“It’s like a roach motel,” says Phil Duran, an attorney with OutFront Minnesota, who has been an advocate for individuals committed to the program. “People check in, but they never check out.”

Gov. Tim Pawlenty and his Republican allies in the Legislature have repeatedly stated that spending on health and human services programs is out of control. He returned to the theme last week in announcing a proposal for an amendment to the state constitution to cap spending. “The health and human services budget is growing at rates that are just absolutely unsustainable,” Pawlenty stated.

But while politicians rail against the purported runaway costs of welfare spending and slash health insurance for some of the state’s poorest residents, the program with the most rapidly rising cost never merits mention.

Since 2003 the budget for the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP) has increased by almost 400 percent, mushrooming from $18.5 million annually to $71.6 million in just six years. The program is a budgetary black hole, but legislators don’t seem to care.

“It’s very difficult to get people to engage on it,” says Linda Berglin, who chairs the Health and Human Services Budget Division, and has sought changes to the MSOP for years. “Nobody wants to be associated with sex offenders. Nobody wants to be responsible for something that might cause a problem later on.”

But while the MSOP is largely ignored during budgetary debates, it recently garnered headlines because of the controversial purchase of two dozen flat-screen televisions for the facility in Moose Lake where the bulk of the patients reside. After the purchase details were outlined in the Star Tribune, Pawlenty immediately ordered that the televisions be removed. The plasma screens are now to be utilized by veterans’ homes and the Minnesota National Guard.

The televisions, however, are a fiscal red herring. Even at the extravagant cost of $2,282 to purchase and install each screen, they represent a rounding error in the overall cost of the sex offender program.

MSOP population mushroomed following Sjodin murder

The reason for the skyrocketing cost of the MSOP is simple: The number of sex offenders civilly committed to the program has surged dramatically in recent years. In 2003 there were 199 men (there are no women) being held at facilities in St. Peter and Moose Lake. But in the ensuing six years the population has nearly tripled, with 547 sex offenders currently being held for an indeterminate period of time. Each person enrolled in the program costs the state $134,000 annually.

The timing of this explosion in cost and sex offender commitments is by no means coincidental. In November 2003, Dru Sjodin, a 22-year-old college student, was murdered by a sex offender named Alfonso Rodriquez, Jr., who had been released from prison earlier that year after serving 23 years for stabbing and attempting to kidnap a woman. He also had a previous conviction for rape.

In the wake of that high-profile crime, the Minnesota Department of Corrections began referring all Level III sex offenders — those deemed most likely to commit additional crimes — due to be released for consideration of commitment. In addition, Pawlenty ordered that no civilly committed sex offenders be released unless required by law or ordered to do so by the courts. Under state law, the authority to provisionally release an offender who has met all the treatment requirements rests with a three-judge panel.

The ramifications of these changes were twofold: the pool of offenders being considered for civil commitment was dramatically expanded, and the odds of patients being released from the program were greatly reduced.

“Before Rodriguez the referrals that we were getting as examiners were really very, very dangerous sex offenders,” says Paul Reitman, a forensic psychologist who has screened candidates for civil commitment for roughly two decades. “Typically they had 10, 15, 20 victims.”

In some instances, individuals who have never committed violent offenses have gotten swept up in the program. The changes implemented to the program have also increased the number of people facing civil commitment who have only committed crimes as juveniles or suffer from developmental disabilities.

“We started getting a whole different group of people,” says Reitman.

So what exactly is Minnesota getting for its $70 million-a-year sex offender program? Duran, of OutFront Minnesota, doesn’t believe the MSOP has any credible means of treating patients. He points out that in response to the flat-screen television flap, the head of the program argued that the large-screen televisions were part of the treatment program.

“Then there are millions of Minnesotans every night who receive sex offender treatment,” Duran notes. “Who knew? If that’s the quality of decision making, then you know something’s wrong.”

Duran further points out that residents of the facilities are subjected to rules that even the most diligent patient would find exasperating to follow. For instance, he says, a ban on physical contact even extends to a prohibition on shaking hands.

“Shaking hands? That is a dangerous activity?” he wonders. “Help me understand in what context that makes sense.”

The systemic problems with the program are not a new development. But Berglin notes that primary oversight rests with the Minnesota Department of Human Services and that the Legislature’s authority is somewhat limited.

Last legislative session, for instance, Berglin sought what she thought was a fairly anodyne change. She introduced a bill that would have allowed felons facing potential civil commitment to voluntarily remain in prison until they had completed a sex-offender treatment program, thus potentially decreasing the chances that they’ll be subject to indefinite detainment.

