Anne
Morse and Jon Nicholson of Dakota, Winona County, Minnesota, who have been married since Trix was a pup, saw their own son marry last year. They can't entertain denying the happiness that they and their child have found in marriage to any other committed couple.
"My son was married last summer, and it was a wonderful event for our
family, and for the new, extended family that we now are," Morse said. "His happiness
with this life-changing event is obvious to all who know him, and I
just can't imagine trying to prevent others from such an experience. To
stand in the way of others who want to do the same would be cruel
indeed."
The couple hopes that their state representative, Gene Pelowski
(DFL-Winona) and state senator, Jeremy Miller (R-Winona) will vote yes
in the pending votes on the Clark/Dibble bills extending the freedom to
marry to gay and lesbian couples.
The Morse--Nicholson match paired a life-long state resident with a chosen Minnesota.
Morse is a member of a politically-active Minnesota family that's
produced both environmental advocate and former Winona-area state
senator Steve Morse and conservative activist Julie Morse Quist, spouse
of perennial Republican candidate Allen Quist. Nicholson, on the other
hand, is a "military brat" who picked Minnesota because of its tradition
of progressive leadership.
"I grew up in a Navy family and moved all around, but lived mostly in
NW Florida -- a very conservative area politically, more openly racist
at the time I was a kid, with a culture strongly influenced by religious
intolerance," Nicholson told Bluestem Prairie.
"After college, I spent some time trying to decide where I would like
to live," he continued. "A number of factors lead me to Minnesota, but
two prominent factors were the reputation that Minnesota had for a high
level of education, and the moderate-to-liberal politics."
Morse, works as Winona County's Sustainability Coordinator,
believes marriage equality will strengthen rural communities. "I was
raised on an apple orchard, and great pride was taken in working hard
and playing (though not quite enough). But I came to know that our
small communities were pretty homogeneous too, and that's where we fell
short," she said.
"Growing up with the same folks through grade school, middle school
and then high school, it was clear that being gay or straight was not a
choice," Morse recalled. "It was just who we were; some of us were
straight and some of us were gay. It was obvious. But there was
pressure for conformity too, and most gay friends who were honest with
themselves moved away as soon as they were able. Over the years, too
many friends have felt they had to leave, and I have missed have them."
"Passage of the Freedom to Marry bill will be great for Minnesota as a
whole, and just fine for rural Minnesota too," she concluded. " It will keep some of our
best and brightest here. It will not affect my marriage, nor that of my
neighbors. Most opposition to marriage equality is based in fear,
which is generally never a good basis for any decision-making. Our fears
are often far worse than the reality ever is, once we confront it."
Nicholson is more laconic in stating his conclusion about the impact of marriage equality. "Minnesota will lose one more reason for people to become agitated about
pointless divisions between the people," he said. "Minnesota can focus more on
issues that affect the lives of the majority of people, rather than
obsessing about the legal status of two people who love each other."
Her own marriage matters to Morse. "The commitment of marriage has been important to me personally, she said. "It is
a tie and a connection between my husband and myself that is also
acknowledged within the larger community. No explanations necessary.
Our relationship was simply accepted. For others not to be able to
experience this, well it's just not fair."
Her husband, a chemical engineer who runs his own small business, considers the legal benefits of marriage as an important factor in extending the freedom to marry to gay and lesbian couples. "Marriage is a legal contract, recognized by
the state," Nicholson said. "This contract extends important rights and privileges, and
and allows for the sharing of assets and provision of access. To
withhold this opportunity from any adult is unreasonable."
Nicholson's pro-equality views also have roots in friendships with colleagues and neighbors. "Like everybody else, I've worked with gay people, and had gay people
as friends and neighbor," he said. "Because I wasn't judgmental about their sexual
orientation, I don't think that most gay guys or lesbians that I've
known have bothered to hide it from me."
He rejects the notion that gay men and lesbians can find happiness in straight unions. "Gay men and lesbians have married members of the opposite sex
because society (and families) expected them to, but what I've seen and
heard about from these marriages has been that it just created misery
for all of the people involved," he observed.
"Misery is not good for anyone, and does
not help build a society or state where people can reach their personal
best or contribute their best to our country's welfare," Nicholson believes. "Let people
marry whom they choose -- and let the legal benefits of marriage
(including such benefits as health insurance, survivor benefits, etc.)
be available fairly, to everyone who commits to a married life."
Echoing a viral video meme, Nicholson sees another bonus for Minnesota with the passage of the marriage equality bills.
"I look forward to the day when heterosexual guys can compete only against each other for heterosexual women to marry," he said, "and not have to compete against guys (better-dressed guys!) who secretly would rather be with men."
Photo: The wedding of Morse and Nicholson's son Ian's to Caitlin last summer.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.
Given the trend of rural Democratic house members announcing their support (or leaning toward support) of state representative Karen Clark's freedom to marry legislation, Bluestem was overjoyed but not surprised to receive statements from the Minnesota House and Minnesotans United for All Families that HF1054 would be scheduled for a floor vote on Thursday.
The note from the House was straightforward:
This morning the Minnesota House Rules committee will meet to calendar HF 1054, the marriage equality bill, for a House floor vote on Thursday, May 9th.
The House floor session will begin today at 9:00 a.m. and is expected to recess shortly after. The House Rules committee will begin 5 to 10 minutes after the recess, at approximately 9:30 a.m in State Capitol Room 118.
Minnesotans United for All Families was more exuberant:
Today, the Minnesota House of Representatives announced that HF1054, a bill to extend civil marriage to same-sex couples while strongly protecting religious freedoms in our state, will receive a vote on the House floor on Thursday, May 9.
House leadership has repeatedly said that HF1054 would not come before the House floor until the necessary 68 votes to pass it were secured. Today’s announcement signals that those votes have been secured and that the freedom to marry legislation will pass and move to the Senate floor for a final vote.
“Thursday’s vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives will be a historic victory for thousands of same-sex couples and families in our state,” said Minnesotans United Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom. “We are confident that the necessary votes to extend the freedom to marry for same-sex couples have been secured and that HF1054 will pass the House floor. The Minnesota House of Representatives is now poised to make Minnesota the next state to grant civil marriage to same-sex couples and their families by affirming what we already know to be true: Marriage is about the love, commitment, and responsibility that two people share, and it is a basic freedom that should no longer be denied to some simply because of who they are.”(emphasis added)
The Minnesota House has scheduled a Thursday debate and floor vote on the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.
House
DFL leadership announced the plans Tuesday. House Speaker Paul Thissen
has previously said that scheduling the vote would be a signal that DFL
leaders secured the 68 votes needed to pass the bill.
The Dibble bill to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota faces one more step before the full Senate can vote on it. The Senate Finance Committee this morning considers a whether it will be worth $678,000 a year in addtional costs to the state.
Watch the Senate Finance Committee archival footage here at The Uptake:
Contact your representative and senator to ask them to vote yes on extending the right to marry to loving same-sex couples.
Image: The happy new image from MN United for All Families.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Minnesota House Ways and Mean Committee passed HF1540, the marriage equality bill, on a voice vote after a brief discussion of the cost of benefits for 114 same-sex spouses of public employees.
Before the full Minnesota House of Representatives can vote on same-sex marriage, the House Ways and Means Committee had to approve the estimated $678,000 annual cost to the state. The bill passed on a voice vote.
The Senate Finance Committee will take up a similar measure on Tuesday. If passed, both the Senate and the House appear to have no more hurdles for a floor vote other than leadership allowing a vote to happen.
Image: Minnesotans United for All Families countdown: Day 14.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Journalists are tweeting about the potential Ways and Means Committee action that state representatives Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin) and Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona) favor when the committee reconvenes and takes up HF1504, representative Karen Clark's marriage equality bill.
Rochester Post Bulletin political reporter Heather Carlson tweeted:
DFL Rep. Jeanne Poppe to vote yes on gay marriage in Ways & Means, leaning toward yes vote on House floor.
Among the benefits of the freedom to marry, the ability to see a loved one though sickness and health, until death do you part--as wedding vows put it--is one of the more emotionally difficult and expensive propositions facing gay men and lesbians seeking to marry the people they love.
