At a campaign stop in Iowa on Friday, a member of the audience grilled Tim Pawlenty on his views about rights for LGBT people. Gabe Aderhold, a senior at Edina High School, asked Pawlenty why he has “not had the courage to stand for me and my friends. You are discriminating against me and it hurts.” Pawlenty said he will never be at the point “where I’ll say that every domestic relationship is the same as traditional marriage.”

Pawlenty has opposed all efforts in Minnesota to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. And his opposition extends beyond marriage equality. He vetoed legislation that would give same-sex couples the right to fulfill a deceased partner’s last wishes in 2010. In 2008, he vetoed a bill that would allow local units of government to provide health care benefits for same-sex couples.

Also in 2008, he vetoed a bill to allow government employees, including same-sex partners, to use sick time to care for a seriously ill family member. The Minnesota Family Council pressed for a veto and got one.

“The end game in all of this is a legal imposition of homosexual marriage upon the state of Minnesota,” said Tom Prichard, the group’s president, at the time.

Rep. Ryan Winkler offered an amendment in the Government Operations and Elections Commmittee on Wednesday that would have allowed local governments to offer domestic partner benefits to same-sex couples, but Republican members opposed the measure. A 1995 court case struck down the ability of local governments to offer domestic partner benefits, and instead communities across the state have enacted domestic partner registries that currently cover 1 million Minnesota residents.

Winkler sought to amend a bill by Rep. Steve Drazkowski that would repeal a number of local government mandates — including a statute that mandates group health insurance for local government units — to allow local governments to offer domestic partner benefits if they chose.

Winkler said current statute “doesn’t offer local government units the opportunity to tailor their benefits to be more consistent with the families that work for them.”

“Two hundred and ninety Minnesota employers offer domestic partner benefits, but in state law we say local governments can’t do that,” he said. “That is a mandate that the Minnesota government imposes on local government units.”

Winkler continued, “Several municipalities in the state have passed resolutions specifically requesting us to make this change,” including the city of Edina.

Drazkowski said he opposed the measure. “If we would pass an amendment like this, it would introduce into board meetings the discussion around these very controversial issues that would take up lots of their valuable time.”

Winkler retorted that Drazkowski’s opposition “suggests you are targeting one group for different treatment.”

“Seventy percent of fortune 500 companies in Minnesota offer these benefits,” he added. “The only place it’s controversial is at the legislature, not in the real world.”

Local governments have tried to offer domestic partner benefits. Minneapolis passed an ordinance giving its employees such benefits in 1993, but in 1995 conservative activist James Lilly won a lawsuit at the Minnesota Court of Appeals that ruled that Minnesota’s statute on group insurance prohibited municipalities from offering benefits to anyone other than spouses or dependent children.

Since then, municipalities have begun to offer domestic partner registries that allow couples to provide proof of their relationship for family memberships in city programs and participation in partner benefits with employers.

The cities of Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Paul, Rochester, Golden Valley, Maplewood, Edina, St. Louis Park and Richfield have all enacted such registries.

Ultimately, Winkler’s amendment failed along a party line vote.

A slate of 35 DFLers introduced legislation on Monday that would allow state employment contracts to include benefits for same-sex domestic partners. The bill aims to restore benefits that were offered during the administration of Gov. Jesse Ventura but repealed under pressure from Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Republican legislators in 2003.

HF1438 states, “If a collective bargaining agreement or plan provides state paid health insurance for spouses of employees, the insurance must be made available to domestic partners of state employees on the same terms and conditions.”

The bill also defines the term domestic partners as a same-sex couple as two adults who “(1) are responsible for each other’s basic common welfare; (2) share a common residence and intend to do so indefinitely; (3) are not related by blood or adoption to an extent that would prohibit marriage in this state; and (4) are legally competent and qualified to enter into a contract.”

In 2000, then-Gov. Jesse Ventura included domestic partner benefits for the following biennium.

In 2003, a Republican-led House refused to ratify a labor contract that contained the benefits, and 85 families lost their health and life insurance benefits.

For the past few years, DFLers have attempted to have those benefits reinstated, with limited success. They’ve been passed by the Legislature but stripped from budget bills in order to appease former Gov. Pawlenty.