“The Department of Corrections went bonkers,” she recalls. “They just went ballistic. I could not get that bill out of the judiciary committee because of the extreme position of the Department of Corrections.”

Little political will to reform program

Even when legislation has been pushed through it’s proven ineffective in breaking the patient logjam. Two years ago Berglin sponsored legislation changing the administrative process through which civilly committed sex offenders can be released. The sign-off previously had to come from the top official at the Minnesota Department of Human Services, a political appointee. Under the new legislation, the final call on whether a patient is released after completing treatment is made by a three-judge panel. But it made no difference in whether individuals were ultimately released.

Reitman and others stress that lower-cost alternatives exist that would be just as effective in protecting the public from people who have committed heinous crimes. In states such as Wisconsin, Washington and Texas, for instance, sex offenders have routinely been released from civil commitment programs and not committed additional crimes. The key to success: intensive supervision and continued treatment. If the offenders fail to follow through on any aspects of their therapy plan, they again lose their freedom.

“The research tells us that what really keeps these guys from sexually recidivating is being under intensive supervision,” says Reitman. “In reality the treatment model is there for us to follow.”

Margretta Dwyer, a former head of the sexual therapy program at the University of Minnesota, agrees that much cheaper alternatives exist to effectively treat sex offenders. She notes that it costs the state $134,000 annually to keep an offender civilly committed. “You could hire two guards in 12 hours shifts for $50,000 per year, per person and still save money,” she says.

But Dwyer believes the will to have a meaningful discussion about how to effectively deal with sex offenders is lacking at every level of the government. “Everyone’s afraid,” she says. “Every judge is afraid to step forward. Every representative and senator is afraid to step forward.”

“As a pastor within a denomination that has been marrying same gender couples for forty years, I am saddened that my congregants must travel north to Canada or south to Iowa in order to be legally married,” said the Rev. Robyn Provis of All God’s Children Metropolitan Community Church in Minneapolis. “What that means is that their marriages are recognized four hours north and three hours south but here in Minnesota their marriages are legally invisible.”

Provis was one of a half dozen faith leaders speaking out in support of marriage equality efforts in the state. The press conference at the Capitol was organized by the LGBT advocacy group OutFront Minnesota.

“What this event reminds us is that many people of faith support full legal equality for GLBT individuals, and same-gender couples, not despite their religious beliefs, but because of them,” said OutFront Minnesota Executive Director Amy Johnson.

“The main reasons for denying marriage rights to same-sex couples are religious,” said Pastor Doug Donley of University Baptist Church, which is affiliated with the American Baptist Churches in the USA. “By codifying such a religious belief into law, we are violating our own state and federal constitution. The fair and the just thing to do would be to offer marriage rights to all people. Why not join the other states and stand up for freedom, justice, mercy and compassion?”

He added, “By the way, those are all things that Jesus actually addressed.”

The Reverend Victoria Safford of White Bear Unitarian Universalist Church said her church stopped signing any marriage documents until gays and lesbians have the right to marry in Minnesota. “That day is coming. The laws of Minnesota are not meant to exclude some citizens while granting privilege to others,” she said. “The law exists to protect and fiercely guard the rights, equality and freedom of all of us.

Rabbi Jared H. Saks of Temple Israel said that, for religious Jews who favor same-sex marriage, it’s an issue of justice.

“Deuteronomy teaches us Tzedek, tzedek tirdof, Justice, justice shall you pursue. In giving the world the concept of justice, Torah gave the world equality: fair treatment of the poor, the orphan, the widow and the stranger,” he said. “Torah commands us not to oppress the stranger, because we were strangers in the land of Egypt. We know the heart of the stranger. We are Israel and we know what it is to be labeled as different.”

Rev Sarah Campbell of the Mayflower Church, a member of the United Church of Christ said she has married both same-sex and opposite-sex couples for many years and sees no difference in the level of commitment between the two.

“It deeply saddens me that some of the couples I have married are forced to endure additional life pressures — as if there are not enough pressures on families already — because they are denied civil rights,” she said. “The strength of their marriages, despite such additional stresses like additional insurance expenses of all kinds, is humbling and awe inspiring to me.”

She added, “I will fight for equal marriage rights for these couples. Of course I will!”

Mandy Carter of the National Black Justice Coalition spoke at the press conference in support of the clergy.

“Are marriage rights for same-sex couples the next hurdle in our ongoing movement for civil rights? Black lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists of the National Black Justice Coalition think so, and we are actively seeking to achieve this next level of equality.”

