Accessibility menu
State Representative Michael Paymar
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
651-296-4199
For more information contact: Melissa Parker 651-296-8873
Column/LTE
STATE CONSTITUTION SHOULD NOT PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION
State Rep. Michael Paymar
NEWS COLUMN
Minnesota House of Representatives Contact: Melissa Parker
District 64B (651) 296-4199 (651) 296-8873
253 State Office Building, St. Paul, MN 55155 melissa.parker@house.mn
April 5, 2005
Michael Paymar: State Constitution Should Not Promote Discrimination
It was a sad day when the House of Representatives took the extraordinary move to ask the voters whether they want to amend the constitution to discriminate against a group of people and potentially deny benefits to people in committed, loving relationships.
How do I explain to my gay and lesbian friends and family members that the House is willing to deny people fundamental rights simply because of their sexual orientation? How do I tell a gay constituent who was almost beaten to death in a gay-bashing incident that he might lose his domestic partner benefits for himself and his partner of ten-years? And how do I explain to the GLBT community what was in the hearts and minds of my colleagues?
Our national and state constitutions were written with the intent of protecting against discrimination by protecting the rights of the minority from the will of the majority. Amendments were enacted to enfranchise not disfranchise. Our State Constitution, Article 1 of the Bill of Rights, Section 1 states: Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people.
History informs us how misguided groups of people join together to persecute and oppress. In order to persecute, you have to justify or rationalize your actions – you have to be convinced that the group of people being persecuted are “less than," deviant, inferior, or a threat to society.
Every country has their dark side, and America is not immune from its dark sides. There was a time in recent history when interracial marriage was illegal. There was a day when slavery and subsequently segregation was considered acceptable public policy. There was a day when wives could be legally beat by their husbands, and a time when women couldn’t vote. There was a day when Native Americans were forced to assimilate and relinquish their religion. There was a day when loyal Japanese Americans were interned in concentration camps during WWII because of their race.
These events were some of the dark clouds in American history. But I would submit, that if you had put these events to a popular vote of the people, at the period of history when they occurred, the majority of the voters would have approved of them. Why? Because the majority would have argued that they were preserving morality, saving the state, or acting on behalf of God. Today, most of us believe these policies were morally wrong, even morally abhorrent. This is the crux of the problem with allowing the people to vote on denying rights to a group of people.
I know there were many members of the House who believed they were doing the right thing when they voted to allow the public to vote on this constitutional amendment. But I also know some members voted for the bill not out of conviction or because they thought it was the right thing to do, but because of politics and how this might get used against them in the next election. I understand that part of politics, but I’m deeply saddened by what happened. I can only hope that the Senate has enough courage to say no to intolerance. There are times to put issues to the citizenry for a vote; there are times to amend the constitution, but we should never amend the constitution to promote discrimination.
-30-
News Items
- 2011-2012 Session Issues - Transportation - (Posted: 2012-06-06 00:00:00)
- 2011-2012 Session Issues - Labor - (Posted: 2012-06-05 00:00:00)
- 2011-2012 Session Issues - Taxes: Balancing the Budget - (Posted: 2012-06-06 00:00:00)
- Archived News Items
- Subscribe to RSS News Feeds
- Read more about RSS.