Though polls show that Minnesotans do not support same-sex marriage, a large majority — even among Republicans — support the state offering some kind of benefits for same-sex couples.

According to an MPR poll from last fall, “The majority, 64% (including 56% of Emmer supporters, 55% of Republicans, and 56% of independents) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples.”

A KSTP poll in 2009 found exactly the same level of support for limited relationship rights for same-sex couples.

The bill was introduced by Reps. Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis, Mindy Greiling of Roseville, Ryan Winkler of St. Louis Park, Karen Clark of Minneapolis, Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, Lyndon Carlson Sr. of Crystal, Paul Thissen of Minneapolis, Debra Hilstrom of Brooklyn Center; Marion Greene of Minneapolis, Steve Simon of St. Louis Park, Thomas Huntley of Duluth, Alice Hausman of St. Paul, Carlos Mariani of St. Paul, Sheldon Johnson of St Paul, Kerry Gauthier of St. Paul, Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis; Kate Knuth of New Brighton, Bill Hilty of Finlayson, Tom Anzelc of Balsam Township, Erin Murphy of St. Paul, Rena Moran of St. Paul, Leon Lillie of North St. Paul, Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis, Bobby Jo Champion of Minneapolis, Linda Slocum of Richfield, John Benson of Minnetonka, Carly Melin of Hibbing, Tom Tillberry of Fridley, Rick Hansen of South St. Paul, Jeff Hayden of Minneapolis, Diane Loeffler of Minneapolis; Sandra Peterson of New Hope, Tina Liebling of Rochester, Tom Rukavina of Virginia and Michael Paymar of St. Paul.

Source: Wikipedia

Rochester is considering an ordinance that would allow same-sex partners to register their domestic partnership with the city. Mayor Ardell Brede proposed the measure, which among other things would allow for hospital visitation for same-sex couples in “Med City.” The proposal has drawn early support from Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, and if it passes, Rochester would join four other cities in the state — Minneapolis, Duluth, St. Paul and Edina — in enacting such an ordinance.

Brede told the Rochester Post-Bulletin that it was the right thing to do, despite the likely controversy the move may cause.

“Yeah, of course, there are those people — and I know some of them by name — that will be (objecting), whether blogging, by personal note or phone call,” he said. “It’s not who’s right, but what’s right and I think this is a ‘what’s right’ situation.”

Horner told the Post-Bulletin’s blog Political Party that he hopes the city council will approve the measure.

“I hope that the Rochester City Council is able to go ahead and pass the domestic benefits. I think for Minnesota to be a state that is open to the best talent, that attracts the best talent, we need to address these kinds of equality issues and be a leader in addressing them,” he said.

“I understand that most Minnesotans aren’t ready to take that on. I think what they are ready to take on are the same kinds of steps in the public sector that the private sector already has taken and has been there is some cases for many years.”

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

Yesterday, St. Paul became the third municipality in Minnesota to offer a domestic partnership registry. No citizens testified against the measure, and the city council unanimously approved the registry Wednesday afternoon. Mayor Chris Coleman signed the ordinance into law surrounded by LGBT advocates at the St. Paul gay bar, Camp.

The capital city follows Minneapolis, which enacted such a registry in 1991, and Duluth, which passed a registry into law earlier this year. The entire state of Wisconsin offers a domestic partner registry and limited domestic partner benefits.

Because Minnesota municipalities are forbidden by state law from offering any type of domestic partner benefits, the registry is largely symbolic. But proponents say the new law could benefit couples and businesses for which proof of domestic partnership is needed for legal or insurance reasons.

The cost for a couple to add themselves to the registry is $20.

(Wikimedia commons)

LGBT rights activists have reason to celebrate this legislative session as steps — albeit baby ones — were made in the area of LGBT equality. While the majority of more than a dozen bills failed to even make it out of legislative committee, a few found their way to Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s desk, with one bill becoming law.

Health Care Agent

One major success for same-sex couples is the Health Care Agent law signed by Pawlenty on Tuesday. Before the law was passed, same-sex couples did not have guaranteed access to their partners’ medical information in the event that one member of the couple is incapacitated or otherwise unable to communicate. Only a spouse or next of kin had the right to know the condition of a loved one. The new law puts Minnesota in line with federal law. Same-sex couples still have to draw up the proper forms in order to be each other’s health care agent, but now Minnesota law expressly recognizes those forms.