Jim Lilya, a 50-year-old Detroit Lakes area man, and his partner John Rusch spent a small fortune in legal fees to secure their rights in the nearly 25-year-long relationship they shared. Rusch passed away nearly two years ago.
Rusch's memory stays strong for Lilya, as does his passion for making sure that other loving couples will be able to enjoy the simple equal protection that he and John were never quite able to obtain.
"We always wanted to be married," Lilya said in an email to Bluestem. "We thought of ourselves as married, we
lived together as a married couple. We had our family with two dogs, our
house that we fixed up for most of those years, our yard and gardens
that we tended together.
Lilya regrets that he and Rusch were never able to marry. "We were a couple but in reality we weren't
married," he recalls. "We never had a ceremony inviting all of our friends and
relatives to share in our love and our commitment to one another. We
never were able to stand up and say 'I take this man, to have and to
hold, to love and to honor, to cherish. . .Til death do us part.'
When Rusch died, Lilya was devastated emotionally, but was able to retain the home the couple made together. "I'm glad we had the forethought to have wills because I don't believe I would have been able to
keep all that we had together," Lilya said. "I was on great terms with his family... but when it came down to it, I think they would have taken his half. I
would have had to sell my home. Give them a vehicle. Probably half the
money in our accounts."
While Lilya and Rusch were able to able to afford to hire a lawyer to write their wills, he worries about that many same-sex couples can't afford the expensive process of creating wills that won't be easily disregarded or challenged.
"The cost of the wills was a financial burden
on us," he said. "I can't imagine what same sex couple go through without wills,
because they can't afford them or don't think to get them. Married
[straight] couples don't have these issues."
"Even with the wills, I had to spend
even more money that I didn't have because there was some ambiguity
about ownership," he added.
For the widowed Lilya, the freedom to marry comes down to basic Minnesota Nice fair play.
"It is not fair that tax paying citizens are not given equal rights
in this state or this country for that matter," he said. "It is not fair that
loving same-sex couples relationships are not given the same respect and
dignity as heterosexuals."
Regardless of how his state representative Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) votes in this afternoon's consideration of HF 1054 by the House Ways and Means Committee or when the bill is brought to the floor, Lilya's experience as a widowed gay man in Minnesota has created the political will to keep up the fight for freedom and equality.
"We are not second class, and we won't be
treated as such," he wrote. "We now know our value and we are not
going to stop until we have equal rights and treatment."
Marquart, who has remained uncommitted about how he stands on the bill, may have to vote today to move or table the bill (one supposes that he could also abstain, though that seems cowardly, indeed). He's not the only undeclared DFLer on the committee--there are also Jeanne Poppe (DFL-Austin) and Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona). Like Marquart, Poppe represents a district where citizens voted for the amendment to restrict the right to marriage to heterosexual couples.
Bluestem hopes Pelowski will remember that vote, while listening to more recent voices being raised in support for the freedom to marry.
Two op-ed piece in the Winona Daily News suggest that that support is wide and deep. In a group column in Monday's Winona Daily News, WSU students call for Freedom to Marry, addressing both Pelowski and Senator Jeremy Miller (R-Winona). They write in part:
. . .Last year, we gained firsthand experience and saw the impact of our
collective efforts materialize in the defeat of the "marriage"
amendment. We turned out to vote in record numbers, because an issue
important to our generation was at stake. According to a recent ABC
News/Washington Post poll, while 58 percent of Americans support
same-sex marriage, 81 percent of people under 30 support it. Young
people propelled the victory. We helped defeat the amendment.
This
year, we ask our legislature to pass the freedom to marry for all
families. It's the right thing to do. It's also the best thing to do for
our campus and our community.
As student leaders, we work hard to
represent all students and help every student succeed. Students
entering college need to feel like they have a place in our community.
When we restrict the freedom to marry from every student, it damages our
collective community and our learning environment.
As students,
we entrust the school to find the best teachers, professors, mentors,
and staff. As ten other states now have the freedom to marry, we must
join them to ensure that no applicant overlooks WSU for another location
because of a law on our books.
Lastly, as we ourselves graduate
and look for jobs, we want to live and work in states that have the
freedom to marry for everyone. If Iowa has this and Illinois is expected
to pass the freedom to marry soon, Minnesota must not fall behind.
Senator
Miller and Representative Pelowski, thank you for your hard work,
dedication, and support of Winona State University. We ask you to keep
it up and support the freedom to marry this year.
The column is signed by 30 student leaders, including the president, vice-president, vice president-elect, treasurer and treasurer-elect of the student senate.
The students aren't alone in their call for support for the Dibble/Clark bills in the Senate and House. In Local businesses back Freedom to Marry, ten business owners outlined the pro-business case for marriage equality:
n
Discrimination is bad for business. A welcoming state is essential to
recruiting and retaining the best young talent. Minnesota employers have
known this for years. Minnesota's largest and most successful companies
have been the nation's leaders in creating diverse workplaces and
extending family benefits to domestic partners. This leadership has made
our community a strong magnet for attracting and retaining the nation's
top talent - not just gay and lesbian professionals, but today's
educated young workers who increasingly say that living in welcoming
communities is important.
n Uncertainty undermines business
planning. Uncertainty is inefficient and expensive. Consider the
challenges of our multi-state and multi-national employers who
increasingly will have to sort out a patchwork of state and federal laws
affecting marriage. Yes, even if the Minnesota Legislature grants
marriage equality this year, laws won't be uniform across the country.
But action this year gives Minnesota businesses the opportunity to start
planning for the equality that is certain to come.
n Marriage
inequality makes some of our employees second-class citizens. Turnover
and a loss of productivity are two of the consequences that come when
some employees are denied rights that most of us take for granted,
including family issues and end-of-life decisions among many others.
Workplace policies aren't a replacement for equal rights under the law.
Marriage
equality is not on the legislative agenda simply because Minnesota
voters soundly defeated the constitutional amendment which sought to
limit the definition of marriage in November. That vote may have
accelerated legislative consideration of the issue, but it would have
arrived at the Capitol sooner rather than later with or without last
fall's vote. This choice is before you now because it is the right thing
to do, for our employees and their families, for our companies'
business success and for the economic prosperity of all Minnesotans.
We
urge the legislature to reaffirm Minnesota's leadership in equality and
economic opportunity by passing legislation in 2013 that ensures gay
and lesbian Minnesotans, at long last, have the freedom to marry the
person they love.
What case are opponents to the freedom to marry making? On today's op-ed page, Monday, May 6, there's one letter opposing marriage equality, Shameful lusts. Bluestem is saddened that the writer is unable to understand how love is love. We know our own circles would be improvished if the loving partnerships of our gay and lesbian friends were to vanish from our life.
Photo: 28A Representative Gene Pelowski (DFL-Winona). Is he listening to and reading what his constituents are saying about the freedom to marry? His constituents who want to contact him about the bill before the Ways and Means committee reconvenes can find contact information here: Gene Pelowski Jr. 28A
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Growing up in the suburbs of Chicago, Caitlin Pawlowski came to Detroit Lakes to vacation at Fair Hills Resort every summer. After graduating from Ohio State University in 2007 with a degree in finance, Pawlowski spent a year working in New Jersey.
Then, in 2009, she was offered a job at Fair Hills.
"I jumped at the chance to move to Minnesota," Pawlowski, the resort'sHuman Resources/Front Desk Manager, wrote in an email interview. "I love the lakes country and
moving here was a dream come true. The life we have built in Detroit
Lakes is a dream come true."
"Minnesota is my home," she added, noting that she appreciates Minnesota values like "family, love, acceptance and freedom."
She lives with her fiance and two dogs in Detroit Lakes. In many ways, the couple represents the "talented individuals who will be coming here and sharing their gifts in the workforce," that Norwegian bachelor farmer and fellow House District 4B voter Daniel Anderson believes will find marriage equality a draw for the state.
One cloud darkens the sunny skies of her good life in Minnesota: the inability to marry the love of her life, her fiance. "Why can I not commit my life to another woman and enjoy the same
marriage benefits that my fellow heterosexual citizens enjoy?" she asks. "I didn't
choose to love my fiancé, my love for her developed without a choice."
