The proposal to place a question on the 2012 ballot that would alter the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriage passed the Senate on Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 38 to 27. The measure is waiting its final committee hearing in the House before that chamber votes on it. Virtually all of the testimony on the Senate floor was in opposition to the bill, which led one legislator to question whether supporters were ashamed to speak in support of it.

The bill’s author, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said, “There’s a growing uncomfortableness with a small group of politicians in St. Paul deciding this issue and an uncomfortableness of the possibility of a small number of judges deciding this.”

He added, “This proposal is simply to give the voters an opportunity to define marriage as between one man and one woman and place that in our state constitution.”

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, asked the senators what is so different about his relationship. He spoke of his partner, Richard, and their struggles together to get by in a tough economy.

Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, tried to amend the bill to also ban divorce in the interest of protecting marriage. That measure failed.

“We heard a lot of testimony that this is important because of the sanctity and the sacrament [marriage] is. It’s good because we want stable families for children. My amendment would make marriage a for-life event. For those that do decide to get married, get married for life,” she said. “If marriage is something so important that we need it in our state constitution, then we should recognize marriages for life.”

Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, expressed concern that legislators are not taking the constitution seriously. “I’m concerned when we use the constitution to write into it elements that would discriminate against other people in our society, and I do not believe that is the purpose of the constitution. It’s not why the founding fathers created the constitution.”

She added, “Take the constitution seriously. Vote no on this amendment.”

Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, spoke of her brother who is gay and how the amendment would hurt him. She also read a number of letters from constituents who oppose the amendment.

“I believe that God created us all whether we are gay or straight,” she said, and then she cited scripture to support her statement.

“Gay people exist, and some of them kill themselves because of the shame our society puts on them,” she added. “Cruelty is wrong and compassion is holy.”

Goodwin also added some of her faith to the discussion. “Think how differently Christianity would be if Jesus asked the crowd to vote on whether or not to stone Mary Magdalene,” she said. “If people want to worry about other peoples’ relationships then I think they need to find other things to do.”

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, questioned the wisdom of asking the public to vote on other peoples’ marriages.

“My wife and I were married 30 years ago in November. We chose to marry each other. My dad, a local minister, married us,” he said. “Nobody had any vote in it except for us. Yeah, we voted 2 to 0, but nobody else had the right to vote on our marriage.”

Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, said, “I very much hope that you go out and really try to ask same-sex couples the hardships they face. I had no idea 20 years ago,” she said, noting that she’s become close friends with a lesbian couple on her block. “And because I know their reality, I cannot come here and pretend that this is a problem for them.”

She pleaded with her colleagues, “We are creating a problem for thousands of couples. Members, please don’t do this.”

Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, spoke about how he faced marriage discrimination when he met his wife who was of a different race. When they decided which state to move to, they had to eliminate a third of the country which, at that time, still had laws criminalizing interracial marriage.

“Why are we following in that line? I really do feel that this amendment follows int that line,” he said.

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, talked about the negative economic impact the amendment would have as talented employees would seek employment in more tolerant states. Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis remarked that discrimination should not be put to a popular vote, while Sen. Mary Jo McGuire, DFL-St. Paul, who had just won a special election, said that none of the voters she met while campaigning asked her about banning gay marriage.

And Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, asked why Republicans insisted on bringing the issue up at all.

“Gay marriage is still against the law in Minnesota,” he said. “Republicans care more about passing their divisive social agenda than creating jobs in Minnesota.”

Four bills intended to beef up Minnesota’s drug laws were passed by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety committee on Thursday. The bills would change laws related to bong water and make synthetic marijuana and 2C-E illegal substances. The measures seek to address high profile controversies over the last two years, including the case of a woman who was sentenced to prison because the state Supreme Court ruled bong water to be a drug, the death of a Blaine teen in which 2C-E was suspected and the hospitalization of a Hastings teen after he smoked synthetic marijuana.

Sen. Carla Nelson, R-Rochester, spoke in support of the ban on synthetic marijuana. “Residents get these [drugs] off the shelves in our stores,” she said. “They are not harmless.”

Olmsted County Attorney Mark Ostrem testified that marijuana and synthetic marijuana are gateway drugs.

“I’ve often called marijuana a gateway drug that leads to cocaine use” and other drugs, he said. “[Types of synthetic marijuana] are far more dangerous. These drugs compared to the active ingredients in marijuana, THC, are much more potent.”

In 2010, a Hastings teen ended up in the hospital after smoking synthetic marijuana.

Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, testified in support of changing the law to exclude bong water from prosecution “except in cases where the mixture contains four or more fluid ounces of fluid.” In 2009, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement could use bong water to prosecute a woman by classifying bong water as the same as a controlled substance.

It passed the legislature unanimously in 2010, but was vetoed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who bragged about the veto on Comedy Central’s The Daily Show.

