to accept their religious beliefs and morality – against their will – with no regard for the freedom of religion.
The real goal is to force a radical agenda and empower leaders with influenced by the humanism religion to impose legal restrictions on anyone in business, government or schools that disagrees with their beliefs.
The strategy is the fool the public into believing that they are being treated unfairly in order the gain the support they need to hunt down and destroy anyone in their path. This issue has the potential to destroy the state and nation.
Comment posted November 18, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Tim
Bibliography please. Where on earth did you get this 96%? Throwing numbers out does not make them true. Where did you get your information on the LGBT community wanting to destroy anyone in their path? Your argument is baseless and without factual evidence. You really need to stop lying to yourself and to those around you. As Welch said to McCarthy…..
“You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”
Pingback posted November 27, 2010 @ 2:56 pm
[...] LGBT issues poised to be hot debate at the capitol « Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media.. After years as a low-profile issue at the Minnesota Legislature, same-sex marriage is likely to [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.