Pawlowski believes that the freedom to marry the person she loves is a basic human right. "Marriage and the benefits of marriage is a basic human right that should
not be denied to anyone. Marriage is a commitment that should be not
withheld from anyone. Love and commitment between any two people at its
basis is the same among all couples regardless of gender," she said. "Marriage equality is important because love is blind and cannot be stopped."
The 27-year-old transplant thinks that her state representative, Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) should vote to move HF1054,the Clark marriage equality bill, forward when it is heard in the House Ways and Means Committee today, and to vote yes when the bill is brought to the floor of the Minnesota House.
"Passing this bill will strengthen Minnesota's right to be called a great
state," she wrote. "It will show the nation that Minnesota is on the front line of
changing history. It will show that Minnesota is not afraid to do the
right thing. Minnesota will be a state filled with free, happy and
open-minded citizens."
"Our nation was built upon freedom for all," she added. "By not passing the bill,
only some have marriage freedom while others do not. To vote no is to
deny freedom for all. Why not? I cannot come up with a negative
outcome to passing this bill."
If Pawlowski had a chance to sit down with opponents of the bill, she'd start by listening to their explanations for their resistance to allowing her to marry the woman she loves. "I would be respectful and listen," she wrote. "I would share my story. I would
ask how love between two people can be discriminated against. I would
ask how marriage equality could be threatening."
"We lead a normal, common, boring, non-threatening life," she notes. "Why can I not
legally marry her and call her my wife and share all the benefits?"
Photo: Caitlin Pawlowski, her fiance G., and one of their two dogs, enjoying the good life in Minnesota's lake country.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.
Few Minnesotans would be surprised to learn that there's a Norwegian bachelor living on his family's farm near tiny Rollag, an uncorporated community in Clay County, or that said bachelor farmer is an active Lutheran.
A few more might be surprised to learn that Daniel Anderson, a teacher and principal who retired and returned to run the family place, is a gay man. But as Republican Sarah Janecek explained last fall in The bachelor farmer and the marriage vote, gay bachelor farmers have always lived quiet lives on the edge of the prairie, tending to their fields and families.
Anderson's hoping that the Minnesota legislature will allow families led by loving same-sex couples to enjoy the same protections of the law that other Minnesota families now enjoy.
"I believe the freedom to marry the person you love is a civil right," Anderson said, adding, "I believe love is
love. I believe everyone should have the same rights. For me it’s a civil right."
His notions of human dignity spring from his strong Lutheran faith. "I was raised
in the church and I a person of the church," Anderson said. "As a lifelong Minnesotan and a person of the church, my ideas about human rights and based in the teachings of Jesus Christ about love and acceptance."
Anderson came to believe that marriage equality is important when, as an educator and school administrator, he witnessed the experience of families led by same-sex couples.
"I know a
number of gay and lesbian friends in commited relationships, and I have known children attended my
schools, from families headed by same sex couples," Anderson said. "I
have seen the children of same sex couples be loved, provided for, nurtured--and protected from the bullying by other children and adults."
"These same-sex moms and dads had have to take
expensive legal steps to protect their assets and their children’s futures," he recalled. "To me, that’s unjust, unfair and unforgiveable
that our society doesn't recognize these
families. The law should be changed."
Anderson shared a heart-breaking tale of two friends whose inability to marry heightened the tragedy of one partner's death. "This couple was together for thirteen years. They took
all the legal steps that they could to protect their rights and property," Anderson said, his voice breaking in the phone interview. "One man diagnosed with cancer, and when he died, his partner wasn't allowed to witness the
death certificate, despite all of the money they had spent on trying to secure their rights as a family."
"The surviving partner was there when the man he loved died, but instead, his sister five states away--she wasn’t there--was the one to witness the death certificate."
The bachelor farmer believes that extending the freedom to marry for all couples will benefit the state as a whole. "It will make our state stable and attract all types
of individuals who respect and support diversity. Our economy will be boosted by talented individuals who will be coming here and sharing their gifts in the workforce," Anderson said, citing a study that found that same-sex marriage could boost the economy by $45 million.
"It will also protect the children and families of
same sex couples by giving the rights as other families in the state of
Minnesota," he added.
As a constituent of state representative Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth), Anderson thinks that his legislator should vote to extend the freedom of marry the one you love to all couples.
"State legislators need to protect
all their constituents," Anderson said. "If they vote
no, there will be people who are not afforded equal protection--second class citizens."
"Nobody is a second class citizens in Minnesota," he says.
"Everybody is a first class citizen. Everyone should have the same rights."
Photo: Rollag gay Norwegian Lutheran bachelor farmer Daniel Anderson shows off some home canning. It's pure, mostly. Photo via Facebook.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.
Here in Minnesota, we've always taken pride in our women being strong, the men good-looking and our children above average.
States like New Jersey were the butt of jokes.
Thus, it's a blow to our Minnesota exceptionalism to read that NJ.com has named the Gentlewoman from Minnesota's Sixth the newpaper chain's "Knucklehead of the Week."
But we in the “Knucklehead of the Week” department like to make our own selections, Governor. Thanks for the tip, though.
As for Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), it’s a wonder she made it
through the 2011-12 GOP presidential debates without a “knucklehead”
nod. She’s made a political career of making stuff up.
This week, we’re putting her back in the spotlight. Bachmann — a tea
party darling — recently claimed she voted against the federal budget
sequester because it would cut funding for the poor, and programs such
as Head Start and Meals on Wheels. As Mitt Romney liked to say, “We’re
not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”
In Bachmann’s case, the fact-checkers at the Washington Post are calling shenanigans.
She indeed voted against the sequester, but there’s no evidence she
warned against its “calamities,” as she claimed. What’s more, she
actually argued for deeper cuts to those poor-friendly programs.
Bachmann is currently the focus of a formal ethics investigation on
an unrelated matter, so she’s got bigger fish to fry. But we’re happy
she was able to brighten an otherwise slow week in the “Knucklehead”
department.
Bluestem is just wondering when they'll catch on to Bachmann understudies Glenn Gruenhagen and Cindy Pugh.
Photo: Michele Bachmann speaking at CPAC 2013.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
Late yesterday afternoon, the Minnesota House Majority comm department notified media that HF1054, state representative Karen Clark's marriage equality bill, would be heard Monday, May 6, by the Ways and Means Committee.
The Minnesota House has scheduled another committee hearing for a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota.
The House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled a Monday hearing for
the bill after a fiscal analysis found legalizing same-sex marriage
would cost the state money.
Minnesota Management and Budget predicts that legalizing same-sex
marriage would result in 114 more people enrolling for state benefits
for their married partners. Fiscal agents estimate the added benefits
would cost $688,378 a year.
The fiscal note also projected that 5,186 same-sex couples would get
married over the next two years if same-sex marriage were legalized in
Minnesota on August 1. The estimate found that couples paying the $90
marriage licenses would generate roughly $190,135 to the state's general
fund and another $146,930 to other special revenue funds.
Although there's little time to contact these committee members, their contact information is at the links below (be polite in email and phone calls; we'd recommend polite emails sent today, since no one is working today to answer the phones at the Capitol):
Several suburban Republicans whose districts voted against the amendment serve on the Ways and Means Committee as well. Although no member of the minority caucus in the Minnesota House has come out to support marriage equality, those from districts that turned down the amendment might be reminded of the choice voters made in November.
Again, time is short, but those who wish to contact them can find info at the link under each member's name; be polite in emails and phone calls.
McNamara (Hastings) is a co-author of HF1687, the first civil unions bill submitted by Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing). Unlike Kim Norton--whose name is stricken on the first iteration and a co-author of HF1805--McNamara didn't sign on Kelly's replacement "civil unions for everybody" bill that was offered days after the first bill reserved marriage for straight couples, while allowing both straight and gay/lesbians to enter into legally recognized civil unions.
The first bill was criticized for creating "separate but equal" arrangments for gay or lesbian couples who want to marry. Kelly responded with a bill that would "take government out of marriage."
Photo: Will the gay heirs of Paul Bunyan's legacy be able to marry in Minnesota soon?
56-year old Larry Duncan and 48-year old Randy Shepherd receive their marriage license in Washington State in December.
Photograph by Meryl Shenker.
