|
Beth Bily,
Grand Rapids
Herald-Review
Saturday, March 19th, 2005
The words were deeply felt by those who testified on both sides of
the issue, but failed to move committee members on either side during a
hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage. In
the end, the House Civil Law and Elections Committee votes fell squarely
along party lines 7 to 5, moving the bill on to the House Ways and
Means.
The hearing, which took place Friday in Grand Rapids at the Reif
Center debated House File 0006, authored by Rep. Dan Severson, R - Sauk
Rapids. His bill seeks to put a constitutional definition of marriage as
a union between one man and one woman as well as not recognizing any
other relationship or its legal equivalent. If the bill ultimately
passes out of the Legislature, it would put the matter before voters in
the 2006 general election.
But although the outcome might have been predictable, the journey to
that vote took nearly four hours and included personal testimony from
those who feel a deep connection to the issue.
While emotion ran high, order for the most part, was maintained -
with the exception of a couple incidents of laughter and a few hisses at
remarks that were made during the course of testimony.
Those who spoke for the amendment's passage asserted that it would be
what is best for children and families, and the view that traditional
marriage is a fundamental building block of society.
Those opposed stated their view that such an amendment would be
discriminatory and that there already is societal oppression felt by the
gay community.
Both sides also talked about God.
The hearing opened with a bill introduction from Severson, who argued
that although the Defense of Marriage Act is already on the books,
"activist judges" across the country have tested state laws elsewhere
which already defined marriage as one man and one woman.
"It is crucial Minnesota adopt this amendment," said Severson in his
opening remarks. "The need is of the utmost importance....The danger
comes from activist judges who overturn state laws."
"What homosexuals are seeking is not access to marriage, they want to
change the fundamental definition of marriage," he added.
At least one committee member, Rep. Steve Simon called into question
the language of the bill saying it was "hopelessly vague." He asked for
definitions of the words "or its legal equivalent." He argued both at
the outset and toward the end when committee members were allowed a few
minutes to give their thoughts to the near capacity crowd at the Reif,
that vague language only invited the possibility of judges interpreting
the law.
Following Severson's introduction, those who supported the amendment
were given one hour to state their position. Most of the testimony from
the seven who spoke in favor of the amendment focused on the need for
strong families and supporting what they assert is best for children - a
household with both a mother and a father.
The supporters:
Teresa Collett, a professor of law at St. Thomas University testified
that traditional marriage has been under assault since the 1970s. Citing
legal cases around the issue which have taken place around the country
Collett said, "It is simply a matter of time before an activist brings a
lawsuit (in Minnesota) demanding their marriage be recognized."
Dr. William Conley of Grand Rapids, an outspoken opponent of gay
marriage, approached the issue utilizing his anthropological background
- he holds a master's degree in anthropology.
Conley said that although he has found many variations on marriage
throughout the world, he found no evidence that homosexual marriage was
accepted anywhere.
"Same-sex marriage has never been legitimized," he said.
And, echoing the sentiments heard from several speakers previously,
Dr. Thomas Howard of Deer River, said that his main concern with
homosexual marriage was its potential effect on children.
After reviewing research on the subject for the committee, Howard
concluded, "The case for same-sex marriage as it relates to children has
not been made."
Doug Aitken concluded the testimony in support of the amendment by
stating that although that DOMA is already state law it is not enough.
He argued that the passage of the bill was the "will of the people" and
the duty of lawmakers.
"Change the constitution. Marriage must be defined as one man and one
woman. Without marriage, we lose family and community," said Aitken.
"This doesn't require agreement, it requires deference to the will of
the people."
The opposition:
Testimony in opposition to the bill began with OutFront Minnesota
Executive Director Ann DeGroot, who told the committee about her own
personal experience as a lesbian and parent.
Providing a glimpse into recent events in her life, including a trip
to a five year-old birthday party and surgery for her adopted son, she
argued the committee to allow dialogue on the subject to continue.
"This little slice of family life is my life - my family life that
you are seeking to harm," she said.
Other opponents, like Rev. Loren Anderson-Bauer, a Lutheran minister
for several local churches and former Grand Rapids business owner Al
Kruger, charged that the committee and the choice to hold the hearing
outside the Capitol was an attempt to divide citizens.
"The goal is to divide the people of this state for political gain,"
said Anderson-Bauer.
In perhaps the most heartfelt testimony for the opposition, Rev. Mike
Carlson of Zion Lutheran Church said that passage out of the committee
would leave some young people with the sense that the state viewed them
as "sinners."
"Tonight there will be young people laying in their bed wondering if
the world thinks they are evil because of their orientation," said
Carlson, adding that he has stood beside the graves of young people who
have taken their lives because of sexual orientation.
"I care for children, too, but I care for their lives."
Grand Rapids resident and teacher Sally Velzen said that she has
discussed the issue at length with her students.
She said that although her students have voiced varying opinions on
the issue, they do seem to uniformly recognize and embrace rights for
everyone. She asked the committee to vote against the bill and do the
same.
"Your gravest duty is to uphold rights for all citizens."
Committee response:
Legislators on the committee were given a chance before the final
vote to voice their thoughts and the 12 members, which included seven
republicans and five democrats all took the opportunity.
Like the testimony, their opinions were divided.
Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL - Minneapolis, said that while we do live in
a democracy ruled by the will of the majority, minority rights still
must prevail.
"We should not put a group of people who have been historically
discriminated against up for popular vote."
Rep. John Lesch, DFL- St. Paul, said that concerns he heard on the
need for the amendment were concerns about activist judges who might
overturn existing law. He rhetorically questioned exactly which judges
were causing concern.
"Who are the activist judges we are talking about?" questioned Lesch,
while also noting that nearly all Minnesota judges were elected rather
than appointed.
Rep. Tom Emmer, R - Delano, said that while some believed the issue
was one of discrimination, he believed it was one of democracy.
"It's not about hatred. It's not about tolerance. Severson's bill
just turns this over to the people.
Committee Chairman Jeff Johnson, R - Plymouth, who recently announced
his intention to run for Attorney General echoed a similar sentiment, "I
think the people of Minnesota ought to make this decision."
|
