-
Radinovich's stand on marriage could cost him job, voters say
by Mark Zdechlik, Minnesota Public Radio
May 9, 2013
AITKIN, Minn. — For many of those in the Minnesota House of Representatives, Thursday's vote on a bill to allow same-sex marriage carries significant political risk, especially if they disagree with voters in their districts.
Last year, in Aitkin in north-central Minnesota, a solid majority of people voted for a proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, effectively banning same-sex marriages.
Even so, the first-term representative from the area says he will vote for the bill to legalize same-sex marriage.
At Daune's Barber Styling, a few steps from the main intersection in downtown Aitkin, owner Duane Gross said he has heard plenty of talk about DFL state Rep. Joe Radinovich's decision to vote to legalize same-sex marriage.
"Oh, yes, I have," Gross said.
As he trims a customer's hair using an electric clipper, Gross is quick to state his opposition to same-sex marriage. He called it "ridiculous" that his representative is in favor of same-sex marriage when last fall 63 percent of the area's constituents voted for the proposed constitutional amendment defining marriage.
Read more. -
Supporters of a same-sex marriage bill in Minnesota hold a vigil at Christ Lutheran on Capitol Hill Church in St. Paul, Minn., on Wednesday May 8, 2013. The Minnesota House is scheduled to debate and vote Thursday on a measure that would make the state the 12th in the country to allow gay marriage. (AP Photo/Andy Clayton King)
-
undecided to likely yes --> @URamakrishnan15 Rep. Dill's procedure went well. He is much more likely to vote "yes" on bill w/the FitzSimmonsby tomscheck via twitter 5/9/2013 5:01:08 PM -
House changed the rules this year. All amendments have to be filed 24 hours before debate. 5 amendments it is...by tomscheck via twitter 5/9/2013 5:01:58 PM
-
We are in place and waiting for the live debate to begin on HF1054 (text of the bill). We're a few minutes away yet. Let's plan on having the live blog not be a one-way conversation. We look forward to your perspectives and analysis.
-
the prayer is underway. The rev is noting that both sides claim God's voice is on their side.
-
"let there be no pointing of the finger; let there be no speaking of evil," he says.
-
Rep. Karen Clark kicks things off. "it reminds me of what we did 20 years ago and we added 'sexual orientation' to the human rights act.
-
House DFL spokesman Mike Howard says every member is present in the MN House Chamber.
Tom Scheck is an MPR News reporter covering the House debate on same-sex marriage.by tomscheck via twitter edited by Jon Gordon, MPR News 5/9/2013 5:14:46 PM -
Clark: "In Minnesota, we don't turn our back on our families." Shares photo from Mpls Gay pride parade from 20 years ago. She's in the picture. Her mom and dad -- now deceased -- are in the picture. The sign they were carrying 20 years ago : "Our gay children should have the same rights as our heterosexual children."
-
Sound of chanting heard in the House from outside the house.
-
FYI, Rep. Clark's comments right now are pretty much the same ones she gave in 2011
-
In that floor speech, Rep. Clark was trying to get the marriage amendment bill sent back to the Judiciary Committee.
-
Clark now going through the bill section by section.
-
Section 4 -- Removes words "bride and groom" from state law.
Section 5 - Preserves right of religion to dictate who can be married in their faith.
Section 6 - Two provisions: Marriage bill makes no change in human rights protections already protected by law. No effect on previous anti-discrimination laws. Doesn't increase legal liability of any business or institution. -
Clark will offer an amendment that makes it clear "we are not changing heterosexual families or women who are biological parents."
-
Section 7: A person seeking divorce has to live in MN for 180 days prior to filing. Under the bill, you can get a divorce if you were married in Minnesota.
-
Clarks amendment. : ................... moves to amend H.F. No. 1054, the first engrossment, as follows:
1.2Page 4, line 9, after "parents" insert "in a civil marriage between persons of the
1.3same sex"
1.4Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references
1.5Amend the title accordingly -
Rep. David Fitzsimmons proposes amendment to his own amendment:
Page 1, delete lines 17 to 25 and insert:
1.4 "Subd. 3. Refusal to participate or support solemnization; protection of
1.5religious belief. (a) Except for secular business activities engaged in by a religious
1.6association, religious corporation, or religious society, the conduct of which is unrelated to
1.7the religious and educational purposes for which it is organized, no religious association,
1.8religious corporation, or religious society shall be required to provide goods or services at
1.9the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage or be subject to civil liability or
1.10any action by the state that penalizes, fines, or withholds any benefit to the religious
1.11association, religious corporation, or religious society under the laws of this state,
1.12including, but not limited to, laws regarding tax exempt status, for failing or refusing
1.13to provide goods or services at the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage,
1.14if providing such goods or services would cause the religious association, religious
1.15corporation, or religious society to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
1.16(b) The exception in paragraph (a) applies to employees, agents, and volunteers
1.17acting within the capacity of their employment or responsibilities with a religious
1.18association, religious corporation, or religious society." -
Amendment to amendment passes on voice vote. Now on to his amendment which adds the word "civil" to every reference of marriage:
-
.............. moves to amend H.F. No. 1054, the first engrossment, as follows:
1.2Page 1, line 21, before "marriage" insert "civil"
1.3Page 2, line 2, strike "MARRIAGE A CIVIL" and insert "CIVIL MARRIAGE"
1.4Page 2, line 3, before "Marriage" insert "A civil"
1.5Page 2, line 5, strike "Lawful" and insert "A lawful civil"
1.6Page 2, line 7, before "marriage" insert "civil"
1.7Page 2, line 26, before "marriage" insert "civil"
1.8Page 3, line 2, before "address" insert "the" and strike "marriage" and insert "civil
1.9marriage is entered into"
1.10Page 3, lines 3, 9, 18, and 21, before "marriage" insert "civil"
1.11Page 3, line 4, strike "marriage" and insert "the civil marriage is entered into"
1.12Page 3, line 6, before "marriage" insert "civil" in both places
1.13Page 3, line 14, before "marriage" insert "a civil"
1.14Page 3, line 20, before "marriages" insert "civil"
1.15Page 3, lines 27 and 28, before "marriage" insert "civil"
1.16Page 3, after line 28, insert:
1.17 "Subd. 3. Refusal to participate or support solemnization; protection of
1.18religious belief. No religious organization, association, or society shall be required to
1.19provide goods or services at the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage or be
1.20subject to civil liability or any action by the state that penalizes, fines, or withholds any
1.21benefit to the religious organization, association, or society under the laws of this state,
1.22including, but not limited to, laws regarding tax exempt status, for failing or refusing to
1.23provide goods or services at the solemnization or celebration of any civil marriage, if
1.24providing such goods or services would cause the religious organization, association, or
1.25society to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs."