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
While yesterday's news of Representative Joe Radinovich's decision to vote yes on Clark bill to extend the freedom to marry to all couples rocked the headlines across the state, a glance at Greater Minnesota papers online reveals it's not the only story.
Seven members of First Congregational worked meticulously, well into the
afternoon Friday as they hung 100 intricate, ministerial stoles. Their
work was for more than just an art project, though.
Shower of Stoles is a traveling exhibit of more than 1,000 religious
garments donated by LGBT individuals who serve or have served in
ministry but have been defrocked by the church for their sexual
orientations. Martha Juillerat started the project when she stepped down
from the Presbyterian Church in 1995 and came out, according to the
project’s website, www.welcomingresources.org. She asked for other LGBT to send in their
stoles to display and received 80 within the first day. The next
spring, she had 200, so the first display was held in 1996 in
Albuquerque, N.M.
Over the years, clearly, the exhibit has grown. Now it is split up
into pieces, and First Congregational is hosting the exhibit for the
first time from May 3 to May 15. Member Vickie Spyhalski is one of the
seven who helped hang the stoles, which took several hours.
“The purpose is really to show the role that LGBT people play in the church and their role in the ministry,” Spyhalski said.
First Congregational has 100 of the stoles on display. Many of them
are coupled with the stories of the people who wore them and the
struggles they faced by coming out. Those stories, Spyhalski said, are
powerful. . . .
The Red Wing Human Rights Commission along with Red Wing PFLAG —
Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays — invites the public
to a free performance presented by The Project 515 players.
The
performance will be at 7 p.m. Tuesday May 7 at Hobgoblin Stoney End, 920
Highway 19, Red Wing. Based in Minneapolis, “Project 515 - The Tour!”
has traveled all around the state, as far north as Bemidji, as far south
as Albert Lea and points in between.
Project 515 Education
Campaign is a non-profit organization working to teach Minnesotans about
the 515 current state laws that provide rights, benefits and
responsibilities based on marriage that are unavailable to same-gender
couples. The show is presented by a cast of six, each of whom plays
several roles in the performance. . . .
A next-door neighbor assumes that her lesbian neighbor can now
marry because the marriage amendment posed to voters last November
failed.
A man loses everything when his partner, a police officer, is
killed in the line of duty. His partner’s family — most of whom stopped
talking to him years ago — made all the decisions while he was left with
an empty house.
A young girl can’t sleep because she thinks
she’ll be taken away from her parents — two women who have been together
for years but can’t marry.
It was those moving snippets portraying the daily
struggles a same-sex couple experiences in Minnesota that moved
audience members like Joyce Atchison to tears. A self-proclaimed ally to
the LGBT community, Atchison was one of about 20 people who braved the
May Day blizzard for a performance of “515-The Tour!” at the
Congregational United Church of Christ in Faribault. . . .
Read the rest in the Daily News.
Grand Forks: Lake Park mayor Aaron L. Wittnebel's column
Clear across the state in the Grand Forks Herald,Lake Park mayor Aaron Wittnebel's column, Support the freedom to marry in Minnesota, has been published in the op-ed section. In the commentary, first published in MinnPost, Minnesota's only currently out gay mayor writes:
As the only openly gay mayor in Minnesota -- and having been born and
raised in the town I represent in Greater Minnesota -- marriage is
something that is important for me as a friend, a leader and a
Minnesotan.
Growing up in my small rural town in Greater
Minnesota and attending our local Lutheran Church, I learned the value
of commitment and family. Although I am not currently in a relationship,
I was for some time.
Michael and I had a great many plans for
the one day when we would have the freedom to get married in the state
we call home. We planned on getting married, raising a family and living
our lives together. . . .
Unfortunately,
Michael passed away from meningitis in 2006, a few short months after
his 30th birthday. Thanks to his upbringing in a small rural town as
well -- with those same shared values of love, commitment and family --
his family and I were able to make the arrangements together that
respected his wishes.
Sadly, this is not true for many same-sex
couples throughout Minnesota who, without equality under the law, end up
facing the nightmare of trying to honor their loved ones’ wishes on top
of the tragedy of losing them. And unfortunately, this is just one
example where our law stands in the way of love.
Not everyone is
fortunate to have a family such as Michael’s, and that’s one of many
reasons why marriage equality is so very important.
My friends,
family and neighbors all have come a long way in their recognition that
same-sex couples and LGBT Minnesotans like me have the same values,
hopes and aspirations as all other Minnesotans. We are Herald readers’
brothers, sisters, neighbors, co-workers and friends, and we believe in
families just like readers do.
Read the whole article in the GF Herald.
Happy to hitch 'em in Hackensack
Over in Hackensack, Pastor Michael Small looks forward to the day when he can legally marry couples like Aaron and Michael. He write in his letter to the Bemidji Pioneer, It’s time for Minnesota to take next step:
As a pastor for the past 25 years at Union Congregation Church United Church of Christ in Hackensack, I am proud to call myself a Minnesotan.
This past fall I was especially pleased to know that the people of Minnesota clearly affirmed the freedom for all persons in Minnesota to marry.
The voters of Minnesota have taken the first step in the freedom for everyone to marry. Now is the time to take the next step to secure the freedom for same-gendered couples to marry the one whom they love and cherish. It is time for us to set aside the last barrier for the freedom for everyone to marry by encouraging our legislators to act.
In Hackensack, same-gendered couples pay taxes, they vote, they run businesses. They work hard and contribute to the same system as everyone else. They should be treated fairly under the law, including the freedom to marry the person they love. When two people fall in love and decide to start a family and spend their lives together, marriage is the next step. There is nothing that compares or is as meaningful as marriage.
I look forward to the day when I can stand before a same-gendered couple and officiate at their wedding. Then I will be living out what I say every Sunday at Union, “No matter who you are or where you are on life’s journey, you are welcome here.”
Seven Minnesota House DFLers seen as swing votes
on gay marriage say they are supporting or leaning toward supporting it,
potentially key pickups for sponsors of the bill that may not get any
Republican support in the chamber.
If House DFLers wind up having to pass the bill on their own, the
members who declared their support in interviews Thursday, May 2, and
Friday, May 3, with the Pioneer Press will get them closer -- but not
all the way.
The seven are part of a group of 17 nonmetro
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party representatives seen as swing voters
because their party favors legalizing gay marriage but they come from
districts that supported the unsuccessful effort last fall to place a
ban on gay marriage in the state constitution.
Another seven of the group wouldn't commit or comment. And one could not be reached. Two said they will oppose the bill. . . .
Here's the list of where the 17 stand:
Yes: Tom Anzelc of Balsam Township; Carly
Melin of Hibbing; Jason Metsa of Virginia; Joe Radinovich of Crosby;
Shannon Savick of Wells; Mike Sundin of Esko.
Leaning yes: Tim Faust of Hinckley.
No: Patti Fritz of Faribault; Mary Sawatzky of Willmar.
Undeclared: Roger Erickson of Baudette; Paul Marquart of
Dilworth; Jay McNamar of Elbow Lake; John Persell of Bemidji; Jeanne
Poppe of Austin.
No comment: Andrew Falk of Murdock; John Ward of Baxter.
Unavailable: David Dill of Crane Lake.
Bluestem is disappointed in the choices made by Fritz and Sawatzky--especially the latter representative's decision. A freshman, Sawatzky often seems too timid to serve, the Walter Mitty of her class. Would that some of young Joe Radinovich's courage--and that of his fellow, but elder, freshman Shannon Savick,who also won a close race--rubbed off on their Class of 2012 colleague.
Here's hoping that Jay McNamar takes his cue from Radinovich and Savick, rather than Milquetoast Mary. Students at the University of Morris and others, like Big Stone County resident Rebecca Terk, are willing to get his back on this. The PiPress reports:
"This is the hardest vote I've ever had," said Jay
McNamar of Elbow Lake. "This vote, it tears at your heart." Almost 64
percent of voters in McNamar's district voted in favor of the marriage
amendment.
And freshman Roger Erickson:
"There's a fairness issue that I believe in. There's a
separation of church and state that I'm worrying about. But I also
understand the deep-seated religious values of many people in my
district. It's just a hard vote. It's a tough decision to make," said
Roger Erickson of Baudette.
