DFLers offer bill to repeal state Defense of Marriage Act
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 9:00 am
- 16 Comments
Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill on Monday that would repeal the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex couples from benefiting from the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The bill, the Marriage and Family Protection Act, was offered just as heated debate at the Capitol continues over a proposed constitutional amendment that would write a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.
“Marriage is a legal institution recognized by the state to promote stable relationships and to protect people in those relationships and their children,” the bill states. “Minnesota’s current marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples, denying them and their families rights and responsibilities, including the right to pension and Social Security survivor’s benefits, the right to family and medical leave, and numerous other benefits and obligations. The state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners and the entire community benefits when couples undertake the mutual obligations of marriage.”
The bill removes language from Minnesota statutes stemming from the 1997 Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, statutes that refer to “husband” and “wife” would also refer to “spouse.”
Doug Benson of Marriage Equality Minnesota, which helped draft a similar bill last year, said the bill isn’t likely to go anywhere.
“With little chance of passage this biennium, it is largely a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important,” he said. “We are pushing forward toward equality in the face of our oppressors’ onslaught,” he added, referring to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.
The bill introduction coincides with a rally opposing the constitutional gay marriage ban hosted by LGBT group, OutFront Minnesota.
On the House side, the bill was sponsored by Reps. Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis, Diane Loeffler of Minneapolis, Erin Murphy of St. Paul, Carolyn Laine of Columbia Heights, Mindy Greiling of Roseville, Tina Liebling of Rochester, Jeff Hayden of Minneapolis, Ryan Winkler of St. Louis Park, Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis, John Lesch of St. Paul, Carlos Mariani of St. Paul, Michael Paymar of St. Paul, Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, Bill Hilty of Finlayson, Bobby Jo Champion of Minneapolis, Thomas Huntley of Duluth, Alice Hausman of St. Paul, Kerry Gauthier of Duluth, Rena Moran of St. Paul, Sheldon Johnson of St. Paul, Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis, Linda Slocum of Richfield and Marion Greene of Minneapolis.
Sens. John Marty of Rosevile, Linda Higgins of Minneapolis, Scott Dibble of Minneapolis, Patricia Torres Ray of Minneapolis, and Mary Jo McGuire of St. Paul.
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter16 Comments
Comment posted May 16, 2011 @ 10:48 am
A valiant and much needed legislation to move this state forward. Unfortunately the GOP is too busy imposing Christ’s long standing (though merely imagined) opposition to fair taxation of the wealthy. It’s really time to cast aside the prosperity gospel and it’s adherents.
Praise Jebus, God hates the First Amendment, Amen.
Comment posted May 16, 2011 @ 11:30 am
Finally some representation and forward-leaning momentum for all those tax dollars collected by the gay community. Minnesota shouldnt be taxing people it doesn’t plan on respecting and valuing as equal citizens and families and that the Constitution demands that it does. NOM wants Minnesotans to pay for their fight. It would undoubtedly waste MILLIONS of our tax dollars in litigation. NOM says thanks. There IS another option though, and this is it.
Pingback posted May 16, 2011 @ 3:00 pm
[...] constitutional amendment that would write a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution. — Minnesota Independent This entry was written by NOM Staff, posted on at 4:04 pm, filed under Minnesota, Same Sex [...]
Comment posted May 16, 2011 @ 3:32 pm
I’d like to see the day when the government stops issuing marriage licenses and just does civil unions for anyone who is of legal age and does the paperwork. The churches and temples and synagogues can do marriages for whomever they want or don’t want. Takes all the messy religious stuff out of the hands of the government. Conservatives should be all about less government involvement, right? I didn’t need the state to tell me that my relationship has spiritual meaning… Why do so many religious folks so badly need this moral validation from a civil authority? Why isn’t your god’s blessing enough?
Comment posted May 16, 2011 @ 5:10 pm
Diane, would you commit yourself to a civil union knowing civil unions are not universally legally recognized? There is the civil marriage license, and then there is the optional religious ceremony. Finally, the state does not care “how spiritual your relationship might be” whatever that means.
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
Why all of a sudden? Why are they drafting this now? The democrats have dominated MN politics for decades and it now thinks to submit this? This bill is nothing but a political stunt.
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 1:12 pm
I suspect some of our DFL legislators would prefer the issue go away but it won’t and they are being pressed to choose sides. That being said the proponents of this legislation have been waiting until they can get such a bill passed and signed by a willing Governor; conditions that, contrary to your post, have NOT existed for decades. And they probably won’t until the DFL controls the Legislative and Executive branches again.
So is this bill a political stunt because it won’t make it out of the House or Senate? Yes, right along with the myriad of GOP abortion restrictions that will be vetoed by the Governor.
However, I hope this bill passes and SF1308/HF1613 fall into the historical wastebasket of America civil rights abuses. Just my 2 cents.
Praise Jebus, God hates wasted efforts, Amen.
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 1:42 pm
@ Steve,
I litterally just spit my coffee out of my nose i laughter when I read this bill is nothing but a political stunt!
