Minnesota Votes

2005 Special Session 1 Senate Bill 22 (Constitutional Definition of Marriage)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Mady Reiter on June 6, 2005, to amend the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage (and its legal equivalents) only as a union between one man and one woman. Other relationships would be prohibited from being recognized as marriage or its legal equivalent in Minnesota by the state or Minnesota local governments. The question on the amendment would be put before the voters at the 2006 general election (HF8 Companion Bill).
    • Referred to the Senate Rules and Administration Committee on June 6, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Michele Bachmann and Sen. Mady Reiter on June 6, 2005. New Comment

1) Got integrity [by integrity please on April 14, 2006]
All MN residents should CLEARLY have the same civil rights to love and legally unite with/marry anyone whom they choose. I am at a total loss as to how/why people can be so totally blinded by their personal and/or religious biases. As when women wanted the right to vote, Blacks wanted desegregation, etc. -- there were a LOT of STRONGLY felt fears. Today we see how totally wrong and short-sighted we were in those days. This issue of same gender marriage is no different. All people constitutionally should have equal rights. Period. No matter what your opinions or religion say. How can our law-makers not know this?! It saddens me to my core. My hope is that they will open themselves to what is clearly right, act with integrity, and one day be worried about the QUALITY of relationships in families rather than who it is that's in the relationship.
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Re: "Got Integrity" [by Anonymous Citizen on May 7, 2006]
"All MN residents should CLEARLY have the same civil rights to love and legally unite with/marry anyone whom they choose."

---------------------------------------

Oh really?? So a MN resident can go ahead and marry their labrador retreiver? Or can a MN resident marry 3 or 4 of his girlfriends?

The answer is "no" you say? Why not?? People should be able to marry whoever they want, right??

Listen, the VAST MAJORITY of people want to maintain the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman. And since we live in a democracy, the majority rules.
Reply New Comment

Line

3) play texas holdem [by Anonymous Citizen on August 2, 2005]
play texas holdem
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Democracy or Not?! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 9, 2005]
In a Democracy, the people are allowed to choose their elected representatives, and by extension, choose the policies that govern their world. The ability to make a conscious choice and vote is what makes America the greatest nation on earth.

On the issue of the protection of marriage, the people have spoken. Each and every time this issue has been put to a vote, they have voted overwhelmingly to protect the sanctity of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. It is NOT the place of activist judges or unilaterally-acting elected representatives to deny the will of the people. To do so is called OPRESSION. This country is not a monarchy or an oligarchy, it is a DEMOCRACY.

Advocates of gay marriage, marriage with multiple partners, marriage to relatives, etc., will always use the term ‘discrimination’ to frighten people into agreeing with them. This has got to stop. The fact is, they have the same rights I do. They have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex, and if they choose, to procreate.

I am not a religious person, my opinion has no basis in religion or religious values. I am merely a thoughtful conservative who understands that if gay marriage is sanctioned by the government, then other types of marriage will be next. Bigamy, polygamy, incest, etc.. It is a slippery slope. To anyone who thinks that is ridiculous, my question is, “why is it ridiculous?”. Ten years ago the idea of gay marriage was ridiculous, but now it is being considered as law. Believe me, when you advocate for gay marriage, other forms will be next.

Also, consider the fact that if gay marriage becomes protected by law, there will be many, MANY far reaching legal implications. Publicly funded, mandatory teaching about the gay lifestyle to young children in public schools. Lawsuits against anyone who favors adoption of children to a male-female parent family instead of a gay ‘partnership’. I do not want children affected in this way. I want children to be granted their innocence, and protected from too much adult reality. They are already bombarded with adult images by every form of popular media, and our country is paying the price.

There is a difference between the words “tolerance”, and “advocacy”. I am “tolerant” of people who make the choice to live a gay lifestyle. I don’t interfere with them or their views in any way. But I am not required to “advocate” for their point of view. And I don’t choose to. That is a RIGHT granted to each and every American.

Please, do not block our right to vote on this important issue.