Take the courageous votes, Representatives McNamar and Erickson. In your heart, you know it's right.
Photo: Aleta Christopherson arranges stoles for the Shower of Stoles exhibit at
First Congregational Church. The exhibit, which supports the LGBT who
are of faith, starts today and goes through May 15. -- Eric Johnson, at the Austin Daily Herald (above). Big Stone County Resident Rebecca and her betrothed, John White, want Jay McNamar to vote "yes." Both will be McNamar's constituents in 2014 (below).
If you enjoy reading posts like these on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
A Democrat who was on the fence as to whether to support a bill that
would legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota says he will vote for the
bill.
Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, said today that if the bill comes up he's on board.
"To further deny equal rights to all people would be a black eye on this institution and certainly on my own career," he said. . . .
Radinovich acknowledged that his stance on the bill would upset some
of his constituents, including some of his family members. But he said
he believes that a majority of younger voters support same-sex marriage,
and that the trend is that same-sex marriage will be legal soon.
"I'd rather have the voters be upset with me right now than me to be
upset with myself for the rest of my life," Radinovich said.
Ironically, Radinovich is M4M's (Minnesota for Marriage) Legislator of the Day:
#MNleg LEGISLATOR OF THE DAY: Joe Radinovich (DFL-10B) undecided but constituents want #1m1w--tell him vote NO today! bit.ly/107rZKT
In November 2012, sixty-two percent of the voters in Radinovich's district in Aitkin and
Crow Wing County district voted to for the amendment to restrict the freedom to marry. The amendment lost statewide.
Radinovich is scheduled to appear on TPT's Almanac tonight, where the announcement is sure to come up.
Is the heart of rural Minnesota thawing on marriage equality?
Recent developments suggest that the tide is changing for the bill. A new poll by KSTP/SurveyUSA revealed a Dramatic Shift On Gay Marriage Issue:
Votes to legalize gay marriage are likely to happen in the Minnesota
House and Senate next month. With those votes looming, our latest KSTP/SurveyUSA poll shows for the first time a majority of Minnesotans favor changing the law that bans same-sex marriage.
In our poll,
we asked 500 Minnesotans across the state if "the Minnesota state law
that defines marriage as between one man and one woman be changed to
allow same-sex couples to marry?"
The poll
indicates that 51% of Minnesotans favor the idea while 47% are opposed
to changing the law. Only two percent aren't sure. Just over two months
ago, in early February, only 42% of Minnesotans favored changing the
law and 54% were opposed.
Pausing over breakfast at Don's Cafe in Morris, 20-year-old University of Minnesota student Taylor Barker shares his passion for the spirit of rural community that the moderate independent student discovered while attending the liberal arts college in Stevens County.
"I like the small-town atmosphere and values here," Barker said, after noting that he'd grown up in Fridley. "My grandparents are from small towns in Renville and Isanti Counties. I feel like people can sit down and discuss issues over a cup of coffee at cafes like Don's. It's like the way my grandparents talk things over coffee at their kitchen tables with neighbors."
Barker's been drinking decaf while he talks about his development as a straight ally for the freedom to marry. Five years ago, Barker recalls, if he'd heard a news report about derogatory anti-gay slurs, he'd have said, "Attaboy!"
This changed when he got involved in high school theater productions and speech in his sophomore year of high school. "My high school theater program director and speech coach--and later mentor--was gay," he said. "I got to know him and his partner . . .and I realized how stupid homophobia is."
As Barker got to know more gay men and lesbians, he came to believe that all people should be enjoy the freedom to marry the person they love. This realization fit well with Barker's belief in individual liberty and limited government.
Indeed, Barker considered himself a Republican until the 2012 election, when he thought that political purity--"candidates competing to see who is 'more conservative'" -- and religious dogma became more important than the ability to consider individual rights and liberties. Like many young voters, he's turned off by the social conservatism of Republican platform positions that don't acknowledge the full citizenship of all Americans.
During the 2012 campaign season, Barker spoke out against the amendment to restrict the right to marry.
Although raised in the suburbs, Barker hopes to remain in Greater Minnesota and work in community-based radio. "Local people decide what the schedule and content are in community-based radio," he observed, pointing to the member stations in AMPERS.
Whether in politics or professional ambitions, Barker said he's drawn to a sense of community that values all people. "I keep coming back to this: we think getting to know people is important in Greater Minnesota," he said. "Our values of being a good citizen, part of a community--once you get beyond stereotypes, it's clear that same-sex couples are like their neighbors and only to marry the person they love."
Barker had to dash off to introduce students to the little campus on the prairie, in a town which banded together to help elected Jay McNamar while rejecting the amendment by 58.37 percent of the ballots cast.
Photo: Taylor Barker in the studios of KUMM-FM.
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families. For earlier posts in the series, click on the related articles below.
In St. Paul, the state legislature's picking sand mining lobbyists over trout, while back in greater Minnesota, conflict continues to flare as citizens scrutinize the industry.
Despite a series of political defeats, a Red Wing lawmaker vows to keep fighting for legislation to protect trout streams from silica sand mining.
Sen. Matt Schmit, DFL-Red Wing, said he will keep pushing to prohibit silica sand mining within a mile of trout streams, springs and fens in southeastern Minnesota.
"Hopefully, people realize that we are not asking for the world here. All we're asking for is to be proactive and to give our agencies the tools they need to do their job and give our local decision makers the assurance that we are getting this right," he said.
But the first-term senator faces a tough fight. Republicans and Iron Range Democrats have teamed up to defeat the proposal. Last week, the measure was stripped out of the Senate's game and fish bill. On Tuesday, an attempt by Schmit put the regulations back into the bill failed by one vote in the Senate Finance Committee.
Sen. Jeremy Miller, R-Winona, was among those voting against the trout stream language. He said he wants to protect trout streams but believes other legislation will address the issue by helping set model standards and making agency experts available to help local governments. Local officials he talked to said Schmit's proposal goes too far and would amount to a de facto moratorium on mining in Fillmore and Houston counties.
"That would eliminate just about any opportunity for industrial sand mining in those two counties," he said. . . .
Twin Cities bicyclists will be among those gathering at an event tonight to raise concerns about frac sand mining.
Several silica sand mines close to
the Mississippi River in western Wisconsin are near areas where cyclists
like to ride and stay in bed-and-breakfasts. Some of the proposed mines
in southeastern Minnesota are also located in scenic areas where
cycling is popular. . .
"Bicyclists care about frac sand
mining for the same reasons that I've heard a lot of southeast Minnesota
residents testify at the State Capitol, and that's health, safety and
scenery," [Tracy] Sides said. "Degraded scenery undermines the cycling and
tourism. I've visited mining locations in Wisconsin, and industrial frac
sand mines look like open sores on the land."
Sides said increased truck traffic
from sand mining threatens a resource on both sides of the river. . . .
Can the pristine St. Croix River experience and the silica sand mining operations expected to proliferate near the riverway, co-exist? As industrial silica sand mining expands in this region, that’s ripe with geologic formations that support silica sand deposits; will local officials be prepared for this vastly more intensive form of mining?
Leaders from towns and counties all along the Wisconsin-Minnesota border and in the St. Croix watershed came together last weekend to learn about what’s being done to regulate silica or “frac sand” mining. Some who have been involved in this issue for several years came to share their personal experiences with this industry. The conference was hosted by the St. Croix River Scenic Byway, and River Coalition and was held in St. Croix Falls’ Public Library. Frac sand or silica sand mining is causing concerns for local zoning authorities, public health officials and for citizens suddenly finding their farms, homes or cabins on the edge of a sand mine. . .
Residents in Winona County have asked the Minnesota Court of Appeals
to reverse a decision that would allow a proposed frac sand mine to move
forward without an in-depth environmental review.
The Winona County board voted last
month that the proposed Nisbit frac sand mine in Saratoga Township does
not need to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
But 12 residents backed by the Land Stewardship Project say the county
failed to address concerns about the mine's potential impact. They say
the county needs to take into account the potential cumulative effect of
several mines opening nearby. . . .
