Minnesota House of Representatives

Accessibility menu

Menu

Minnesota House of Representatives

State Representative Michael Paymar

563 State Office BuildingState Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
651-296-4199

For more information contact: Michael Howard 651-296-8873

Posted: 2011-07-12 00:00:00
Share on: 



Column/LTE

Marriage amendment will challenge Minnesota



The chamber of the Minnesota House of Representatives is usually a rather raucous place. Members and staff talk, argue, lobby, and work on their computers as the business of the day unfolds. Somehow with all of the commotion on the House floor, bills are described, questions are asked, amendments are offered and votes are taken. Several times a day the Speaker of the House will politely tap the gavel and ask members and staff to take their conversations to the retiring room or the alcoves because the noise level has risen. On May 21, in a rare Saturday night session, the mood was very different. The chamber was hushed and the tension was palpable as members took their seats.

The marriage amendment was going to be debated and emotions were running high. Most DFLers opposed the amendment, but we didn’t know how many Republicans also opposed the bill. Were there enough votes to kill it? We knew it would be close. The decision was made that in our debate we would be civil. We would not use words like bigoted, mean-spirited or other pejorative comments, but instead call upon compassion and integrity to try and win over the hearts and minds of members who might still be undecided.

The chief author of the bill calmly explained the proposed amendment to the constitution. He said the bill is not about discrimination or intolerance. He told the body that we can a have reasonable dialogue on this issue and allow the people of Minnesota to decide. When questioned why we needed the bill, he stated that he was concerned that current state law could be overturned by judges or the Legislature. Throughout the debate he repeatedly defended the bill by saying the issue was so important that we must put the question before the citizens of this state.

Since 1858, the Legislature on several occasions has asked the voters to amend the constitution involving civil rights. In 1865, the voters were asked whether African Americans should have the right to vote. That measure was narrowly defeated. The same amendment went before the voters again in 1867. Again, it failed. It finally passed in 1868. In 1875, the voters were asked to amend the constitution to authorize the Legislature to grant women suffrage in school affairs. In 1898, there was a vote to permit women to vote for and serve on library boards, and in 1887 to authorize women to vote in local option elections. These amendments all passed. Until now, amendments dealing with civil rights were designed to promote the rights of oppressed groups, not curtail them.

In one of the first speeches on the night we debated the marriage amendment, my colleague Representative Karen Clark, an openly lesbian member of the Legislature, talked about her 22 year loving and committed relationship with her partner. She talked about her relationship, their aspirations and how their families supported their union. As a Jewish member of the House, I wondered if I could have remained civil if my rights were being debated and my rights were to going to be put before the public for a vote. My heart went out to her and all of the GLBT folks who were outside of the House chambers chanting, singing and crying. After nearly five hours of emotional speeches, mostly by Democrats and two brave Republicans, the body voted to pass the marriage amendment.

Now that the Legislature has acted, I wonder what the impact of our actions will be on our children in the upcoming campaign. What will our response be when our kids ask what is meant by defending marriage? How will we explain why we need this in our constitution? How will we justify the toxic environment that will be created through this campaign? We’re just letting the people decide.
Like the decision that we made to be civil in our debate on the House floor, opponents of enshrining discrimination in our constitution will try to be civil in the debate leading up to the 2012 vote, but many of us will be angry.

Representative Michael Paymar
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155
651-296-4199 (w)
651-698-3084 (h)

News Items

Audio & Video

Galleries

No image galleries found

Minnesota House of Representatives  ·   100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. Saint Paul, MN   55155   ·   Webmaster@house.mn