Reply New Comment

Line

5) RE: Not a Gov't issue [by Anonymous Citizen on August 3, 2005]
I agree with most of what you said. BUT, why do we never hear from the heterosexual couples who have chosen not to marry but have committed relationships? I have 2 sisters who have chosen this lifestyle. Both have purchased homes together with their partners. All 4 are employed full-time and trying to get ahead like everyone else. One sister has NO health insurance because she cannot afford the premium/deductible on Minnesota Care because of her income. She makes too much but can't afford the $6,000 deductible. She cannot get on her partner's policy. One couple has been together 14 years, the other 6 years. For the record, both men have been taken to the cleaners by their ex-wives, both of whom committed adultery more than once. That's another issue!! Marriage is little more than a meal ticket for philandering spouses, so the men (whom I consider my brothers in law) would prefer to not get hitched. When the time comes for one partner to require emergency medical care and are incapable of making decisions, the other won't even be allowed anywhere near them, much less help with decisions. Where are the heterosexual couples on this issue??? I don't think it's a ride down a slippery slope to give them the same rights as married couples. Most of the single couples I know have also chosen to not have any more children as they've probably already had them with the first marriage.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Pathetic [by Justin (52A) on June 9, 2005]
Please don't just copy and paste old posts, or the "talking points" section of your extremist blogger websites (conservative or liberal)!

I wrote a thorough response to the ridiculous points addressed in this copied blurb of fear-mongering once. You can read it if you like ("I tried not to write... 4-29-05).

However, it seems like all the current issues being discussed on this board focus on the main issue our founding fathers just couldn't agree upon completely: majority or minority rule.

It seems they decided that mostly majority rule is a good idea: it only takes a simple majority to pass legislation in the MN House and Senate and same thing with Constitutional Amendments (simple majority of those voting in the election must approve- not just majority of those voting on the amendment).

However, the founding fathers also feared the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. How many times must it be reiterated, majorities very rarely, and only after long and arduous struggles, grant rights to any minority group.

(Fun Fact: in 2000 the last anti-miscegenation law in the states was rescinded by the Alabama State Legislature. Translation: according to Alabama state law, people of "different races" couldn't marry each other until 2000.)

It seems that in some instances (especially ones that deal with "morality" and "religion") the majority rule in place in the US does get it right. Still, it seems like Alabama was just a little late in updating it's moral codes that were made into law.

So if we are debating the anti-marriage amendment proposed by some right-wingers, or welfare reforms proposed by some right-wingers, or MinnesotaCARE cuts and 75 cent "health impact fee/taxes" proposed by *others* or smoking bans proposed by left-wingers, it's important to think about who has power: homosexuals are a minority, welfare recipients are a minority, people using MinnesotaCARE are a minority, smokers are a minority.

This doesn't mean that minorities are always right. It does mean they deserve to be recognized as minorities (with lesser power than a majority) and respected (my thoughts on "tolerance" can be seen in my previous post, I won't just copy and paste it here).
Reply New Comment

Line

7) I guess you would know... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 9, 2005]
Pathetic, huh?

Listen, those 'talking points' are my own, not from some blog somewhere. And the points are relevant to the discussion of the issue at hand. The old post was in response to the original bill listing, the “copied” post was in response to the updated bill listing for the Special Legislative Session. I think if you understand a little more about legislature and the way the site is structured, it will make more sense to you.

Also, relatively speaking, the founding fathers were not worried about the “ TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY” [play horror movie music here]. They had far too much to worry about from the ‘tyranny of the monarchy’. Madison discussed it, but it didn’t gain popular notoriety until Tocqueville and Mill wrote on it in the mid 1800’s.

Yes, the majority should not ALWAYS rule. But in a Democracy, if the majority voice is not the primary consideration, there should be a VERY compelling reason for it. Sorry to break this to you, but defining marriage to be aligned with human procreation is not equivalent to racism or misogyny laws.

(Fun Fact: The name 'Justin' rose from obscurity to become the 16th most popular baby name in the late 80's and early 90's, making the average ‘Justin’ about 20 years old. That explains your post and your point of view.)

Reply New Comment

Line

8) Tit for Tat [by Justin (52A) on June 9, 2005]
Alright now that the personal shots (from both of us) are out of the way...

You are right that the tyranny of the majority wasn't the main concern during the struggle for independence, but it was and apparently still is a large concern (especially for minorities).

Regardless of my understanding of Minnesota's system of legislative politics, copying and pasting the post was, in my opinion, a waste of time because apparently "Anonymous Citizen" already said the same thing, let's keep this a discussion as opposed to a reiteration.