John Kingrey of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association said his organization opposes the bill. “Our concern is that drug dealers could put meth in water and transport it.”

But, Kurt Hanna of the Minnesota chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws said the law was a good one. “I’m here to speak on behalf of bong users in Minnesota,” he told the committee. “I watched Gov. Pawlenty speak about his veto on The Daily Show… I don’t believe it is a very fair sort of system” to prosecute drug users with bong water.

Sen. Dan Hall, R-Burnsville, offered a bill that would ban 2C-E and 2C-I.

Cody Wiberg of the state pharmacy board said his group is having difficulty keeping up with new “designer” drugs.

He noted the death of a teen in Blaine and the hospitalization of 10 more teens after ingesting 2C-E.

“This is really the forth time in the last two years that the board has become aware of substances like this,” he said. “We are forever going to be chasing after the next drug.”

He said the bill was modeled after the analog provision in the Federal Analogs Act.

All three bills passed and will be included in an omnibus drug policy bill.

Sen. Michelle Fischbach, R-Paynesville, is adamant that a certain kind of stem cell research be banned. Her bill to criminalize somatic cell nuclear transfer was included in the health and human services omnibus bill currently under debate in the Senate, and she was successful in getting a weaker ban included in the higher education omnibus bill. The proposal has sparked a heated debate about whether the bill — and the testimony surrounding it — is misleading to the public on the topic of embryonic stem cell research. Republicans, however, have rejected an effort to clarify the debate.

A common refrain at a Senate Higher Education Committee hearing last week was “I’m not a scientist” as members debated Fischbach’s amendment to the higher education budget bill that would prohibit taxpayer funds for somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), a technique involved in some kinds of stem cell research. The amendment calls SCNT “human cloning,” which some members of the committee found problematic.

There are two kinds of cloning, committee members discussed. “Reproductive cloning” would involve the creation of a new human being — limbs, hair and all. “Therapeutic cloning” involves the creation of eight or so cells to be used to treat disease. The amendment, perhaps purposefully, does not make a distinction between these types:

No state funds or federal funds the state receives for state programs may be used to either support human cloning or to pay for any expenses incidental to human cloning. For purposes of this section, “cloning” means generating a genetically identical copy of an organism at any stage of development by combining an enucleated egg and the nucleus of a somatic cell to make an embryo.

Sen. Michelle Fischbach

Sen. Sandy Pappas (DFL-St. Paul) expressed the concern that it was misleading. “I think it would be helpful if we could all come to a consensus that we oppose reproductive cloning,” she said. “We can’t send the message out that we are anti-research in Minnesota, and by passing these laws that don’t have enough thoughtfulness. Why do we want to ban therapeutic cloning? The therapeutic use of cells to treat disease?”

She added, “Let’s come up with a clear definition for human cloning.”

Sen. Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato) tried to do that with an amendment to Fischbach’s amendment to make clear that the law would ban both therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning, but Fischbach and the panel’s Republicans were having none of it.

“I think we are really in danger of confusing the public about the difference between human cloning using stem cells for the creation of another human being and stem cells used for therapeutic purposes,” said Sheran. “They are very different and very separate, and this rolls them all in together and confuses the public into thinking this is all about human cloning when it isn’t.”

Fischbach said, “I think ‘human cloning’ is pretty clear.”

Sheran responded, “I know from your perspective it is, but we have heard testimony that there is a distinct difference between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. It ought to be clear that your intent is to prohibit both, otherwise you will serve to create confusion in the public.”

Despite that plea, the amendment failed.

No scientists in the room

The science of SCNT was clearly an obstacle for just about everyone at the hearing. Pappas advised Fischbach, “You have to explain the biology here of what’s going on.”

But Fischbach couldn’t. “I will have to look that up. That’s beyond my scientific ability.”

Pappas shot back, “Mr. Chair, that’s our problem here today.”

Sen. Ron Latz (DFL-St. Louis Park) complained, “If we had a scientist here, if we had proper notice, some of these questions could be answered directly.”

With that the committee turned to Jordan Bauer of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, which is pushing for the ban. “I am, unfortunately, not a scientist,” she said.

She did accurately explain the process of SCNT, however — something that didn’t happen in earlier committee hearings. In the Health and Human Services committee on Mar. 15, MCCL representative Andrea Rau discussed SCNT:

What they were trying to get at with human cloning research was to be able to create various tissues and they have new found others ways to do that without cloning. Now, what this language [in the bill] talks about, it’s very specific, it refers to only the cloning of human embryos. Once you have a human embryo, you know, if you were going to try to derive some kind of tissue, you would have to grow that embryo. If you wanted to grow a heart then, you’d have to grow the embryo and have the whole thing grow, the whole body and then harvest the heart, now I don’t think anyone here would think that was appropriate, but that’s the only thing you could do with it if you were trying to get a heart from it.