“Not since 1993 has a Minnesota Governor signed stand-alone pro-GLBT legislation into law!” OutFront Minnesota said in an email to supporters. “We used to have to hire lawyers to beef up the form for us, but now the state form gives more access. This is a fabulous success!”

Safe Schools for All

An anti-bullying bill that includes sexual orientation and gender identity, as well as many other characteristics, was passed by the legislature after emotional debate. The bill directs school districts and charter schools to develop comprehensive anti-bullying policies. No one is sure whether Pawlenty will sign the bill, but it passed the Senate and House by large bipartisan margins, so an override is a possibility should he reject the bill.

Marriage and Family Protection Act

The Marriage and Family Protection Act picked up the support of a remarkable number of legislators. Despite that, no action was taken. Doug Benson, a citizen, authored the legislation that was then carried by Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, and Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis. Despite a large number of cosponsors, no action was ever taken on the bill:

Benson shared his synopsis of the bill’s fate:

We had 32 legislators signed on this year as opposed to 19 in 2008. We filled one bill in the Senate and had enough support to offer a duplicate bill, SF2145, which I dropped in last week and was introduced on Thursday 5/13.

The responsibility for the lack of progress on marriage equality this session rests with the DFL leadership in the House and Senate. I was told and I believe they actively tried to block progress on all of the marriage equality bills this session. They obviously succeeded.

There has been talk of a possible joint informational hearing during the recess that would not include a vote. Even though this is far less than we had hoped for at this point, it would create some energy around marriage equality and bring the House and Senate together on the issue. With an informational hearing out of the way, it could result in early committee votes next session. That’s what we’re hoping for. No arrangement has been made at this point.

Final Wishes Act

A bill to allow the surviving partner in a same-sex couple to make the final determination of what happens to the body when a partner dies did not make it to the governor. The bill passed the Senate but the House took no action this session.

Preserving One’s Home

Currently, Minnesota law only allows a spouse to remain in a home after the death of a homeowner — liens and other actions against the property cannot force the surviving spouse out of the home. Preserving One’s Home says that if a same-sex partner owns a home and his/her partner has set up a homestead with him/her, the surviving partner is allowed to retain the homestead. The bill passed the House and Senate but was not presented to the governor. Update: The bill was presented to the governor Wednesday afternoon.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Domestic partner benefits for state employees lost to the budget battle last week. A bill to allow the unions to add health, life and dental benefits to their contracts was added to the omnibus state government bill. Conference committee members stripped the language out of the omnibus bill after Pawlenty threatened a veto. Pawlenty signed the omnibus bill on Saturday without the domestic partner language.

The text removed from the omnibus bill read, “If a collective bargaining agreement or plan provides state paid health insurance for spouses of employees, the insurance must be made available to a domestic partner of a state employee on the same terms and conditions.”

Out of State Marriage

A bill that would authorize Minnesota to grant the rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples that were legally married in other states failed to make it out of committee this session. In fact, the bill never received a hearing.

Civil Unions

A bill to allow civil unions in Minnesota was introduced this session. The bill would change the word “marriage” in state statute to “civil union contract,” effectively taking the state out of the religious aspects of marriage. The bill would also change the definition of civil union to mean “two parties, recognized by the state of Minnesota” instead of “a civil contract between a man and a woman,” opening proposed civil union contract language to same-sex couples. The bill was only offered in the House and never received a committee hearing.

Gender Neutral Marriage

A bill was offered in the House and Senate to make Minnesota’s marriage laws gender neutral. It never got a committee hearing.

Marriage Study

A bill to study the impact of Minnesota’s marriage laws on same-sex couples was offered in both the Senate and the House, but no action was taken this session.

Constitutional Amendment

Marriage equality foes offered three constitutional amendments to ban domestic partnerships, civil unions and same-sex marriage in Minnesota. No action was taken on any of those bills.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

Same-sex couples residing in Duluth will find it easier to prove their domestic partner status as the Duluth City Council voted on Monday evening to approve a domestic partner registry.