Carter choked back tears as she read a powerful statement by Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., who was a Freedom Rider during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. “I have fought too hard, and too long, against discrimination based on race and color to not stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Also speaking on Thursday were the Rev. Anita Hill of St. Paul Reformation Lutheran Church and the Rev. Dr. Lowell O. Erdahl, Bishop Emeritus of the Saint Paul Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA).

Monica Meyer, public policy director for OutFront said in a statement, “Recent polls suggest that support continues to grow for these couples and their families, as people learn more about the discrimination that same-gender couples face,” she said. “Today’s powerful statements by Minnesota clergy in favor of marriage equality will help move Minnesota toward an eventual end to discrimination in marriage and support for full civil marriage equality.”

Locke told American Jewish World that he and Hewitt will be having a traditional Jewish wedding with some small changes. “The differences are going to be small, and it’s really going to be in the language, the things that the rabbi says, but there’s still going to be the chupa and the glass stomping and the seven brachot,” he said.

Amy Johnson of OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization, is Jewish and told AJW that the decision to bless same-sex unions is a positive one for the community.

“I’m very proud that they are offering the dignity and respect that our families deserve. I would expect nothing less of Temple of Aaron to embrace the fact that love and a commitment to have a Jewish household is worthy of celebration,” said Johnson. “I hope [other synagogues] embrace the same tikkun olam [as Temple of Aaron].”

Temple of Aaron’s mottos are “You are always welcome at the Temple of Aaron” and “Temple of Aaron is where all members can feel valued and connected to the community.”

Des Moines, Iowa (Recent Exposure Photography)

With same-sex marriage becoming legal just across the southern border, many groups concerned about the issue say the impact of the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision will be felt in Minnesota. But while marriage equality advocates hailed the decision, they were quick to note that Minnesotans shouldn’t try a legal challenge of its own.

“This powerful ruling from our neighbor to the south will have a positive effect on the conversation regarding marriage equality in Minnesota,” says Amy Johnson, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy organization. “Travel east or west, and you run into states with constitutional prohibitions on all forms of legal recognition for our families. Travel north or south, and you run into jurisdictions with full marriage equality. We at OutFront Minnesota believe that our neighbors will see that Canada and Iowa have provided us the better example of how to address the legal issues faced by same-sex couples and their families.”

On whether Minnesota would follow suit: “We believe Minnesota’s past negative court rulings make clear that the best route to full marriage equality runs through the legislature and governor, and not through the courts.”

Here’s what others had to say:

Chuck Darrell, communications director for the Minnesota Family Council, told the Minnesota Independent the Iowa ruling points to why Minnesota needs a marriage amendment:

“Recently, Sen. John Marty boasted that marriage would be legal in Minnesota in the next three to four years,” he said. “Minnesotans need to heed his warning as activists have begun a two-pronged attack to legalize homosexual marriage in the legislature and, like Iowa, in our courts. People need to call their legislator and tell them we need a marriage amendment and vote no on any and all bills designed to legalize homosexual marriage and marriage-like benefits.”

Rep. Ryan Winkler, DFL-Minneapolis:

“Minnesotans are proud of our tradition of fairness and decency. We value equal rights and oppose discrimination in all forms — but we are not free of it. Some Minnesotans have fewer rights than others, which is why the issue of marriage equality has become a leading issue. It’s crucial that we have open public discussion about same sex marriage in Minnesota.

“We’re having that debate in the legislature. Several weeks ago I introduced a bill requiring the State of Minnesota to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The bill does not require same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but acknowledges that other states have done so. Other bills would use a variety approaches to address same-sex marriage and domestic partner benefits.

Deciding to expand the definition of marriage to include all citizens is a matter for the court of public opinion — not just a court of law. Approaching same-sex marriage through legislation is the best way to give the public the final word. In the end, the decency of Minnesotans will win out, and our state will acknowledge the importance of equal rights and reject discrimination. This is a much better outcome than letting judges decide the matter without broad public support.”

Project 515, an LGBT advocacy group:

“We are thrilled that a neighboring state has joined the chorus of national voices calling for equality,” according to a message on its Web site. “But given the extra legal battles that could occur from court challenges in Minnesota, Project 515 continues to believe the best way to achieve equality is through the actions of a pro-equality legislature and governor.

“There are at least 515 instances of discrimination against same-sex couples and families that exist in our state laws today, and several bills are being considered by legislators this session that would begin to correct that discrimination. We urge Minnesota policymakers to remain focused on what’s before them now and pass the bills that would immediately begin to treat Minnesota families with the fairness and equality they deserve.”

Minnesota Majority, in an email to  supporters:

“Today the Iowa Supreme Court issued a decision overturning Iowa’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), thereby legalizing homosexual marriage in the state of Iowa.

Minnesota’s DOMA law is under similar attack. Liberal legislators have introduced a bill to legalize homosexual marriage in Minnesota (see bill number HF983). Similar to Iowa, a homosexual group is preparing to file a similar legal challenge to Minnesota’s DOMA law (see MarryMeMinnesota.org).

The only chance we have to protect marriage in Minnesota is for the state legislature to pass the Marriage Protection Amendment (see bill number HF1824). This bill would allow the people of Minnesota to decide whether marriage should be permanently defined as the union of one man and one woman.”

The bill has already been submitted in the Senate by Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, with Sens. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis; Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis; Mee Moua, DFL-St. Paul; and Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis. Because Senate bills have a limit of five sponsors, Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, has drafted a duplicate bill to allow other senators to show their support. In addition to Pappas, Sens. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, and Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, have signed on.

The House hasn’t seen the bill offered yet, but the draft is making the rounds and has already picked up 23 cosponsors. Rep. Phyllis Kahn is the chief author, and bill supporters say the list of House DFLers supporting the bill is long: Reps. David Bly, Northfield; Karen Clark, Minneapolis; Jim Davnie, Minneapolis; Mindy Greiling, Roseville; Alice Hausman, St. Paul; Jeff Hayden, Minneapolis; Bill Hilty, Finlayson; Frank Hornstein, Minneapolis; Thomas Huntley, Duluth; Sheldon Johnson, St. Paul; Carolyn Laine, Columbia Heights; John Lesch, St. Paul; Tina Liebling, Rochester; Dianne Loeffler, Minneapolis; Carlos Mariani, St. Paul; Erin Murphy, St. Paul; Michael Paymar, St. Paul; Maria Ruud, Minnetonka; Linda Slocum, Richfield; Cy Thao, St. Paul; Jean Wagenius, Minneapolis; and Ryan Winkler, Golden Valley.

Thursday afternoon from 2:30 to 4 p.m., bill supporters will hold a rally marking Freedom to Marry Day as well as rallying behind the Marriage and Family Protection Act. Organizations sponsoring the rally include Join The Impact – Twin Cities, Marriage Equality Minnesota, OutFront Minnesota, Rainbow Families, Minnesota Lavender Greens, Stonewall DFL, Green Party of Minnesota, Marry Me Minnesota, Minnesota chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans, and the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization of Women.

This month, after a long national search, Johnson has been hired as the new executive director of OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest public policy and advocacy group for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. I recently met with Johnson, a longtime lawyer who’s helped countless GLBT families navigate the confusing world of family law, at her office in the fittingly named Rainbow Building in Minneapolis to discuss the future of the GLBT movement in Minnesota, the sense of grief and urgency California’s Proposition 8 has evoked in the community and how technology might impact OutFront’s future.

Andy Birkey: What experiences do you bring to OutFront Minnesota?

Amy Johnson: My background has a lot to do with where I am today. For the last 20 years I have been representing GLBT families and individuals in their businesses and in their family planning. Alongside that is my very active volunteer life. I’ve done vol work at the Minnesota AIDS Project, with National Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association and, more recently, as president of the PFund Foundation. I have really enjoyed working in this movement.

On the professional side, I’ve been working family by family, helping them ensure stability and trying to plan against the discrimination that can come down the pike. And so now to be able to combine my volunteer and professional life.

I get to plan with an amazing team of talent how to make the entire state safe for families.

Birkey: How did you become an activist?

Johnson: I grew up in St. Paul, and I started my volunteer career at 5 years old. My mom stuck a placard in my hand and did a little counter-protest at the Planned Parenthood clinic on Ford Parkway. When it first went in, it was really controversial and there were all these [anti-abortion] protesters and my mom said, “Come on, honey!” and an activist was born.

I just really do feel that it’s uncanny how my professional and volunteer life, how it has prepared me for this job. I think OutFront Minnesota has really exciting possibilities, and I hope I can help OutFront realize those possibilities.

Birkey: The marriage issue is a big one, and as I’ve reported a number of times, there are members of the community who don’t want to wait to get married. Already for 2009, there is a lawsuit and a piece of legislation planned for marriage equality. Is it the right time? How do you see the timing and strategy?

Johnson: The timing issue. There’s a difference in philosophy between the lawsuit and legislation. I don’t think it’s one of timing. I think it’s the political realities and legal realities, so that’s sort of on a macro level of those two different tracks.

Looking at the [upcoming bill proposed by Sen. John Marty to equalize Minnesota's marriage laws], OutFront Minnesota is not against him bringing that bill and having a hearing at the judiciary [committee]. The more this issue comes up, the more that people hear “gay, lesbian bisexual and transgender” and understand that we are talking about regular families and dignity and stability and respect.

We think it will take three to five years. If John Marty’s bill gets through, gets heard, gets passed and if the governor signs it? Hallelujah! I mean, that … would … be … phenomenal. Unfortunately, realistically, it’ll take a few more times than that.

Birkey: Proposition 8 passed in November, effectively removing the right for same-sex couples to marry in California. What was your reaction?

Johnson: (Heavy sigh). That is such an interesting and tragic case study. My first reaction was to cringe because I really felt, and I do feel, that the entire country was watching. And I think our detractors could say, “See? The courts were ahead of the people,” and thereby [our detractors] could stop other legislative efforts across the country. I think it will take a little more education because of Prop 8.

I think that that’s an OK thing because we really want this to happen organically. We believe that the people of Minnesota want stable families with all communities living free from discrimination, and the work that we are going to do is really just to make sure that that grows organically and to show the legislators that all the constituencies are there with us.

It also had the funky outcropping of a younger generation who might have been complacent. Well, complacent is the wrong word … unaware of the subtle, more subtle discrimination that really does exist out there.

Birkey: Definitely. Being out in the community and talking to folks I encounter people who’ve never been to the Capitol, never signed up for an advocacy organization or talked to a legislator — some haven’t even voted. This year has been the year they’ve showed up to the marriage rallies, sent out e-mails about marriage equality to friends and family. Is this a great time to take advantage of that energy?

Johnson: Absolutely. I was surprised. I’ve gotten a lot of calls … this is my first official day. More people left messages on my Facebook than called or e-mailed.

Birkey: The Internet is certainly a big part of my work, and we saw how effective social networking was in the 2008 elections. Is OutFront harnessing some of that organizing power?

Johnson: Absolutely. I think we are for sure and excited to take a page out of the president-elect’s book and communicate and bring people, engage people through different means: texting and Facebook and MySpace. I’ve already started some research on that and there are some other organizations doing that and we are going to be careful not to duplicate efforts. It’s a wonderful common goal that a lot of the GLBT organizations have, and it’s a really great background for us to be working together on.

Birkey: There are some parts of the GLBT community that are less interested in marriage rights. They don’t see it as very important to their lives. How do you respond to those community members?

Johnson: I think OutFront Minnesota’s approach is a little bit unique in that we are committed to a legislative approach, and so this isn’t something that is coming from the top down and all we are getting is marriage and an intellectual debate. This is coming from the bottom up. So all of the community organizing we do, all of the education, all of the engagements that we make are going to reduce discrimination and normalize relations between GLBT community and our allies and we are going to build allies. And so everyone is going to benefit whether you choose to get married or not.

Birkey: What are some of those issues that might be coming up in the next few years?

Johnson: I do know that there is a safe schools initiative coming up, but today’s my first day and we haven’t finalized our legislative agenda (set to be released next week).

Communications Director Jo Mariscano added: Some other issues … expanding our organizing efforts with communities of color. We are going to be doing much more work in that area and doing more work with the transgender community. I don’t think anyone can be in this community and not know about the organizing importance of the transgender community, and we saw that with the united [Employment Non-Discrimination Act] campaign.

We will also be working on broader issues that affect the GLBT community. Reproducive rights, health care and working with unions on labor issues.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a statutory ban on same-sex marriage violated the Connecticut Constitution. “In sum, the state has failed to establish adequate reason to justify the statutory ban on same sex marriage,” said the court in a 4-3 decision. “Accordingly, under the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, our statutory scheme governing marriage cannot stand insofar as it bars same sex couples from marrying.”

Representatives of Minnesota’s LGBT community were pleased with the news, but quick to point out that the decision will have little to no impact on Minnesota.

OutFront Minnesota staff attorney Phil Duran said, “This is a heartening decision that will have a real impact on families.”

Monica Meyer, OutFront’s public policy director, agreed, “The Connecticut Supreme Court ruling is still inspiring for all the same-sex couples in our state who desire to be lifelong companions and raise families. The court sent a message to the nation that fairness and equality are principles under our laws that should be upheld.”

In a press release, OutFront said, “Connecticut’s decision will not have a direct legal impact on Minnesota because state law bans same-sex marriages and prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.”