If you wanted to talk about the anti-marriage amendment, why didn't you respond to the points I brought up in the previous post? Instead, you tried to dodge the issue first by ignoring my post and secondly by attacking 1) my knowledge of Minnesota politics 2) my knowledge of U.S. history and politics 3) and making pathetic assumptions about my age (if you had read my original post you would know that I graduated high school 2 years ago, which might have saved you the trouble of looking up my name).

To get to the meat of the issue, you are right and wrong: It's absolutely true that re-defining marriage to align with procreation purposes is very different from racism and misogny laws. And when a bill like that comes up, I'll gladly fight against that one too.

The bills before the house and senate don't say a word about marriage for procreative purposes. So it is wrong to re-frame the issue in that fashion. If they did so, we might go back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries and enforce eugenic policies prescribing who can and cannot have children.

Though maybe that is too extreme. Perhaps a middle ground on marriage for procreation would force couples who apply for a marriage license from the state to submit fertility tests that scientifically prove they "could" have children.

Leaving those preposterous ideas aside. Let's talk about the issue at hand: Marriage is not about procreation, it's a union between two people which has changed in definition over time.

Right now, because many (maybe the majority) of people see marriage as a means to proclaim or solidify the loving relationship of two people into a common bond, there is no logical reason why two men or two women should be held out of that governmental institution.

This is especially true because these couples pay taxes, and that is all we are talking about, tax revenue and expenditure. Proponents of homosexual unions are not demanding religious organizations recognize their unions. They simply demand that they receive the same benefits(and pay the same taxes) as other tax payers who happen to be in a heterosexual relationship.

As for your "explanation" of my post and point of view, maybe you should expend your energy on explaining your own point of view in a calm and composed fashion that I could understand and then try to understand my opinion as opposed to criticizing my age. I'd be happy to learn all that I can from you. Then again, maybe you were never 20 years old?

Reply New Comment

Line

9) Reply [by Anonymous Citizen on June 9, 2005]
I'm not attacking you, Justin.

Quite the contrary, I applaud your youthful passion. [yes, I did remember the "two years out of high school" post. I just thought the baby name thing was a good 'fun fact', to use your term]

Don't take this stuff personally. You had to expect some kind of rebuttal when you responded by labeling my post as "Pathetic".

As for my own stance; it is clearly outlined in the first post you criticized. I'll restate it more concisely:

1) Marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman. No other combination of sexes, multiple partners, or species should constitute a marriage.

2) Even if you disagree vehemently with point #1, it is preposterous to block the ability of the people to vote on the issue.

3) To avoid discrimination against two person same sex couples, the legal rights for civil unions should be expanded.

Also, you stated in your last quote that "Marriage is ... a union between two people which has changed in definition over time." I think it is worth noting that it has changed in definition about as quickly as the rules of chess. Don't be shocked that some people show respect for traditions that have lasted hundreds and hundreds of years.

One last thing, Justin. I was 20 once. I remember graduating from UW-Madison, one of the most liberal universities in the country. I was as far to the left as it gets. I'm not belittling you. As I've said, I applaud your interest in issues. I'm just saying that when you work in the real world for a few years, take care of a family, and gain some real life experience, you may be surprised how your attitudes can change.
Reply New Comment

Line

10) ¿Fundamental Differences? [by Justin (52A) on June 9, 2005]
Regardless of my youthful passion, I believe I have begun to explain some flaws in the argument presented.

Most importantly, it is completely logical to not hold a vote on this issue. In our country we have many opportunities to vote for individuals to represent us in our government. In this fashion, everyone may vote on every issue. To hold a vote specifically on the anti-marriage amendment is wrong because it puts what should be legal rights and priviledges based on taxation of these minority groups, up to voters who have been hostile to those minorities in the past.

Personally, I believe marriage isn't the best option for homosexual partnerships, however, the legislation proposed in the house and senate would prohibit marriage "or its legal equivalent" which many legislators fail to fully describe...

To conclude this point, we are in agreement, we don't want to discriminate against homosexuals, which should compel us both to fight against the proposed legislation.