Here's the Land Stewardship Project press release:
One of our favorite poems is Wendell Berry's "The Peace of Wild Things." A lifelong Baptist, man of letters, academic, cultural and economic critic, and farmer, Berry has been a strong moral voice for traditional agrarian values and the environment for many years.
Thursday's Winona Daily News includes a letter from Berry to John Heid, Right and wrong:
The following letter was written by Wendell Berry, author, farmer and environmentalist, to John Heid (formerly of Winona), in support of the Catholic Worker campaign against frac sand mining.
Dear John,
You have offered me the privilege of joining by letter with you and your friends in Winona in opposition to "frac sand mining." and I am happy to accept.
I will say, first, that there is never, for any reason, a justification for doing long-term or permanent damage to the ecosphere. We did not create the world, we do not own it, and we have no right to destroy any part of it.
Second, most of our politicians and their corporate employers are measuring their work by the standards of profitability and mechanical efficiency. Those standards are wrong. There is one standard that is right: the health of living creatures and the living earth.
Third, we must give our need to eat, drink, and breathe and absolute precedence over our need for mined fuels.
I wish you well.
Sincerely,
Wendell Berry
It's not likely this will discourage those looking to loot a piece of wild things, but the gesture may give grassroots activists courage.
Hours after meeting with Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-CD6), Minnesota Latino immigrants remain hopeful, but cautious.
While grateful for an opportunity to discuss the issue of immigration reform with Representative Bachmann, members of organization La Asamblea de Derechos Civiles were disappointed that Representative Bachmann had opened up the meeting to an out-of-state congressperson whose comments in the meeting were inappropriate. While Representative Bachmann may believe that others are experts at the topic at hand, La Asamblea members believe that Representative Bachmann should be an expert in attempting to understand the experiences of her constituents.
However, La Asamblea members do applaud Representative Bachmann for agreeing to continue listening to stories and constituent perspectives regarding immigration reform. . .
The press release went on to praise the tone of the meeting:
"The meeting had a very positive tone of building bridges between the Latino community and Mrs. Bachmann. At the meeting, we had the impression that freedom for many immigrants is closer and we made it clear to her that the Latinos have a growing voting muscle in politics that we are ready to use," said Pablo Tapia, La Asamblea organizer.
Bluestem has learned that the other member of Congress was Alabama representative Mo Brooks, who serves his state's fifth congressional district on the Tennessee border.
Update: Bluestem's original post was not clear about the logistics of the meeting, which took place in Minnesota with Bachmann and one of her Washington staff members. Brooks joined the meeting via speaker phone. [end update]
Brooks 2011 statement: "I will doing anything short of shooting" undocumented workers
"As your congressman on the House floor, I will do anything short of
shooting them," Brooks said. "Anything that is lawful, it needs to be
done because illegal aliens need to quit taking jobs from American
citizens."
Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, (D-Texas) head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, blasted Brooks remarks.
"Rhetoric referencing acts of violence has no place in the
discussion for realistic solutions to our country's immigration
problems," Gonzalez said. "Words have consequences"
Brooks 2.0: Gentler anti-immigrant rhetoric in 2013
We don't know yet what "inappropriate" comments Brooks made in the recent meeting, but he's one of a handful of congress people who have been critical of current bipartisan efforts to move comprehensive immigration reform.
His rhetoric does seem to have mellowed in the last two years.
After the media reported that an immigration deal among the Senate’s Gang of Eight was imminent, a number of conservatives in the House told their leadership on Wednesday that they didn’t want to get steamrolled by the upper chamber.
Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) told The Hill, “We probably won’t know anything until a bill is drafted and presented.
“Keep in mind, it’s just eight people. It’s not sanctioned by anybody,” he noted, adding “it’s going to be very difficult for me to agree to ratify illegal conduct.”
. . .With both groups seemingly close to producing legislation, King and
the others believe it’s time for them to make their voices heard before
the momentum becomes overwhelming.
“We’ve held our powder dry,” King said, but “decided its time
to come forward now because we are seeing the inertia and we are
concerned about having this wash over us and not have the opportunity
for the constitutional conservatives in this country and in this
Congress to have their voice heard.”
A group of Republican House members led by Iowa Rep. Steve King spoke forcefully in opposition to a mass legalization before first solving the problem of illegal immigration at an event with reporters Thursday. . . .
Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks said that the immigration system should serve Americans and stressed that in terms of immigration, America “is the most compassionate nation in history when it comes to allowing foreigners to become citizens of our country.”
“I want to emphasize the culture that we have in America, that we welcome immigration,” he said, explaining the issue is illegal immigration.
“We have to make a choice: Are we going to have laws, or not have laws? If we are not going to have open borders then that means we have to have laws that restrict who can come and who cannot come in. And we have to enforce those laws,” Brooks said, explaining that it is only a small percentage of people “who have chosen to disregard our laws as their first act on American soil.”
He added that with so many people wishing to come to America, the country should focus on accepting the most valuable and productive people.
“I urge that we get behind an immigration policy that focuses on bringing to America those who are clearly going to be on the productive side of our economy, less likely to be on the consumptive side of our economy,” he said, adding that illegal immigrants contribute to keeping wages low and Americans out of work.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio went on seven Sunday talk shows
to pitch a bipartisan immigration reform deal, while a handful of
Republican lawmakers famous for their wacky cable news interviews can't
get any attention. An anti-immigration "gang of six" in the House is
trying to stop the pro-immigration "gang of eight" in the Senate, The National Review's Robert Costa
reports, but hardly anyone's listening. The six are cable TV favorites:
Minnesota's Michele Bachmann, Iowa's Steve King, Texas' Louie Gohmert,
Alabama's Mo Brooks, Pennsylvania's Lou Barletta, and California's
Dana Rohrabacher. There were zero "anti-amnesty" Sunday show guests
the week before Rubio's grand tour. The most popular cable guests of
the six -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert -- haven't been invited on cable
to talk immigration in the last three months, according to Lexis Nexis.
They complain the GOP isn't listening to them either.
In 2007, Costa explains, Republican immigration opponents "dominated
the headlines" and "scared off many Republicans who might otherwise have
supported it." Now, "the anti-legalization warriors wonder why their
party suddenly seems to be ignoring their concerns." But once the bill
comes out, he writes, "they think they, not Rubio, will be the
Republicans who shape the debate, especially on talk radio and within
the conservative movement." But that hasn't happened so far! According
to Lexis Nexis -- which, granted, doesn't have every single word uttered
on cable news -- Bachmann, King, and Gohmert haven't been able to get
much time on Fox to sell their view. They're all far more popular on
MSNBC as bad guys than on Fox as good guys.
Check out the tally sheet at the Atlantic Wire. In the National Review article, A Gang of Six Plots a Revolt Costa writes:
King and his crew are not driving the negotiations, and they
increasingly feel like outsiders within their own party. “The meetings
of the Gang of Eight and the secret meetings in the House of
Representatives — the people who have been standing up for the
Constitution and the rule of law haven’t been invited to those
meetings,” King tells the assembled group of reporters. The other
huddlers — Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Lou Barletta (Pa.), Mo Brooks
(Ala.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), and Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.) — nod and
grimace. “We’ve got all the rich guys and the elitists talking to each
other,” Rohrabacher says. “Unfortunately us regular folks don’t have
that kind of coordination.”
Brooks has long been in opposition to allowing leniency to those who
skirted the law to live in the United States. In 2011, Brooks said at a
town hall meeting that the U.S. should "do anything short of shooting them" to keep illegal aliens out of the country.
Tonight,
Brooks pointed to the financial burden illegal aliens are putting on
the economy. He said the U.S. Treasury was writing checks for about $4
billion per year in child tax credits to illegal aliens who are
submitting fraudulent tax forms. He also said that estimates in
Washington indicate illegal aliens are contributing $20 million per year
to the tax system while consuming $100 million per year in taxes.
He acknowledged, however, that his views on immigration are "in the minority" in Washington. Immigration reform, including the amnesty program, has been a rare issue receiving bipartisan support.
Brooks' expertise: caucus memberships
It's curious that Bachmann would invite a member of the Gang of Six to meet with Minnesotans on immigration reform, since that might chill the discussion. Brooks was the author of the died-in-committee "Jobs for Americans Act of 2011."
