Sixty-three current and former law school faculty members from the University of Minnesota signed an open letter to state legislators on Wednesday urging them to vote against a bill that would put an anti-gay marriage question on the 2012 ballot. The lawyers said the constitutional amendment would “cement the existing hardships” that gay and lesbian families now face and cause costly legal fights for the state down the road.

“The proposed amendment would set in constitutional cement the existing hardships on thousands of families, including children, that many in the legal profession serve,” the group wrote. “Attorneys practicing in such diverse areas as family law, estate planning, real estate, tax, and beyond represent people across Minnesota who confront complex legal challenges because they are currently unable to enter a legally-recognized relationship with a same-sex partner.”

Minnesota’s same-sex couples current face 515 such legal challenges, from serious issues involving taxes and end-of-life issues to more mundane concerns such as the inability to purchase a family fishing license, according to a report by Project 515.

The professors also argued that the amendment could have unintended legal consequences.

“The potential applications of an amendment and its collateral consequences in other areas of the law could be far-reaching. Frankly, the full implications of the proposed amendment are unknown,” they wrote. “Accordingly, it will likely generate litigation over both its validity and its scope; in effect, the legislature is inviting significant and needless expense for the state and its citizens during a time of extraordinary economic difficulty.”

They also questioned the need for such an amendment:

Minnesotans of good will may continue to debate the merits of legally recognizing same-sex couples through marriage or some other status. But in its entire history, Minnesota has never cut short the ordinary legislative process regarding marriage and family law by enshrining one particular view into its constitution. There is no compelling need to do so now.

Here’s the letter:

54635521-An-Open-Letter

Business leaders, Democrats and LGBT groups are unified in one aspect of their opposition to a Republican Senate bill that would but a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot in 2012: Gay marriage is a distraction from Minnesota’s economic needs.

House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, in a statement released in response to the bill introduced Tuesday, blasted the GOP for not spending more time fixing Minnesota’s budget.

“With only four weeks to go to balance the budget, this is not the time to launch an effort to amend the state constitution to further divide Minnesotans from one another,” he said. “Instead of focusing on gay marriage, Senator [Warren] Limmer should get to work on the Public Safety budget that he’s responsible for. Engaging in delays and distractions is unacceptable.”

“The clock is ticking,” he added. “Minnesotans are waiting for an honest, responsible GOP budget.”

Charlie Zelle, CEO of Jefferson Bus Lines and chair of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, criticized the push for the amendment.

“In so many ways, this constitutional amendment is bad for Minnesota employers and a distraction from the real priority for the state: growing the economy,” he said in a statement. “Instead, we need to move Minnesota forward by pursuing policies that are good for business, good for all Minnesota families and will make our state stronger and more competitive.”

He added, “Minnesota’s CEOs and small business owners alike need state lawmakers to stay focused on placing Minnesota’s economy and business environment back on track. A constitutional amendment against full inclusion is not only a distraction but would create a significant setback for Minnesota businesses.”

Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of Project 515, said that research demonstrates that communities inclusive of gay and lesbian couples often perform better economically.

“The proposed amendment is anti-jobs, anti-business and anti-family,” she said, “A wealth of research finds that inclusion strengthens the economy and Minnesota employers know it. That’s why they are leading the way by implementing inclusive policies in the workplace. We hope state leaders will remember that equality is an advantage.”

Monica Meyer, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, agreed with that assessment.

“Even though the Legislature has critical budgetary issues that need to be addressed, they are taking valuable time to introduce a constitutional amendment that would discriminate against Minnesotans,” she said. “This is completely counter to the direction public opinion is moving. Plus, this constitutional amendment is redundant. Minnesota already has a law in place defining marriage. This proposal takes our state in the wrong direction and tarnishes our constitution with discrimination that Minnesotans don’t support.”

Project 515 and OutFront Minnesota offered evidence to back up their claims.

“Employers with engaged workers have 2.6 times more earnings per share growth and twice the annual net income compared to other companies and inclusive policies are among the strongest indicators of engagement,” according to research by Gallup and the Kenexa Research Institute. The groups also cited studies showing that cities that are more inclusive attract more talented workers, especially in the technology fields.

According to MinnPost, before the announcement, Gov. Mark Dayton said: “I strongly oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. It [a prohibition] already exists in state law.”

DFL chair Ken Martin sent a passionate appeal to party member in an email Tuesday evening.

It’s official. Today, Republicans in the legislature officially introduced their constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and write discrimination into our state constitution.