The Minnesota Independent ran that statement by several researchers, none of whom had heard of such a process, let alone of anyone attempting it.

“No one is trying to do that,” Don Gibbons, spokesman for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, told the Minnesota Independent. “I’ve never heard of anything like that. All organizations that support SCNT strongly oppose anything that would result in the implantation in a uterus,” the only way an embryo could grow large enough to harvest organs.

“SCNT is used to create new stem cells,” he added.

MCCL responded to a question by the Minnesota Independent asking for clarification. The spokesperson asked not to be quoted, but stood by the organization’s statement.

Pro-life versus science?

“The fact that it’s the MCCL that’s here testifying on this bill tells us a lot about the motivation of this bill. This is the pro-life movement trying to move the envelope based in large part on religious belief,” said Sen. Latz. “I think it’s a broader debate than we’ve had. I think we ought to be honest and candid about what’s on the table here and not pretend what’s going on here despite testimony that doesn’t specify that.”

He continued, “I respect that religious belief, but ennobling it in state statute is a different question, and doing it without notice and opportunity to be heard by everyone who might be concerned about this… that’s terrible.”

Dr. John Wagner

MCCL hasn’t been shy about its opposition to “human cloning,” but the motivation appears to be the fact that an eight-cell unfertilized embryo is created in SCNT research and that the group considers such an eight-cell embryo human life and worth protecting from destruction.

The group, which is run by Sen. Fischbach’s husband, Scott, distorted the position of leading stem cell researchers to make their case. In every committee where MCCL representatives have testified, they’ve cited world-renowned stem cell researchers Drs. Rudolf Jaenisch and Ian Wilmut.

“Leading researchers and scientists, including Ian Wilmut who cloned Dolly the sheep, and many others have turned away and against human cloning even for so called therapeutic purposes,” said MCCL’s Bauer at one committee meeting. “Ten years ago there was a lot of discussion about human cloning,” MCCL’s Rau said at another committee meeting. “They’ve tried that and, like Jaenisch and like others, they are continually turning away from that.”

But that’s not the whole story.

Dr. John Wagner of the University of Minnesota Stem Cell Institute talked directly to the researchers about their positions.

He told the committee, “When [Jaenisch and Wilcut] make statements that they are against cloning, they are talking about reproductive cloning not SCNT.”

“I am sure that it is no one’s intention to speak incorrectly about the science,” said Wagner. “I did call Dr. Wilmut on Saturday and Dr. Jaenisch, who was brought up, and they support my position entirely despite what you have heard. It’s misunderstanding what they are saying. They agree with the ban on reproductive cloning but not SCNT. There is certainly no question that there should be a ban on reproductive cloning.”

Sen. Fischbach and MCCL have cited a United Nations declaration numerous times in committee hearings as an example of international agreement on banning “human cloning,” but the UN declaration is nonbinding and the international body working on changing its position to allow the very research that Fischbach wants banned in Minnesota.

Minnesota legislators have introduced a bill that would create Minnesota’s first public education campaign about HIV/AIDS. New HIV infections have spiked in Minnesota over the past two years, leading public health organizations to look for ways to curb the epidemic here. SF 466 would direct the Minnesota Department of Health to develop a statewide campaign that provides information both to the general public and distinct communities.

The bill was introduced in the Senate late last week by Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis, Sen. John Marty of Roseville and Sen. Sandy Pappas of St. Paul.

Amy Brugh, public policy director for the Minnesota AIDS Project (MAP), said a public health campaign around HIV is needed in Minnesota. “We feel like this legislation is so important,” she said. MAP runs the AIDSLine, which Brugh calls a “one-stop shop” for statewide information about HIV/AIDS. The phone service — coupled with new web-based chat feature — takes thousands of calls each year.

“In conversations with people there’s a lot of misinformation,” Brugh said. “For example, we get a lot of calls about saliva being a risk. It’s not.”

She said people around the state call the AIDSLine thinking they “have frequent HIV risk when there’s no risk.”

But a bigger concern for MAP is that Minnesotans might underestimate their risk for HIV infection. “We are concerned that some people don’t understand that having unprotected sex is risky.”

The latest data from the department of health shows a 25 percent increase in HIV infections in 2009 (data for 2010 is expected to be released this spring). That increase means the number of people who contracted HIV is at a 17-year high, on par with the early 1990s. And a significant number of those new HIV infections were among people under age 25.

Since the epidemic’s beginning in the early 1980s, Minnesota has never instituted a statewide public health campaign.

Brugh noted that such a campaign would help destigmatize HIV.