It is interesting to note the change in the definition of marriage, because it has changed drastically in the last 50 years. I'll just say it once: inter-racial marriages. Beyond that, heterosexual marriage has changed from an institution that would merge family farms and ensure the livelihood, through doweries, of women who weren't allowed to work to a new union.

The changing role of women in a marriage should be evidence enough that heterosexual definitions of marriage have changed drastically within a relatively recent time frame.

Most notably, arranged marriages, once common place, are unheard of in this country. As it is now, people willfully chose to be married, arguably based on love. Under this definition of marriage, homosexuals being involved in loving relationships just as long as heterosexuals, Homosexuals are finding that heterosexuals have changed their definition of marriage to be more inclusive, and want to be included too.

The anti-marriage amendment redefines marriage ("or its legal equivalent") away from the current definition and towards discrimination. It should be opposed.

Final note: certainly everyone should respect others, including when people show respect for their hundreds-and-hundreds-of-years-old traditions. We should do this always. This specific amendment offers no respect, nor does it so-much-as-acknowledge the many cultures of the world (and of the twin cities) who hold different traditions with respect to the unions of individuals. Not everyone adheres to any definition of marriage, nor does everyone have the same background and traditions that would compel a person to do so.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) Swing and a Miss... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 10, 2005]
You are way off the mark with most of the points in your rebuttal.

First off, what does or doesn't show respect for others is not for you to decide. Or more accurately, is not for you ALONE to decide. Others get to voice their opinion also. And it is OK if their point of view does not agree with yours. That is the foundation of our great society.

Secondly, you are correct in that neither of us wishes to discriminate against homosexuals. Defining marriage to continue to be what it's been for thousands of years does not discriminate against homosexuals. Should homosexuals get the same civil rights as heterosexuals? Yes. Should civil union laws be expanded to allow homosexuals to have visitation rights in hospitals, retirement savings benefits, etc., just like heterosexuals? Absolutely.

You mentioned your concern that the legislation is ambiguous in stating "marriage, or it's legal equivalent". Do not let that worry you. It means marriage or the legal equivalent of marriage, nothing more. It does not mean civil unions or other forms of domestic partnerships, which are not in any way affected by this legislation. I did mention earlier that I believe expanded civil union rights

Also, you and I have a very different idea of "drastic changes" in the definition of marriage. Your example of “drastic changes” is that women used to give dowries and now they don’t? You're completely reaching with that analogy. Even an example like misogyny laws is not nearly in the same realm as changing the gender of the primary participants. This is an area where young people will likely not see the significance as much as older people, who tend to have a greater respect for time-honored traditions. Particularly thousand year-old ones. That’s not their fault. Time will change that viewpoint.

Lastly, what is of primary importance to me is not the simple matter of defining a word, but the bigger picture, which includes all of the fallout that can and likely will result from this decision. I want to protect the traditional idea of families and children, which is under attack in our society. My parents were divorced, and I was raised in a single parent home. My mother tried to provide a stable environment, but I can tell you from personal experience that there is no comparison between a stable home where a child gets daily interaction with a loving mother and father, and an environment where a child is raised by one gender only. Take my word for it, it’s not the same. Something is missing, and you feel it your entire life. In today’s PC world, you almost aren’t allowed to make such an observation without drawing severe criticism for being ‘insensitive’. I don’t care. The lives and future of children and families is too important.

By the way, if you respond to this message, I'll let you have the last word on this debate. The time investment to this message board is becoming prohibitive for me. I've stated my position with complete clarity, so I'll let that speak for itself, and count on the 80 - 85% of Americans who agree with me to do the RIGHT thing.

Reply New Comment

Line

12) Clearing the Confusion [by Justin (52A) on June 11, 2005]
First, marriages granted by state governments are civil unions. Nothing less and nothing more. Marriages granted by a religious or moral authority are that, a moral/religious union. We are talking about civil unions, which includes the important benefits which you began to describe, "visitation rights in hospitals, retirement savings benefits, etc."

However, new versions of civil unions have been created in Vermont and other states ( like domestic partnerships in California), because they have not given every right that a hetersoxeual couple could have. (Even these steps are a great beginning.)

Nonetheless, it is important to understand that all that is being discussed is civil rights/liberties/responsibilities, not religion.

The clear conclusion is this: if homosexuals were to have the same civil rights as heterosexuals, they would be allowed to marry. There is no way around this.