The caucuses favor closed borders, withholding all federal funding to
cities that do not strictly enforce federal immigration status laws,
and other measures generally characterized as anti-immigrant by those
seeking comprehensive immigration reform.
Research on immigrants and job creation
While Brooks' central assertion--that undocumented workers rob Americans of jobs--is a staple of anti-immigrant talking points, the record is mixed. The New York Times Magazine asked in 2012 Do Illegal Immigrants Actually Hurt the U.S. Economy?, noting:
. . .Labor economists have concluded that
undocumented workers have lowered the wages of U.S. adults without a
high-school diploma — 25 million of them — by anywhere between 0.4 to
7.4 percent.
The impact on everyone else, though, is surprisingly positive. Giovanni
Peri, an economist at the University of California, Davis, has written a
series of influential papers comparing the labor markets in states with
high immigration levels to those with low ones. . . . In states with more undocumented immigrants, Peri said, skilled
workers made more money and worked more hours; the economy’s
productivity grew. From 1990 to 2007, undocumented workers increased
legal workers’ pay in complementary jobs by up to 10 percent.
As Congress considers immigration reform, experts across the political spectrum say American jobs are safe.
That
immigrants take the jobs of American-born citizens is “something that
virtually no learned person believes in,” Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration
expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said at a Thursday panel.
“It’s sort of a silly thing.”
Most economists don’t find immigrants driving down wages or jobs, the Brookings Institution's
Michael Greenstone and Adam Looney wrote in May. In fact, “on average,
immigrant workers increase the opportunities and incomes of Americans,”
they write. Foreign-born workers don’t affect the employment rate
positively or negatively, according to a 2011 analysis
from the conservative American Enterprise Institute. And a study
released Wednesday by the liberal Center for American Progress suggests
that granting legal status to undocumented workers might even create
jobs.
The CAP study,
led by the visiting head of the Washington College economics
department, sought to predict what would happen under immigration
reform. The researchers considered a handful of scenarios. In each, it
was presumed that the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants would
be immediately granted legal status. They then looked at the effect of
those undocumented immigrants not being granted citizenship at all over a
decade, getting it immediately, or getting it in five years.
Legal
status alone would lead to the creation of 121,000 extra jobs annually
over the next 10 years, they found. Getting citizenship within five
years would increase that to 159,000 jobs per year. And receiving both
legal status and citizenship this year would create an extra 203,000
jobs annually.
Photo: Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks, Michele Bachmann's go-to guy for meetings with Minnesota Latinos advocating comprehensive immigration reform.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
In a recent radio interview broadcast by KDIO, Ortonville mayor Steve Berkner inveighed against "intimidation tactics" that had supposedly by used by "special interest" opponents of the Strata Mining Corporation's plan to open a granite quarry in a cow pasture that contains some of Big Stone County's namesake granite outcroppings.
Those tactics? "Busing in" people, carrying signs, chanting, swearing, pounding on tables, grandstanding. For this, Berkner cautions that the city attorney and Ortonville police have been ordered to prevent "intimidation" at the next hearing about Stata, on May 7. Berkner encouraged citizens to submit written remarks, since apparently speaking in public at hearings can be confrontational.
Now, Bluestem attended a number of the zoning and county board hearings on the matter last year, and doesn't remember seeing anyone being "bused in." As for the signs, those carrying them in February 2012 did sing on their way from the Land Stewardship Project's office in Clinton to a zoning meeting about a block and a half away, but set them outside before entering the hearing.
Law enforcement officials were present at that meeting and others, but that's not unusual for large public meetings. Berkner was accusing outside "special interests" (apparently Land Stewardship Project, which maintains a local foods program in Western Minnesota and Clean Up the River Environment, an Upper Minnesota River Valley watershed restoration group based in Montevideo, MN) of using "intimidation tactics," although he doesn't name names.
Since the singing sign carriers and those speaking at the meetings all seemed rather decorous, Bluestem contacted Big Stone County Sheriff John Haukos to see if his department had received complaints or reports of bad behavior. After reviewing his records, Haukos returned our call. No complaints or reports had been filed, although the presence of deputies at meetings were duly recorded.
Indeed, Sheriff Haukos, who had attended many of the meetings, thought that they could be models of public discussion of an issue. He had not observed swearing, pounding of fists, or any such behavior that could be charactized as "intimidation," although he did watch one confrontational exchange after a zoning meeting in Clinton between a citizen and a county commissioner. He determined that the exchange wasn't going to escalate and moved on.
Since Bluestem was there, we too observed that verbal jousting between Dakota scholar Waziyata Win, who lives in the Yellow Medicine Dakota community near Granite Falls and Big Stone County Commissioner Brent Olson. In light of Minnesota history, Bluestem hesitates to call her or the two other Dakota scholars from Marshall and South Dakota who spoke at another meeting "outsiders," however outspoken Waz might be.
Clinton resident Rebecca Terk dropped by both the Ortonville Police department and Big Stone Sheriff's office with the same question. She was told that no complaints or reports of intimidation had been made to either office during the 2012 hearing process.
It's curious that the mayor is inclined to declare opposition to a project by a North Dakota corporation to somehow be a product of "outside special interests," when signs objecting to the annexation of the pasture--since the local township where it had been situated originally enacted a moratorium on the development after residents objected--still grace lawns in his fair community. (To circumvent the township moratorium, the landowner divided his property among relatives, who petitioned to become part of the City of Ortonville; an MPR report here includes remarks by Berkner. An OAH judge ruled that only one parcel could be annexed.).
Also curious in the interview: the host's declaration that if one side doesn't want to speak about a controversy, it's best not to cover an issue at all. Bluestem was under the impression that journalistic convention held that one reported that folks were given an opportunity to present their side, but declined comment.
Indeed, the edited remarks below are characterized by a barely contained hostility toward those who might object to Strata's designs--while insisting that the public has the right to make "respectful" comments. His bar for "respectful" appears to be quite high--with no singing or signs allowed. Indeed, if only people could just write their comments down. That would be so much nicer. Want to speak up in Ortonville? Better meet Mayor Berkner's guidelines for form, presentation and content.
And if Strata Corporation decides to never comment to the press, why the nice respectful radio lady simply wouldn't have to report on anything that happens at all.
Here's the selected audio about the idea of order in Ortonville, drawn from a longer 20-minute interview.. Short fades mark the edits and photo is of Berkner, then a city council member, at a public information hearing held in Ortonville by the Ortonville Township board of supervisors.
Photo: Signs wait outside a Big Stone County planning and zoning board hearing in Clinton, Minnesota in February 2012. Ortonville Mayor Steve Berkner has labeled these signs an "intimidation tactic." Bluestem doesn't find the message "Outcrops Mean Tourism $" to be all that scary, but perhaps the mayor has a much different comfort zone than Bluestem and local law enforcement. (Photo by Rebecca Terk) Below: an anti-annexation sign in an Ortonville lawn last fall.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
While the Minnesota legislature considers the creation of standards for silica sand mining and a Senate committee guts provisions for the protection of trout streams, members of the Catholic Worker movement have taken much more radical direct action to address their concerns about industrial sand mining in the driftless area.
Dan Wilson was one of about 20 people arrested Monday for misdemeanor trespassing after blocking trucks loaded with silica sand from getting to a Mississippi River loading dock in Winona. But he believes the wrong group was taken into custody.
As far as the Winona man is concerned, police should have arrested those who own the facility for trespassing on the city with their sand, which can cause medial and economic problems.
"We are not the ones trespassing on the industry, they are trespassing on us," he said after he was booked and released. About 20 others were arrested at another site in the city. . .
Protesters have written letters to the editor, talked with local officials and did other things but to no avail, Wilson said. "We decided we needed to start making sacrifices," he said. . . .
Eileen Hanson, a member of the Winona Catholic Worker community, said the weekend seminar attracted about 100 people from several Midwest states. Those arrested at the CD Corp. site and another 20 or so at a sand-processing plant on the outskirts of Winona, were both local and from other states, she said.
"We're saying no to this dangerous and destructive industry," she said."This was just one more way of saying, 'Hey we have really strong concerns about this.'" . . .