The council approved the measure by a vote of 5 to 3, and advocates say the move will make it easier for businesses to recognize domestic partnerships and offer benefits. Minneapolis is the only other municipality in the state to offer such a registry.

Registry applicants need to affirm that they are “jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life” and “are as committed to one another as married persons are traditionally committed.” The cost of the domestic partner certificate is $25.

Currently all Minnesota communities are prevented by state law from offering domestic partnerships.

“The House bill requires that state-paid health insurance must be made available to domestic partners if a collective bargaining agreement or plan provides state paid health insurance to spouses,” he wrote. “The bill extends benefits to both same sex and opposite sex partners, I oppose this provision and will not sign a bill that includes this expansion of benefits.”

Minnesota extended those benefits briefly under Gov. Jesse Ventura. In 2003, a Republican-led House refused to ratify a labor contract that contained the benefits, and 85 families lost their health and life insurance benefits.

In a campaign interview with the Minnesota Independent, Anderson said that such a registry would be priority for him. “Because same-sex couples have little access to legal recognition of their relationship and their families, a domestic partner registry can be used to assist employers who wish to make domestic partner benefits available to their employees,” he said in 2007.

Registry applicants would affirm that they are “jointly responsible to each other for the necessities of life” and “are as committed to one another as married persons are traditionally committed.”

Anderson told the Duluth News Tribune that would not impose anything on people or businesses that don’t want to participate.

“This does not create special rights for same sex couples,” Anderson said. “The proposed registry places no requirement on any business, or on the city itself, to offer domestic partnership benefits.”

In fact, Duluth is not able to offer domestic partner benefits because state law forbids it. Legislators have twice passed legislation to allow municipalities to offer such benefits only to be vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

“It’s simply a matter of fairness and respect for our members,” said Russ Stanton of the Inter Faculty Organization, representing the employees of Minnesota’s state colleges and universities. “Our members that are in domestic partnerships work just as hard, and we think that they deserve equal respect and equal benefits.”

The bill would allow health, dental and life insurance benefits to a domestic partner which is defined as “a person who has entered
into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult.”

Stanton said that Minnesota’s public schools are at a disadvantage in hiring. “It’s a recruitment and retention issue for the state universities as they seek to recruit high-quality faculty,” he said. “State universities compete nationally and internationally, and many higher-education institutions that we compete with do offer domestic partner benefits.”

Dr. Sarah Ford, a faculty member at Inver Hills Community College, told the committee about one award-winning colleague who is looking for work in California because she can’t get health benefits for her family.

“We pay the same dues to our unions. We pay the same co-pays and deductibles. We make the same retirement contributions as everyone else,” said Ford. “We do the same work as our married colleagues, and we pay the same taxes that everybody else pays except we are not offered the same benefits that married people are.”

Ford pointed out that 16 states and the District of Columbia offer domestic partner benefits to state employees.

Monica Meyer, public policy director for OutFront Minnesota, countered a common contention  frequently offered by social conservatives about domestic partner benefits: that some people will try to game the system. “People don’t sign up to say they are domestic partners when they are not domestic partners,” she said. “One of the issues is the cost factor: Domestic partner benefits are taxed as federal income, while benefits for married couples are not. That’s why we have written in the definition of domestic partners in the bill.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, had an awkward but humorous exchange over the bill.

“I will start out with an apology to Rep. Emmer,” said Kahn. “The last time I presented this bill, Rep. Emmer suggested an amendment, and I didn’t accept the amendment because I thought it broadened it in an unacceptable way.”

In 2007 Emmer wanted to change “domestic partner” to “significant other,” which, Kahn felt, would have created an over-broad bill and compromised its chances. The current bill includes elements of Emmer’s amendment such that it is not specific to gay and lesbian couples.

“Mr. Chair,” Emmer interrupted. “I mean we need to clear up when someone doesn’t tell the truth here. The bottom line was that Rep. Kahn didn’t trust me.”

“Right,” said Kahn — and the room erupted in laughter. “And I have now apologized for that lack of trust, and I have incorporated Rep. Emmer’s amendment from the start. I did make the mistake in not getting to him in time to co-author the bill.”

That generated more laughter, as Emmer has consistently spoken out against and voted in opposition to bills that would recognize same-sex couples.

The bill now heads to the State Government Finance Division.