Second, it is correct that the language of the currently proposed anti-marriage amendment is not ambiguous. During debate of SF 6 on the house floor, Rep. Ray Vandeveer (R-52a, my representative) concluded, yes, this amendment would prohibit civil unions, that is his intent. (I asked him personally afterward and he told me that I had heard him correctly).

To attempt (whether by ignorance or deceit) to say "marriage or its legal equivalent" doesn't include civil unions is not truthful. Ask the sponsors of the bill if you like (if you could get a straight answer out of Rep. Severson on this issue).

Third, I am not the only one to define what is and is not respectful, I feel like I have a particularly good view of this issue and how the proposed legislation doesn't respect me...

Fourth, perhaps the dowry analogy wasn't clear enough for some people to understand how marriage has changed DRASTICALLY in the last "thousands" of years, or even in the last hundred years. I'm pretty positive (and call me out if I'm wrong) that no married woman considers herself physical property of her husband. That seems like a big change in marriage laws in the last hundred-or-so years. Previously women couldn't legally file for divorce, only a man could do that. There's a few DRASTIC changes in the legal definition of marriage in the last hundred years.

And what of the divorce rate above 50% for all marriages in the United States. Was it more than a hundred years ago that the "D" word was unspeakable, let alone the "A" word (annulment). How these once "horrendous" acts (one of which is religious) became common place in our society seems to be quite a DRASTIC change as well.

Clearly we all (in our own minds) are concerned with the moral decency of our society. Some think it is immoral for homosexuals to marry (or exist), I believe it is immoral to hold homosexuals as second class citizens.

While I respect your opinion that a single parent cannot raise a child as well as a married couple it seems like to broad a generalization to assume that a heterosexual couple can better raise a child than a single parent or a homosexual couple.

This legislation will not change family structures. It will "keep family structures the same." By this, I mean heterosexuals will continue to have kids, and there will still be single parents, and there will STILL be homosexual partners with kids. An important question to ask is then: should kids with heterosexual parents have the same legal rights and responsibilities as kids with homosexual parents, recognizing that neither child chose who they would raise them. I think the answer is yes, both kids are equal. The anti-marriage amendment would say no, they aren't equal. For one example, if one homosexual parent died, the kids would become wards of the state while the other homosexual partner applied for custody, this doesn't happen to married couples.

Fifth, it is foolish and outright offensive to continually state that my views are formed by my age. Perhaps I can attribute to age, the closed-mindedness that assumes my age would define my personal standpoints. Closed-mindedness that wouldn't think that my personal history, life experience (as short as it may be) and unalterable personal attributes (such as age, race, sex, and SEXUAL ORIENTATION).

Lastly, I apologize for having this last post filled with so much passion. I TRULY DO APPRECIATE the opportunity to have a relatively open conversation about this issue. And while our opinions probably haven't changed, perhaps we now understand each other's opinion a little better. However, I also think it is important that while some individuals feel they can step aside and leave this issue alone, others feel they cannot, and will not. While the majority may (or may not) be on my side now, I can only hope that time will right any wrongs that a majority would impose on a vulnerable minority.
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Not a Governmental Issue [by Anonymous Citizen on June 8, 2005]
State and Federal governments should stay out of this issue. Republicans are pushing this just to get themselves re-elected - which is a mean thing to do.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Re: Not a Governmental Issue [by Anonymous Citizen on June 9, 2005]
Yes, those Republicans sure are mean. Making laws and legislation that reflect the will and values of the MAJORITY of the people instead of just imposing their will on us like sheep. Or letting judges change our laws from the bench.

Mean Republicans.

I think far left liberals need to wake up to the idea that everyone doesn't agree with their radical ideals. In the eyes of the average American, it is not as important to help the ACLU protect the rights of rapists and pedophiles,
as it is to protect families and children. That is why Republicans are in charge, even in Minnesota, which is one of the most liberal states in the union.

Believe it or not, I do not dislike the Democratic Party. I have admired and respected and voted for many Democrats. I just think that todays Democratic Party has lost its way.
Reply New Comment

Line


Copyright © 2008 USA Votes, Inc.  Patent Pending.  All rights reserved.  Terms of use

Capitol Building

Search legislation: