Minnesota Capitol. Photo: Wikipedia

Three bills that would assist same-sex couples in the event of one partner’s death were passed by the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday. Legislators recalled stories of couples who underwent hardships because of inequality in the law, while Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council called the bills “discriminatory” and said they are “unfair to married couples.”

Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis, offered a bill that would allow equal access in personal asset distributions. If a couple in a domestic partnership hasn’t drawn up a will, the measure states, assets in the event one partner dies would go to the surviving individual, just as it would with married spouses.

Hornstein said he was inspired to help rectifiy the inequalities of the law after learning of the difficulties faced by a pair in his district.

“There’s a couple in my district, Jim and Duane, and Duane had medical issues he was dealing with and was hospitalized. And his partner could not see him, he didn’t have visitation rights in in the same way that a heterosexual couple would,” he told the committee. “And it really got me thinking about the inequality many of our neighbors and constantly face on a day to day basis.”

Ann Kaner-Roth of Project 515, a group working to educate Minnesotans about the inequalities in Minnesota law, explained the bill, saying, “Essentially the protections would allow the assets of someone who dies without a will in place to be distributed to their domestic partner.”

The bill passed the committee by a voice vote, as did a bill to allow a surviving domestic partner to sue for wrongful death. Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, said the bill is modeled after Minnesota’s Fortune 500 companies.

“The domestic partner definition in this bill, and in all these bills, was taken from some of the most esteemed Minnesota based fortune 500 companies,” he said. “Already our most trusted corporate citizens are way ahead of us on this. I know there are strong opinions on this, but I trust you will vote your conscience.”

A third bill, sponsored by Rep. Paul Thissen, DFL-St. Paul, and passed on Wednesday, addressed Hornstein’s concerns. It would allow domestic partners to share health data in certain situations with the same access that spouses and family members have. It would have allowed Duane’s doctors to alert Jim about Duane’s condition when he was hospitalized.

The main voice of oppposition to the bills was Tom Prichard of the Minnesota Family Council.

“Basically, what they are attempting to do is redefine marriage,” he said. “This is discriminatory… It’s also unfair to married couples because married couples have a legal status and legal obligations where as these individuals are getting the benefits without the responsibilities and fundamentally this is an effort to redefine marriage.”

Despite Prichard’s testimony, all three bills were passed and placed on the General Register. The House could vote on them as soon as next week.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

St. Paul City Council members Dave Thune and Lee Helgen will be introducing a proposal for a domestic partner registry this week. For a $20 fee, couples who cannot marry (and some who wish not to) can get their relationship recognized through a city registry. Proponents say the registry will aid couples, especially same-sex couples, in securing benefits through employers.

“St. Paul is joining the rest of the country in acknowledging and accepting domestic partnerships because we respect and care about all people of the city,” Thune said in a statement.

Minneapolis has had such a registry since the early 1990s, and Duluth passed a similar law earlier this year. More than 80 municipalities in the United States offer such a service.

(Lavverrue, Flickr)

Despite fierce opposition from Republicans, a bill that would allow same-sex partners to make end-of-life decisions for their partners passed the Minnesota Senate on Thursday by a 37 to 24 vote. The bill, which also gives same-sex partners the right to sue for wrongful death, was opposed by legislators who said it was simply a back door to gay marriage.

The bill gives same-sex couples rights currently prohibited by law: it creates a definition of “domestic partner,” allows partners to sue in cases of wrongful death and gives same-sex partners decision-making power about remains.

“It seems to me what we are doing here is writing a definition of what a same-sex marriage would be or something by another name,” said Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie. “I guess I’m just a little surprised. If we want to redefine what marriage is then we should have that full debate.”

He asked how the state would determine what a committed relationship is and why heterosexual couples weren’t included. “Does it have to be a sexual relationship between same-sex people in order for this to apply?”

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, also thought the bill would legalize gay marriage in Minnesota. “That’s what this bill is all about, and it is designed to specifically challenge the definition of marriage in Minnesota.”

But the bill’s chief author, Duluth DFLer Yvonne Prettner Solon, said the bill is simply about correcting injustice in state statute.

“This is not an attempt to redefine what marriage is. This is not about challenging the definition of marriage,” she said. “This is about equal rights. This is just about fairness. This is about equality. This is about some Minnesotans who do not have the right to make decisions about their deceased loved ones.”

Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, agreed. “It is humane that we make this decision today and we give these partners the right to make decisions about their deceased,” she said.

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, who has a same-sex partner was offended by the implication that it is a back door to gay marriage.

“I think we are getting dangerously close to a line we don’t cross in this Senate,” he said. “This proposal simply provides these people some decency and fairness to make decisions that they need to make. To diminish this or to call it a pretext [to gay marriage] is an insult to our constituents that deal with this issue everyday at a moment of tragedy in their lives.”

A companion bill awaits a vote in the House. Gov. Tim Pawlenty has indicated that he will veto the bill if it makes it to his desk.

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.

An amendment to a state government appropriations bill would give state employees the right to take unpaid sick leave to visit a “significant other” in times of illness or disability for up to five days each year. Controversy abounds, however, with the definition of “significant other.”

Continued: Click “Read more” The legislation would define the term as:

a person who has entered into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult, where the adults: are responsible for each other’s basic common welfare; share a common residence and intend to do so indefinitely; are not related by blood or adoption to an extent that would prohibit marriage in this state; and are legally competent and qualified to enter into a contract.

Typically collective bargaining would establish benefits for state employees, but when an agreement was reached several years ago that included a sick leave benefit for those who otherwise could not marry or be defined as “spouses” under state law, it was stripped out by the governor.

Kahn’s amendment passed the State State Government Finance Division Committee.

Rep. Neva Walker, DFL-Minneapolis, proposed a standalone bill that directs all businesses that employ 21 or more people to provide sick leave benefits. The bill would allow an employee to use his or her own sick time to care for his or her child, spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, stepparent or domestic partner.

Walker’s bill passed the State Government Finance Division Committee.