Our fight starts now.

Throughout history, our party has always stood up for equality and fairness. And now we need to mount a strong offense to ensure that the Republicans are not able to turn back the clock on equal rights.

But this fight is not just about fairness and equality.

It’s about our belief that every person in Minnesota should have the ability to marry the person they love. It’s about our belief that government should not sanction discrimination. It’s about creating a culture of respect in society so that every child will be safe at school and have a healthy, respectful learning environment free of harassment and violence.

Meanwhile, the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative religious organization that opposes LGBT rights, asked its members to contact their legislators in support of the amendment.

“After seven years, a bill to allow the people of Minnesota to vote on marriage has been introduced in the state Senate. This is fantastic news, but we need you to email your State Senator and tell him or her to pass the marriage amendment bill and put it on the ballot for the people to vote,” the group said. “Remind them that the right to vote is our most important civil right and that this is an issue for the people to decide themselves.”

MFC added, “Legislators are not being asked to decide if marriage is the union of a man and a woman. They are being asked to let the people decide this issue. Demand that House leadership introduce and pass the marriage amendment today.”

After years as a low-profile issue at the Minnesota Legislature, same-sex marriage is likely to become a source of controversy next session. New Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate bode well for efforts by the Minnesota Family Council and the Catholic Church, both of which hope to place a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on the ballot in 2012. Republican leadership has been mum on the prospect so far, and despite long odds, LGBT advocates hope to advance a few key provisions of their own in 2011.

The Minnesota Family Council, which holds incredible sway with the majority of Republicans in the Legislature, has made the amendment a clear priority.

“Obviously, we’re going to work hard to firm up our support and get it on the ballot, and you know the message is we believe the people should decide the definition of marriage — not the courts or backroom political deals,” the Family Council’s Tom Prichard told OneNewsNow, a Christian website.

In a fundraising pitch for Give to the Max Day on Tuesday, the group said the money would go right to the marriage push. “The recent turnover of both House and Senate has cleared the way to pass a marriage amendment and put it on the ballot in 2012. This is a huge opportunity to protect marriage. Help us seize this moment with the funds to finish the job.”

“God has been ever so faithful to meet MFC’s budget needs to get us this far. I’m most thankful for His provision through your continued support and partnership!”

The group racked up 83 donations on Give to the Max day, compared with OutFront Minnesota, which got 273 donors to give. OutFront is advocating against the amendment.

“You can count on OutFront Minnesota to lead the opposition to any anti-GLBT legislation or constitutional amendment,” executive director Monica Meyer said in an email. “And if a proposed amendment succeeds in getting onto the 2012 ballot, we will fight it.”

She added, “OutFront Minnesota has been taking the cause of marriage equality to the people for years and the results are clear: poll after poll shows more Minnesotans favor marriage equality every year. Presumably the next two years will show more movement toward equality.”

The Minnesota Family Council conducted its own poll before the 2010 election which showed 54 percent of voters supporting marriage as between “one man and one woman,” compared to 40 percent who said it could be “any two people.”

The poll focused on Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer and showed he would win the race handily if he focused on opposing gay marriage; “voters strongly support a gubernatorial candidate who supports defending marriage,” the group said. Emmer completely avoided the issue on the campaign trail and currently trails DFLer Mark Dayton by 8,700 votes. A recount is likely later this month.

The Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage spent big money for the survey, but neither Emmer nor Dayton would have a hand in “protecting marriage,” as the Council’s Chuck Darrell explained after the election.

“Our opponents were publicly boasting that they would legalize same-sex marriage in the nest session assuming that they could retain the legislature and elect a governor who supported homosexual marriage,” he said. “Well, it looks like the Lord had a different plan and turned control of both houses over to pro-life, pro-family majority.”

He continued, “What that means is that we can pass a marriage amendment and put it on the ballot in 2012. Why? Well, an amendment only needs to be passed by both houses before being placed on the ballot for the next election — it completely bypasses the governor.”

But will evangelical conservatives see resistance from Republicans who ran on a “jobs and economy” platform largely devoid of social issues? That seems to be the indication from GOP leadership.

Future House Speaker Kurt Zellers told MinnPost, “If it isn’t about jobs, improving the business climate, it’s not a priority.”

And to TheUptake he said, “If that’s something that you care about and something you want to work though in your church or your synagogue or your mosque, you can’t get there if you don’t have a job.”

Future Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch echoed those sentiments.

