The Facts:
On Thursday, March 31st, the Minnesota House of Representatives voted
77-56 in favor of the constitutional amendment to prohibit marriage,
civil unions and domestic partnerships for same-sex couples (HF6). The
amendment passed with 64 Republicans and 13 Democrats voting in favor of
the bill and 56 Democrats and 3 Republicans voting in opposition. The
two-hour debate about the bill began with Representative Dan Larson (DFL-Bloomington)
offering an amendment to the bill that would remove the section that
bars civil unions, domestic partnerships and other forms of legal
recognition for same-sex couples. He proposed that the language "any
other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal
equivalent by the state or any of its political subdivisions" be removed
because same-sex couples could be denied all forms of legal recognition
under the original bill. Representative Larson explained that he could
not understand how marriage is protected by denying same-sex couples and
their families health care benefits, hospital visitation and other basic
rights. The Larson amendment failed with a vote of 71-62. While the
supporters of the HF6 explained that the bill needed to pass in order to
protect marriage, prevent "activist" judges from redefining marriage,
and to allow the voters to decide the future of same-sex marriage, they
voted against the Larsen amendment to the bill that would have left the
possibility of civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex
couples intact.
After the Larsen amendment failed, Representative Steve Simon (DFL-St
Louis Park) and several other legislators asked the bill's chief author,
Representative Dan Severson (R-Sauk Rapids), to explain exactly what HF6
intends to prohibit and to clarify what the voters are being asked to
decide. Representative Simon asked the author if HF6 will prohibit civil
unions or the University of Minnesota from offering domestic partner
benefits to its employees. Representative Severson refused to answer any
of the questions about the definition of his bill. At one point
Representative Severson explained that the HF6 was "vague" and that the
scope of the proposed constitutional amendment will have to "be decided
by the courts." In another attempt to demonstrate that HF6 was not
really intended to protect anyone's marriage, Representative Goodwin (DFL-Columbia
Heights) offered an amendment to the bill to add the words "for life" to
ensure that marriages would protected by not allowing them to end in
divorce. The Goodwin amendment failed 121-12.
Many legislators spoke out against the discrimination GLBT Minnesotans
will face if this constitutional amendment passes in the fall of 2006.
It is important for the legislators who voted against this amendment to
hear "thanks" from thousands of Minnesotans.
We will keep you updated about what is happening with Senator Bachmann's
anti-marriage amendment in the Senate and let you know as soon as there
is any movement.
Sign up for our E-News, the best way to stay informed.
What Can I Do?
Over the next month, there are a number of things you can do to counter
the constitutional amendment and work for justice for GLBT people. You
can:
-
Contact your Representative about their vote. You can also
find your legislative district as well as contact information by
using our district finder. You
can also view our voting records to find
out how all of the legislators voted.
- If your Representative voted against the anti-marriage amendment
(denoted by a "+" in the voting record, indicating a vote aligned
with OutFront Minnesota's position), thank him or her for taking a
stand against writing discrimination into our state's Constitution.
- If your legislator voted for the anti-marriage amendment
(denoted by a "-" in the voting record, indicating a vote in
opposition to OutFront Minnesota's position), let her or him know
that you are disappointed in their vote because the amendment
promotes discrimination and, if passed, would enshrine second-class
status for some Minnesotans in our State Constitution.
- Contact your State Senator and encourage her/him to opposed this
harmful and discriminatory constitutional amendment. You can find
your legislative district as well as contact information by using
our district finder.
|