Like the amendment isn’t? WOW. We all know that the majority of the state Rep’s do not support this Amendment but the GOP is so heavily breathing down their necks to make sure they do anything at all, including un-American, and un-constitutional acts as push the amendment forward to get more GOP’ers to the voting booth in 12!
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 3:24 pm
Marie – my post in no way suggests that the Republican bill ISNT also a political stunt. I just dont think the democrats should be praised or be given a pass.
Carl,
I realize I am an outsider here but who is Jebus?
Also, the “anti-gay marriage” proposal should not be likened to the abortion issue. In fact, I would argue, the abortion issue is the very same fight as the “pro gay marriage” fight. Gays think it is ridiculous that their marriage is considered illegal. Human beings think it is ridiculous that killing babies is legal. If you try and tell me that abortion is legal and it is someone’s right to have one, please dont use the same side of your mouth when trying to convince an anti gay marriage person how wrong they are.
Just because the democratic party is pro baby killing doesnt make the republicans wrong. It is actually ok to disagree with your party of choice. The classic recent example of the hypocrisy is the meat head union workers finding themselves on the same side of the fence as gay activists. The macho union dock worker or carpenter or construction worker who bash gays to prove how manly they are, are suddenly forced to stand united with the fellow gay democrats in their attack on the gop machine.
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 5:59 pm
@Steve,
Not all “humans” oppose abortion rights unless Pro-choice citizens are less than human. But to clarify, you criticized DFL legislators’ proposing a bill that won’t pass as a “stunt.” I noted attempts to limit abortion rights by the MN GOP (after a DFL Governor promised a veto) fit neatly into your definition, which they do. I can’t help that political hacking cuts both ways.
Using gay rights and SSM as a wedge issue to separate union members from the DFL is an unsurprising, if cynical, strategy not likely successful when begun with name calling, i.e. meat head. Good luck with that.
As for “macho union dock workers” being forced to stand united with gay democrats, people tend to support those that protect their best interests. And union members know that’s not the GOP. What’s the matter, you think gay wears off on flannel?
Praise Jebus, God hates committed monogamy, Amen.
Comment posted May 18, 2011 @ 6:12 am
They should offer it as a constitutional amendment and let the people decide. Or is that only valid for conservative ideology?
The gay marriage ban and restrictions on abortions are both restrictions on personal liberties based on extreme religious ideology. They are both over-the-top intrusions into private lives and religious freedom.
If some people convince themselves that a few cells of genetic material constitute a complete human being, that is their right. It is not their right to force others to conform their lives to the beliefs of strangers. Especially the beliefs of religious zealots.
By their definition, millions of “human beings” are “murdered” every year by the laws of nature or Intelligent Design.
It is supreme arrogance that drives them to think that their opinion is established, universal fact.
The entire social conservative movement exists for the sole purpose of denying rights and liberties to others. There isn’t a constitutional patriot in the lot.
Comment posted May 18, 2011 @ 12:37 pm
@Zera Lee
restrictions on abortions are over-the-top intrusions into private lives and religious freedom? Religious Freedom? This is an example of “supreme” IGnorance.
WOW. Do you honestly want to try and lump these two issues together? Abortion is a religious freedom? Hell, gay marriage is miles away from a religious freedom – abortion is on another planet. Gays are being discriminated BECAUSE of religion. In 3rd world Muslim countries gays are murdered for simply being gay. Tell me that God made you gay so why the hell would he care if you got married. Do not tell me that gay marriage is a religious freedom.
After reading your so very brilliant response, your thoughts on abortion aren’t a real shock. Abortion is LEGAL. Not even God is going to give you a pass on this one. Just because it is legal doesn’t make it moral. I realize it makes life easier for you when you simply use two colors to paint your world. However, there is nothing extreme or religious behind my beliefs. Abortion is immoral. You can argue the legality of it all day long – it still is immoral. After 20 weeks, it is murder. Sorry to say but you are on a very small and lonely island with your beliefs. The fact is a majority of this country is opposed to abortion. Polls show anywhere from 55 to 65% are against it. My cousin is gay and extremely opposed to abortion. Big shock but he is also a democrat. He wants to adopt and adopting outside this country when you are gay is nearly impossible. Lumping abortion rights with gay marriage rights will only hurt the gay marriage movement. Assuming that anyone that doesn’t believe exactly the same as you is somehow extreme, radical, or some sort of zealot is stupid. Until you have a child, you will never appreciate what a true miracle it is. Considering your ability to only see black or white, it is probably a good thing.
Comment posted May 18, 2011 @ 5:27 pm
One last point Zera. Being gay is not a choice. Having an abortion is a choice you make.
Pingback posted May 23, 2011 @ 6:08 pm
[...] May 16, Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill that would repeal the “Defensive Marriage Act,” which currently restricts the definition of [...]
Pingback posted October 23, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
[...] same-sex marriage legal right now, then? No. Right now, in the state of Minnesota, same-sex marriage is ALREADY [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