“I am a social conservative, but we’ve had a conversation with the caucus,” she said. “They ran on the budget, the economy and jobs. We talked about how this is not the time to be messing around [with social issues]. We’re going to be unified on that.”

But Sen. Warren Limmer of Maple Grove broke from the leadership.

“The statement I’ll make is that there’s a keen interest by a majority of the members of both chambers to define marriage, and to allow the public to do so,” he told the Associated Press just after the election.

Republicans won’t only have to contend with the Family Council on the issue of an anti-gay marriage amendment; the Catholic Church in Minnesota will be looking for payback for the DVD campaign that Archbishop John Neinstedt launched just before the election that cost more than $1 million. That campaign urged voters to vote for candidates who would work to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot.

Following the election, the archbishop’s paper, the Catholic Spirit, defended the DVD campaign and spoke of the importance of an amendment.

“Whether the DVD can achieve its objective of getting a constitutional amendment on the ballot remains to be seen,” the paper wrote. The church is seeking a broad ban on rights for same-sex couples. “And because it seeks to morally guide the broader culture, the church does not support civil gay unions under any title.”

St. John Vianney Seminary rector Father Michael Becker said, “All of heaven is summed up in a consummation of a love affair, that Jesus Christ is marrying the church, that God is marrying his people.”

He said that’s why opposing gay marriage is the most important political issue. “The best way we can describe heaven is to speak about marriage. Is marriage just to be one other political issue, very low on the totem pole? Well, if all of heaven is summarized as a wedding, that’s pretty significant.”

Gay marriage isn’t the only issue of concern to the LGBT community or to evangelical conservatives.

Ann Kaner-Roth of Project 515, a group that is working to eliminate the 515 ways Minnesota statute discriminates against same-sex couples, said it’s too soon to know what issues they will tackle with a new Republican majority.

“Like everyone else, we are waiting to see how the new legislature will approach various issues, who the legislative leadership is, what committees are created… Not to mention the conclusion of the gubernatorial race as well as the handful of other races still in recounts,” she said. “So, it’s a bit too early yet to talk about our specific legislative approach for 2011, but we remain committed to full equality for same-sex couples and their families.

She added, “And we’ll continue to educate legislators and others around the 515 statutes that currently discriminate against these families in our community.”

Outfront’s Meyer said that anti-bullying measure will be a top priority as they have picked up Republican supporters in the past. The issue has become a critical policy for the LGBT community following four suicides in the past year that advocates say involved students who were harassed because they were LGBT or their peers thought they were LGBT.

“OutFront Minnesota will continue to lead efforts to pass safe schools legislation to protect students across Minnesota from aggressive bullying and harassment,” Meyer said in an email. “This legislation passed with bipartisan support in 2009, and can again in 2011, this time with a governor who will sign it into law.”

The Minnesota Family Council lobbied heavily in 2009 to defeat any changes to the state’s anti-bullying measures.

Pawlenty said the bill “addresses a nonexistent problem” saying that same-sex couple must simply draw up the appropriate paperwork. He also said that a “surviving domestic partner” should not be “afforded the same legal recognition” as a spouse.

“Marriage — as defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been,” said Pawlenty in his veto message. “I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional marriage.”

“The Governor’s facts are wrong,” said Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of Project 515, a group that backed the bill, in a statement on Sunday. “Same-sex couples can’t sue for wrongful death, and current law does not provide the same level of protection for a same-sex partner trying to carry out their deceased partner’s final wishes.”

Kaner Roth added, “His comment that the proposed legislation is unnecessary shows he is out of step with the experiences of real Minnesotans. Many families have faced exactly the kind of discrimination this legislation sought to prevent even though they had put in place all of the legal and other preparations available to them under current law.”

“This bill was about basic human decency,” Sen. Scott Dibble said in a statement. “We have heard too many heart-wrenching stories of Minnesotans suffering unimaginable indignities because the current law stood in the way. It is incredibly unfortunate that we are allowing government red tape and partisan extremism to block loving couples through the final phase of life.”

He added, “It is very disappointing that the Governor is willing to politicize the most personal and difficult decisions of a person’s lifetime.”

Kaner-Roth noted that the language in the bill was taken from the written policies of Minnesota’s Fortune 500 companies most of whom offer benefits for same-sex couples.

“The language in this bill reflects closely language already used by Minnesota’s leading businesses,” she said. “It’s concerning that the Governor is short-sighted on what businesses already know is good for our state — equality and fairness for all Minnesotans.”