“We need to reduce stigma surrounding people living with HIV in Minnesota,” she said. “Stigma drives the epidemic as do homophobia and racism.”

Though timely, because of the budget deficit and the current makeup of the Minnesota Legislature, Brugh said the bill is not likely to pass, let alone be heard in committee. But she did say that the legislature has enacted similar programs in the past.

“Current statute funds a public education campaign on fetal alcohol disorder as well as other efforts. There is precedent for public health campaigns in the state,” she said.

And arming Minnesotans with information about HIV could save the state millions of dollars in the long run. Research has suggested that the costs of HIV infection to the health care system in 2006 were $2,100 a month or $618,000 over the lifetime for individuals living with HIV. At times, those costs are born by state-subsidized health programs.

“Investing in HIV infection is a fraction of the costs of treating HIV infection,” said Brugh.

Senate DFLers are seeking an ethics investigation on Republican Sen. Scott Newman of Hutchinson whose legislative assistant sent an email to the Minnesota Nurses Association stating that he would not meet with groups who backed his opponent, Hal Kimball. The DFLers claim that Newman violated Senate Rule 56.3, which prohibits senators from limiting access only to those who have made political contributions.

“Requesting an ethics hearing is a very serious matter, and we spent considerable time reviewing the facts and public comments made by Sen. Newman,” said Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul. “We still have many questions regarding this incident, and we hope that a complete and full investigation by the Senate ethics subcommittee will provide Minnesotans with some much-needed answers.”

One such question, posed by Bluestem Prairie, the blog that broke the story earlier this week: How did Newman’s legislative aide know that the Minnesota Nurses Association backed Newman’s opponent?

It’s one that was echoed by the West Central Tribune on Thursday. “The remaining issue is where Newman’s staffer got the idea to write this e-mail in the first place and what discipline the staffer received,” the paper’s editorial board wrote.

Pappas and the DFL sent a letter to Senate President Michelle Fischbach on Thursday requesting an investigation.

“Should the citizens of our state see their elected officials segregating their interests due to their political affiliation, the integrity of both individual members and the reputation of the Senate is damaged,” the letter stated.

Here’s the letter:

ethics_subctee_letter

Tewes (pictured) cut his political teeth running the (disastrous) 1997 St. Paul mayoral campaign of Sandy Pappas. She lost by 18 points to incumbent Norm Coleman. Despite that inauspicious start, a decade later he was widely credited with orchestrating Obama’s upset caucus victory in Iowa. More recently he’s been running the Democratic National Committee.

Hildebrand’s DFL days go back even further. He worked on Skip Humphrey’s unsuccessful 1988 U.S. Senate bid and served as the finance director for Jim Scheibel during his 1989 St. Paul mayoral campaign. In 1995 he also had a brief stint as the Democratic party’s executive director.

I wrote in more detail about their Minnesota days here.

“I may have unfairly sullied the reputation of lobbyists. My friend Chuck pointed out that lobbyists don’t puke, they’re professionals who have experience holding their liquor. It’s the amateurs who spew. He may be right, but the particular lobbyists we’ll have in town that week are the ones who have initiated this whole discussion. And of course these are the lobbyists who brought us an illegal and tragic war, a recession, polluted water, expensive drugs, and even the moralists who preach family values but play ‘outside the box’ themselves.  They are enough to make me queasy without a snootful…”

Read Thune’s full post.

Update: Thune offers further comment in an earlier Minnesota Monitor piece.

The nausea may be mutual. Though Thune and Pappas share DFL party loyalties and home turf (his ward lies within her Senate district), their differences over word choice and tone go back at least a decade. Early in St. Paul’s 1997 mayoral contest, Thune ended his own brief candidacy with an endorsement of fellow City Council Member Bobbi Megard over Pappas. Later, both Thune and Megard took Pappas to task for her attacks on then-Mayor Norm Coleman (who soon trounced Pappas in the general election). But apologies to Republicans weren’t passing Pappas’ lips back then. From the Oct. 10, 1997, Star Tribune:

City Council President Dave Thune, joined by fellow council members Gladys Morton and Bobbi Megard, met privately with Pappas last week to ask her to change the tenor of her attacks on GOP Mayor Norm Coleman. Pappas repeatedly has complained that Coleman’s proudest accomplishments — bringing Lawson Software and the National Hockey League to downtown St. Paul — are “sweetheart deals” that favor downtown developers over neighborhood revitalization efforts. … “Many DFLers are pretty disturbed with the tone of the campaign and the class warfare,” Thune said. … Thune said he and Megard thought that Pappas had agreed to tone down the rhetoric, but he was disappointed when the attacks continued in Wednesday’s mayoral debates. Pappas was unapologetic. “I’m not running against Dave [Thune]. He and I should agree to disagree. He shouldn’t take these things so personally,” Pappas said Thursday.