1.26Page 4, line 10, before "marriage" insert "a civil"
1.27Page 4, after line 12, insert:
2.1 "Sec. 7. [517.23] MEANING OF CIVIL MARRIAGE.
2.2Wherever the term "marriage," "marital," "marry," or "married" is used in Minnesota
2.3statute in reference to the rights, obligations, or privileges of a couple under law, the
2.4term includes civil marriage, or individuals subject to civil marriage, as established by
2.5this chapter. A term subject to this definition must also be interpreted in reference to the
2.6context in which it appears, but may not be interpreted to limit or exclude any individual
2.7who has entered into a valid civil marriage contract under this chapter."
2.8Page 4, lines 23, 25, 26, and 29, before "marriage" insert "civil"
2.9Page 4, after line 31 insert:
2.10 "Sec. 9. REVISOR'S INSTRUCTION.
2.11The revisor of statutes shall change the terms "marriage" and "marriages" to either
2.12"civil marriage" or "civil marriages" wherever they appear in Minnesota Statutes, chapter
2.13517, unless the context or any provision of this act indicates otherwise. The revisor shall
2.14also make grammatical changes related to the changes in terms."
2.15Renumber the sections in sequence
2.16Amend the title as follows:
2.17Page 1, line 2, before the second "marriage" insert "civil"
2.18Page 1, line 3, after "exemptions" insert "and protections" -
FitzSimmons: "I know everyone in here has very different ideas of what ("freedoms" ) are. We could've gotten six packs on Sunday if more people agreed with me on what that is. We have to be sure we're not infringing on someone else's freedom and liberty.
-
Rep. Tim Faust (DFL), a Lutheran pastor rises to support the amendment. Rep. Clark also endorses the amendment. "It further protects the religious protections in the bill," she says.
It passes on a voice vote. -
Rep. Tim Kelly (R) proposes this amendment.
Calls it a great day. The bill changes the marriage bill to a "civil unions" bill. -
Kelly: "This debate is over one word -- that word is 'marriage.' It's why the state spent over $18 million debating this.
-
Kelly recalls his floor speech in 2011 on the same-sex marriage ban amendment. This one:
-
Bob: Has there been any mention on the length of time they'll allow debate?
-
No. There's no limit. I suspect this civil union amendment will take up the bulk of the debate. We'll see.
-
Opening remarks from Representative Karen Clark (DFL) District: 62A
-
Kelly is pulling quotes from the floor debate on the same-sex marriage ban debate. He's citing phrases from those opposed to the ban , presumably to frame those comments around his contention that his civil union bill answers all of the concerns expressed two years ago.
-
"Don't define marriage," Kelly says. "that's not the role of government.
-
Kelly: "this is a great day. We can put an end to discrimination and prejudice, and we can pull the discriminatory language out of statute. But there's a right way and wrong way to do that. ... we have to mvoe forward. I suggest we not do what we implored everyone not to do two years ago.
-
Simon: This amendment takes away marriage from 2 million people and say "you're no longer married. You're no longer have a wife, or a husband, you have a civil union partner." The federal governmnent doesn't recognize civil unions.
-
Rep. John Persell (DFL): If we remove marriage at this time in MN ... including in the use in military documents, we will deprive Minnesotans of their constitutional rights under the 14th amendment.
-
MPR News reporter Tom Scheck (@tomscheck) live on the radio just now:
"The debate began about 25 minutes ago, and it's actually moving fairly quickly."
Rep. Karen Clark, H.F. 1054's sponsor, was first to speak. She introduced the bill by saying that freedom means freedom for all, Scheck reports.
"As the House is debating this bill, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of people outside the House" -- chanting, holding signs, gathering in support or opposition of this bill.
For opponents, he said: "This is a day they feared since the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled" in 2003 that same-sex couples in that state could get married. -
"Supporters of Freedom to Marry are singing 'Chapel of Love' via KARE11 political reporter John Croman.
-
Supporters of same-sex marriage chant "thank you" as DFL leaders leave chamber.by tomscheck via twitter 5/9/2013 8:22:05 PM
-
Rep Peggy Scott "in tears" after the House voted to legalize gay marriage. "My heart breaks for Minnesota," she tells Star Tribune reporter Jennifer Brooks.
-
-
DFL Rep. Steve Simon: "It's not time to uncork the champagne yet but it's chilling."
Next stop MN Senate on Monday.by tomscheck via twitter 5/9/2013 8:27:49 PM