Photo: Lavverue, Flickr

The Minnesota Legislature has passed a bill that would give same-sex couples more end-of-life rights in the event of a partner’s death, but Gov. Tim Pawlenty has threatened to veto the bill. It passed in the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday and the House on Tuesday, despite the argument from Republicans that the bill discriminated against opposite sex couples.

The bill would allow a surviving domestic partner to sue for wrongful death and also give the survivor the power to execute the final wishes of a deceased partner, including making funeral and burial arrangements. In hearings at the Capitol this year, same-sex couples testified about instances where those wishes were not honored even when legal documents had been drawn up.

Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, who authored the measure in the House, said the bill should pass “because we should never tolerate discrimination in Minnesota.”

But House Republicans on Tuesday called the bill “divisive” and said that eliminating discrimination for same-sex couples would discriminate against opposite-sex couples.

“I’m not sure why you are singling out same-sex couples. Why we wouldn’t allow it for opposite sex couples?” Rep. Paul Kohls, R-Victoria, said. “I’d suggest that your bill discriminates against those those individuals that choose not to get married.”

He added that he has a “very strong personal convicted belief that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman.”

Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina, added, “This would in fact discriminate against a man and a woman trying to operate in this framework.”

Murphy responded that the bill is to “correct discrimination against couples that don’t have access to marriage.” She said that opposite-sex couples have access to the same rights through marriage; same-sex couples do not.

Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, got some laughs when he said, “To call this bill divisive is sooo 2005.”

He said public opinion has shifted greatly in the last five years and that young people especially support rights for same-sex couples.

And Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis, the only LGBT member of the House, spoke. “This is not a divisive social issue, this is a coming together of families,” she said. “I couldn’t imagine losing my partner of 21 years. I can barely bear to think of that.”

After a vote of 78 to 54 in favor of the bill, Clark said, “I thank all of you for voting for it. It’s just basic human decency.”

On Wednesday the bill passed the Senate and is headed to Pawlenty’s desk.

Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of Project 515, a group that is promoting the legislation, pushed the governor to sign the bill. “These bills, which support same-sex families in their darkest hours, move Minnesota in the right direction. We encourage the governor to choose equality and fairness, as have the majority of Minnesotans, and sign this important legislation.”

Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, the Senate author of the bill responded to indications from the governor’s office that he would veto the bill. Here’s her full statement:

“This is a simple matter of fairness. Under current law, married couples are granted the right to carry out the final wishes of their deceased spouses, and to recover damages in wrongful death lawsuits. Same-sex, committed couples, however, have no such rights. This is a very narrow bill that ensures loving, caring partners are afforded some very basic rights when their loved one dies.

It’s important that we look at the two issues in this bill separately. In terms of allowing a domestic partner to carry out their spouses final wishes, the Governor’s spokesman is correct to suggest that couples can have legal documents drawn up to reflect who is authorized to make these types of decisions. However, these legal documents are not fail-safe.

In one instance, a couple paid considerable amounts of money to draft powers of attorney, health care directives and other documents to ensure their relationship would be legally recognized in the case of one partner dying. Then, after one partner passed, a small error was discovered in their health care directive. That small error left the surviving partner without any rights in determining what happened to his loved ones’ remains. By recognizing their rights in state law, we can ensure something like this never happens again.

The other issue in this bill cannot be handled by drafting legal documents. In the case of a wrongful death, the surviving spouse of a married couple is allowed to sue the wrong-doer to cover medical and funeral expenses. Same-sex partners cannot, and are left to bear the costs themselves if their partners are wrongfully killed. Our bill would ensure that surviving partners and their families will no longer suffer financially after a wrongful death.

I urge the Governor to reconsider his opposition to this bill. These are simple, common-sense measures we can take to provide some comfort to those who have lost loved ones.”

Tim Reardon with Eric and their daughter Tess. Photo: Project515.org

As the legislative session nears its end at the Minnesota Capitol, advocates of rights for same-sex couples are giving legislators a last minute push on a key piece of legislation. Project 515 held a press conference on Tuesday to urge the House take a vote on a bill sitting on the House floor: the Final Wishes and Wrongful Death bill. On hand were individuals who, at a profound time of grief, found that the law afforded them no recognition in making arrangements for their deceased partners.

The Final Wishes portion of the bill would allow same-sex couples to honor the final wishes of their deceased partner in terms of burial or cremation or other arrangements at the time of death, and the Wrongful Death section would provide a surviving same-sex partner to seek justice in the event of a wrongful death.

“Last year, we promised Minnesota families we would correct the discrimination that exists during the most difficult time in their lives — the loss of a loved one,” said Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, who is the House author of the bill. “Now it’s time to pass this legislation and sign it into law.”

At the press conference, Randy Miranda told reporters and legislators about the experience he went through when his partner Tom died of esophageal cancer. He recalled the Cremation Society telling him that Minnesota law didn’t recognize their relationship — even though the couple had drawn up power-of-attorney documents.

“All of a sudden, you’re an outsider,” Miranda said. “For hours each and every day for five months, I was there as Tom’s partner [while he battled cancer]. Yet I’m not allowed to take on the final responsibility and carry out Tom’s wishes. We need to turn that around so no other families have to face this painful reality.”

Miranda’s story echoes that of Tim Reardon and his late partner Eric; as the Minnesota Independent reported last year, Reardon wasn’t able to make final arrangements after his partner Eric died from brain cancer.

“I had no right to make decisions about Eric’s remains. I felt betrayed and angry. After all, we had lived out our commitment to each other and commitment to Tess,” said Reardon, referring to his young daughter. “We had done what we were supposed to do to protect our family.”

They had arranged for Reardon to have power of attorney, but it was not honored.

Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, called for an end to the discrimination.

“Eight out of 10 Minnesotans agree that government should not treat people differently because of their sexual orientation,” she said. “Committed same-sex couples and their families are our friends, family members, colleagues and members of our faith communities. They deserve the same rights and responsibilities we all expect but only some of us actually receive.”

Ann Kaner-Roth of Project 515, a group advocating for the bill, told the Minnesota Independent it’s vital that people call their representatives and urge them to call for a vote on the bill.

While she’s concerned that Gov. Tim Pawlenty may veto the bill, Kaner-Roth said the issue is a winning one in Minnesota — even if same-sex marriage is not.

“The majority of Minnesotans are on the side of equality with this issue,” she said. “There’s a lot of constituent interest.”

Tim Reardon (right) with Eric and daughter Tess (Photo: Project515.org)

Tim Reardon thought he and his partner, Eric, had prepared everything they needed in the event one of them died. But when Eric lost his struggle with brain cancer, Tim discovered that a single mistake in the expensive legal documents the couple had drafted meant that Eric’s dying wishes would not be granted. Because marriage is prohibited for couples like them, Tim and Eric didn’t get the rights regarding end-of-life decision-making automatically granted to legally married couples.

“I had no right to make decisions about Eric’s remains. I felt betrayed and angry. After all, we had lived out our commitment to each other and commitment to Tess,” he said, referring to his daughter, who turns 6 this year. “We had done what we were supposed to do to protect our family.”

Minnesota legislators are introducing legislation to fix that inequality. Spearheaded by Project 515, a group dedicated to shining a light on the 515 ways it says Minnesota discriminates against same-sex couples, the Final Wishes Act would give same-sex couples equal opportunities to carry out the desires of their partners. Sen. Yvonne Prettner Solon, DFL-Duluth, and Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, introduced the legislation on Thursday.

Rep. Erin Murphy discusses the Final Wishes bill at a Thursday press conference.

“This proposed legislation focuses on real issues that affect Minnesota families every day,” said Murphy. “Particularly at a time when families are struggling, our laws should not unduly add stress, financial hardship or even homelessness to the problems families face.”

Laura Smidzik, executive director of Project 515, said the bill would give same-sex couples the automatic right to make end-of-life choices for each other. “Same-sex couples often try to replicate these rights with legal documents that are sometimes ignored. This bill eliminates a costly and often ineffective legal document to make an after death decision.”

Project 515 is also drafting legislation to address other areas where Minnesota law presents challenges for same-sex partners. When a partner in a same-sex couple is wrongfully killed, for example, the surviving partner would have the legal recourse, as lawfully married couples in Minnesota automatically do, to sue the wrongdoer. When a partner in a same-sex couple passes on and there is a lien on the couple’s shared property, the state can seize the property. A widowed spouse can legally maintain that residence so long as the couple were married.

“Minnesota families need to know that our laws will treat them fairly, especially during times of sadness and mourning,” said Project 515′s Smidzik. “Pursuing revisions to some of the 515 laws that discriminate will help us build stronger families and households in our state.”

With a DFL-majority supportive of these issues, the bill has a shot in the Legislature. Bill supporters say they will be working with Gov. Tim Pawlenty to persuade him to sign the bill should it pass. “We do believe that he does value equality for Minnesota citizens,” said Smidzik.