Last December, the FCC implemented rules that limited the establishment a “fast-lane” by internet service provides available to those with the highest bid. Under the rules laid out in December by the FCC, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

That rule takes effect on Nov. 20, but House and Senate Republicans have pushed to have that rule withdrawn through legislative means. The House already passed the bill, and Senate Republicans are pushing a similar one as the deadline approaches. They are using a procedural gimmick in the Senate to force a floor vote without the option of a filibuster.

Republicans have put the issue into a resolution that simply reads that the FCC rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Franken penned an column explaining what he feels will be the result if Senate Republicans are successful.

“While millions of Americans have become familiar with the concept of net neutrality, it’s important that we’re all on the same page,” Franken wrote. “Net neutrality isn’t a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged. It isn’t even a change from what we have now. Net neutrality has been in place since the very beginning of the Internet.”

He added, “But many Republicans want to change that so that the large corporations they represent can increase their profit margins at the expense of small businesses and consumers.”

Franken has been a champion of net neutrality since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008.

But he also felt the net neutrality rules created by the FCC weren’t strong enough.

“The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications and devices,” Franken said in December. “Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

The Obama administration pushed back on Tuesday as well, indicating to Senate Republicans that a veto any bill that weakened net neutrality would be likely.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy—an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Today more than ever, the open Internet is essential to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness,” the White House said on Tuesday. “If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.”

Paradoxically, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the author of the rules repeal, says her bill would encourage an open and free internet.

“The Internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector. It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing,” Hutchison said in a statement on Tuesday. “More regulation of the Internet is going to stop the investments, it’s going to stop the creativity — and put our businesses and our providers at a competitive disadvantage with Europeans and others that have kept their Internet free of over-regulation.”

Franken spoke of several recent suicides of LGBT students around the country, including Justin Aaberg who attended the Anoka-Hennepin School District.

“Our federal laws say you cannot discriminate based on religion, race, sex, disability or national origin, but they do not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex orientation or gender identity,” Franken told the committee. “We are faced with a a group of students that is facing pervasive systemic discrimination. They are being viciously harassed and bullied, they are dropping out of school, staying home from school and they are literally killing themselves. Our schools aren’t doing enough to stop it.”

Franken said he was disappointed that the amendment wouldn’t be added to the No Child Left Behind bill but that he would press to have it included when the full Senate takes up the bill.

“I would like to make it clear that if it came up for a vote, it would pass by bipartisan support,” he said.

Here are Franken’s remarks during the committee meeting on Thursday:

“Despite this week’s vote in the Senate, millions of Americans are still out of work, the middle class is still under attack, and the corporate-backed politicians don’t have a plan to create jobs,” AFSCME President Gerald W. McEntee said in a statement on Thursday. “Americans are reclaiming their voice in a Main Street Movement that spans from Madison to Columbus to New York to cities across the nation. Washington can help them by passing the American Jobs Act now.”

Cravaack has said he opposes the jobs bill, but is facing pressure in the district to support President Obama’s proposal. Earlier this week, residents held a “jobs vigil” to convince Cravaack to vote for the jobs bill.

Here’s the AFSCME ad targeting Cravaack:

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) sent a scathing fundraising letter to supporters complaining about the 2011 legislative session and blaming Republican leadership for not pressuring Gov. Mark Dayton to sign anti-abortion legislation.

Politics in Minnesota’s Paul Demko notes that MCCL President Leo LaLonde went after House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, both of whom are Republicans. The letter notes that MCCL’s finances are at an all-time low.

“I am going to be brutally honest,” LaLonde wrote. “I am devastated by the fact that not only were we unsuccessful in enacting any new pro-life laws this session, but we lost an existing pro-life policy for the first time since Roe V. Wade legalized abortion on demand!”

LaLonde criticized Republicans for the group’s legislative failures.

“[We] felt confident that House and Senate leaders would insist that at least some of our protective measures would be included in the final budget,” he said. “Senate Majority Leader Koch and Speaker of the House Zellers quickly struck a deal with Gov. Dayton, and in the blink of an eye all five pro-life measures that has been passed by nearly two-thirds, veto-proof margin during the legislative session were negotiated away.”

He added, “The Republican leaders lost sight of what is truly at stake—the lives of innocent human beings.”

The letter asked supporters for donations because MCCL is struggling financially.

“The uncertainty of the economy has not been kind to MCCL. Donations are down,” the letter reads. MCCL also said that they spent a lot of money in the 2011 legislative session: ”Our coffers are at an all-time low-will you help us?”

On Tuesday, Rep. Tim Walz joined all but one of his Minnesota DFL colleagues in support of a repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which prevents the federal government from recognizing legally married same-sex couples.

The Defense of Marriage Act passed into law in 1996. Walz is the latest lawmaker to sponsor the repeal effort in the House, bringing the number up to 122 representatives. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York said the bill has been offered every year, but that this year it has gathered the greatest number of sponsors in its history.

Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum are original sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act which was introduced in March. Sen. Al Franken is an original sponsor in the Senate, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar joined him this summer. Rep. Collin Peterson is the only DFLer in Minnesota’s delegation that hasn’t signed the repeal.

“Getting married to my wife Gwen and building our life together was the best thing that ever happened to me,” Walz said in a statement. “I simply cannot imagine why we would want to ban our fellow Americans from that commitment. Martin Luther King Jr. once said ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ I believe that arc is getting shorter and I look forward to a day in my lifetime when Americans are not discriminated on based on who they love.”

The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would ensure that same-sex couples who have been legally married in the United States would have access to federal benefits such as social security, file jointly on tax forms and enjoy less onerous immigration requirements for binational couples.

Same-sex couples can legally mary in Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, and the sovereign nations of the Coquille and Suquamish. In addition, couples married in California prior to the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008 hold valid marriage licenses in that state.

“As the march toward full equality for LGBT Americans is seeing some real, concrete progress, the movement to repeal DOMA is steadily growing stronger and more robust,” Nadler said of the 122 sponsors. “The coalition working for LGBT rights in the Congress and the nation as a whole is larger than ever before, and we gain new allies every day. And, just this year, New York State enacted marriage equality, hammering one more nail into the coffin of bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians. Dumping DOMA is simply not a question of if, but when.”

A vote by Rep. Tony Cornish to put a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the 2012 ballot has brought a flurry of emails into the Good Thunder Republican’s inbox expressing disappointment. The responses he’s been sending back — “Give it a rest!!!!!!!!!” and “try writing a sane letter,” among others — have only served to fan the flames.

A Minnesotan named Stephanie, who sent a form email through the Human Rights Campaign website, got a response from Cornish that she described as “rude.”

Other people who have emailed Cornish have also received responses.

“Cool off & try writing a sane letter,” went one response. “Try writing your own letter without forwarding someone else’s anger and resentment. Get an idea of your own,” Cornish wrote in another email.

Update: A reader shares correspondence with Cornish, which included the explanation for the “give it a rest” line:

From the start, right after my vote, I received e mails calling me a “bigot” and much much worse, describing in detail horrific things that I should do to my own body, and people talking about my “obituary.” It wore on me, so about the 300th letter I got like that, I replied, “Give it a rest!”

It’s just kind of disturbing I guess, when my district asked me overwhelmingly to put this on the ballot, that I should get such letters.

Thanks for writing,

Cornish

Another reader sends this email, received from Cornish Sunday and sent in response to an email generated by the Human Rights Campaign:

Hey, try writing a letter on your own and not copy someone else’s. That way you won’t be trapped into writing ridiculous ranting letters.

Have a great day.

Cornish

Both emails come from Cornish’s official House email address.

On Wednesday morning, the House Committee on Rules and Administration approved an amendment that would codify a ban on gay marriage within the Minnesota Constitution by a vote of 13 to 12. One Republican, Rep. Tim Kelly of Red Wing, joined the DFL in voting against the measure. The bill heads to a House floor vote. The committee took no public testimony before the vote.

DFLers pleaded with Republicans on the committee.

“The founding fathers warned against tyranny of majority,” said Rep. Kathy Brynaert, DFL-Mankato. “Don’t do this.”

Rep. Kate Knuth, DFL-New Brighton, said. “Why take away rights in our constitution? Why tear the people of our state apart?”

She added, “It makes me physically ill to think of the division we’ll see.”

Rep. Carolyn Laine, DFL-Columbia Heights, said, “Clearly this isn’t about the sanctity of marriage; it’s about discrimination.”

As the roll call was being taken, several protesters shouted “Shame!” and “You are damaging my life and my family!” One was dragged from the committee room.

According to OutFront Minnesota, five Republicans would need to vote with the DFL to defeat the amendment in the House. Along with Rep. Tim Kelly who voted against the amendment in the committee, Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, has said he will vote against it on the House floor.

The House will need to take the bill up before Monday, which is the last day of the session. The Senate has already passed the amendment, and if the House approves the measure, it will be on the ballot in 2012.

Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, told the South Washington County Bulletin on Monday that he hasn’t yet decided which way he will vote on a proposal that would codify a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota Constitution. McNamara sits on the House Committee on Rules and Administration, which is set to vote on the bill on Wednesday and is the last committee before the bill reaches the House floor.

“I’m really not in tune with the whole marriage amendment discussion and really don’t think we should be dealing with that right now,” he told the Bulletin.

While McNamara voted for the marriage amendment in 2005, he told the paper, “I wouldn’t make an assumption that something I did five years ago would not change.”

McNamara represents Hastings, which borders on the district represented by Rep. John Kriesel, the Republican who recently said he would not vote for the amendment.

“John’s pretty good about representing his district and doing a good job,” McNamara said. “He’s talked to me about it. I certainly understand where he’s at.”

According to the Bulletin, McNamara did not say whether or not he would vote for the amendment.

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.

Religious conservatives are stepping up the pressure on Republicans legislators as the final week of the legislative session approaches and a proposed amendment to add a ban on gay marriage to the Minnesota Constitution appears stalled. The Minnesota Family Council threatened Republicans that any effort to stall the bill will be redefined as a vote against the bill, while the National Organization for Marriage pleaded that if the bill doesn’t go forward it will encourage “gay marriage activists.”

“Contact your legislator and tell them to vote yes on the marriage amendment,” the Minnesota Family Council wrote to supporters. “Also, tell them that now is the time to pass the amendment and that any effort to postpone, delay or table the bill will be considered a vote against the amendment.”

The email continued, “The people of Minnesota deserve a full and open campaign to decide the future of marriage. Putting a vote off until 2012 means an abbreviated conversation about marriage that is overshadowed in the midst of a presidential race. The only ones served by putting this vote off are gay marriage advocates, not Minnesota voters or Minnesota families.”

That identical line appeared in an email from the New Jersey–based National Organization for Marriage, which said it had heard rumors that Republicans wanted to table the bill.

“The bill now goes to the House where we are hearing rumors that some House members are talking of tabling the amendment until next year,” NOM wrote. “We need your help today! Gay marriage activists know they aren’t likely to defeat the amendment this year—and would like nothing better than to push the vote off for another year.”

“Let your representative know that a vote to table the amendment is a vote to undermine marriage!”

Brad Brandon, a pastor and talk show host who endorsed a slate of conservative candidates last fall, sent an alert out to his ministry’s membership.

“Right now the Marriage Amendment is in grave danger of being lost in the House of Representatives,” he wrote. “A few rouge [sic] Republican State Reps are trying to stall the Marriage Amendment in the House. We are urging everyone to call their State Reps and urge them to support the Marriage Amendment today!”

He added, “Let’s all stand up and be the SALT and the LIGHT Christ called us to be.”

The bill has passed the Minnesota Senate and several committees in the House. The bill was pulled off the agenda in the House Rules and Administration Committee several weeks ago, and no hearing his currently scheduled for the bill.

The legislative session ends on May 23.