Their concerns aren't completely groundless. Read on.
Trout fishery protections stripped from Fish and Game bill
On April 24, in an unconnected action back at the state capitol, the Senate Finance - Environment, Economic Development and Agriculture Division stripped out the provisions in SF 786 that would have helped preserve Southeastern Minnesota's trout streams.
The testimony begins around 1:15 here. Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Landwehr offered compelled testimony in support of the provisions, as did John Lenczewski from Trout Unlimited.
Before the roll call vote, committee chair David Tomassoni (DFL-Chisholm) said that these provisions were not
appropriate for a Game and Fish bill--and that there are trout on the Iron
Range and his area might be next for trout protection.
Tom Saxhaug (DFL-Grand Rapids) agreed but Bev Scalze (DFL-Little Canada), who sits on the policy committee,
rightly brought up that as a finance committee they should not be
undoing major policy provisions.
Here are the roll call votes that gutted the pro-fishery provisions. The first vote is to remove section 50 of the bill
requiring setbacks from trout streams, the second vote is on section 51 limiting groundwater usage and prohibiting mining within 25 foot of the
water table.
Tomassoni YES YES
Dibble NO NO
Dziedzic NO NO
Hawj NO NO
Ingebrigtsen PASS YES
Osmek YES YES
Ruud YES YES
Saxhaug YES YES
Scalze NO NO
Schmit NO NO
Sparks YES NO
Weber YES YES
Westrom YES YES
Listen to the testimony and discussion. It's enough to make Baby Jesus cry.
Photos: protesters in Winona (top, via Winona Daily News); brown trout in Southeastern Minnesota (bottom).
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
The Blaze/ Associated Press is reporting that the founders of American Unity PAC, a national group of prominent GOP donors determined to change Republican minds about the freedom to marry, has formed a lobbying organization.
American Unity PAC was formed last year to lend financial support to Republicans who bucked the party's longstanding opposition to gay marriage. Its founders are launching a new lobbying organization, American Unity Fund, and already have spent more than $250,000 in Minnesota, where the Legislature could vote on the issue as early as next week.
The group has spent $500,000 on lobbying since last month, including
efforts in Rhode Island, Delaware, Indiana, West Virginia and Utah.
Billionaire hedge fund manager and Republican donor Paul Singer
launched American Unity PAC. The lobbying effort is the next phase as
the push for gay marriage spreads to more states, spokesman Jeff
Cook-McCormac told The Associated Press.
In Minnesota, the group has targeted its spending:
In Minnesota, the money has gone
to state groups that are lobbying Republican lawmakers and for polling
on gay marriage in a handful of suburban districts held by Republicans.
So far, only one Minnesota Republican lawmaker has committed to voting
to legalize gay marriage: Sen. Branden Petersen, of Andover.
"I think there will be some more.
There are legislators out there that are struggling with this," said
Carl Kuhl, a former political aide to former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman and
Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer. Kuhl's public affairs firm
is contracted by Minnesotans United, the lead lobby group for gay
marriage in Minnesota and main recipient of American Unity's Minnesota spending. . . .
Though only one current GOP
officeholder in Minnesota is on record supporting gay marriage, a
handful of prominent Republicans have spoken out in favor of it. They
include former state auditor Pat Anderson and Brian McClung, who was
spokesman for former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Prominent Republican donors including former politician Wheelock Whitney and businesswoman Marilyn Carlson Nelson have also lent support and donated money.
Since it first formed to campaign against last fall's gay marriage
ban and then shifted to pushing for its legalization at the Capitol,
Minnesotans United has been building Republican alliances, hiring
multiple lobbyists with Republican ties. . . .
Will national Republican money--and influential Minnesota Republicans--have an effect on swaying more conservative legislators?
. . . My friends, family and neighbors have all come a long way in their
recognition that lesbians and gay men like me have the same values,
hopes and aspirations as all other Minnesotans. We are your neighbors,
your co-workers and friends, your brothers and sisters, and we believe
in families just as you do. These are values shared across Minnesota
from the metro to the rural areas of Greater Minnesota.
Marriage
is a commitment, an aspiration, a bundle of hopes and disappointments.
Marriage is full of lessons that amplify our personal, social and
spiritual growth and fulfillment. There isn’t a need for a separate set
of rules. Gays and lesbians don't need a special status. Minnesotans
simply need to let committed same-sex couples share the same rules, same
responsibilities, and same respect that everyone else enjoys. . . .
Under 800 people live in Lake Park, a small town in Becker County that elected Wittnebel mayor.
It's telling that those who wish to block the freedom to marry often seek to use the issue as a line in the sand, whether along party lines or geographical boundaries. It's a politics that relies on divisions. Those supporting marriage equality, on the other hand, are seeking to unite the state across the those boundaries.
Divisive politics? It's worth noting that one side's all for that.
Postcard: It's one state, people.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
When Tessa Hoffman Schweitzer received a mail piece from Minnesota for Marriage targeting Matt Schmit, her state senator, the divorced mother turned to social media to object to the notion that the freedom to marry would harm children.
She urged friends in the district to call Schmit and ask him to vote
yes, happy to have Schmit's number readily at hand, courtesy of the
anti-freedom group.
Schweitzer grew up in the Oronoco area and now lives in St. Charles.
Supporting the freedom to marry is a family tradition for Schweitzer; her father, James Hoffman, also believes all loving couples should be able to wed the ones they love.
What caused the Lourdes High School graduate who was "[r]aised a church-attending Catholic Democrat" to support the freedom to marry?
"Honestly, at first, I was like, "Why can't they be satisfied with civil unions?" Nope--not good enough. Separate is not equal! It's a matter of principle," Schweitzer said.
"It is a civil rights issue,"she added. "Sexual orientation is no different than race. The biological sciences, medical sciences, psychiatric and neurological fields all back me up on this. To those that work in those fields, homosexuality is not seen as a pathology. Civil laws must be based on science not religion or 'morality' if we are to have true separation of church and state and respect for all belief systems."
Yet rural values are important for Schweitzer--those based on acceptance and pulling together.
"Despite individual differences, pettiness, and gossip, people are there for each other when it counts," she believes. "I know my neighbors and the children play with each other in the alley. Out-state Minnesota is not as homogenous as one might believe, and there are many characters than populate the rural areas that I may not agree with but admire. It takes all kinds!"
Schweitzer feels that last year's amendment forced her to clarify her own values, making her almost an accidential ally, but her commitment to marriage equality has grown strong.
If she could sit down over coffee with an opponent, she'd ask, "Hopefully I'd do a little listening first. Some of my points however--I would start with Rep. Steve Simon's quote: 'How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?' And then ask them how they think gays being allowed to marry would impact them."
Schweitzer looks to her father for guidance on values; during the debate over the amendment to restrict marriage freedom, he wondered in a letter to the editor published in the Winona Daily News and the Rochester Bulletin: "I cannot conceive how any marriage between same-sex people in any way affects my 50-year marriage or marriage in general."
A 79-year -old parent and grandparent, a veteran of the US Army who holds a masters degree in mathematics education, James Hoffman has been a
resident of Minnesota for approximately 50 of those years. He now lives in Chatfield.
"Two of my
children and three of my grandchildren live in Minnesota," Hoffman notes. "Minnesota has
always been . . . known as a progressive state that placed a
high value on equality and education."
"In all of my life I have met a number of gay people but what I have
yet to meet is a gay person who chose that as a 'life style,' " he notes, adding, "Also it's too early to determine the ultimate sexual orientation of my grandchildren. Punishing people
for a condition over which they have little or no control is cruel and
unusual!"
"It's the fair and decent thing to do," Hoffman said of the Dibble and Clark bills.
Photos: Tessa Hoffman Schweitzer and her son (above); her parents (below).
This original story is underwritten by a sponsorship by Minnesotans United for All Families.
All of the statements, opinions, and views expressed on this site by Sally Jo Sorensen are solely her own, save when she attributes them to other sources.
The opinions, statements, and views of contributing writers are their own.
Sorensen, editor and proprietor of Bluestem Prairie, served as a New Media training and strategy consultant for the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party from October 2009 through mid-April 2010. She now serves clients in the business and nonprofit sectors.
Recent Comments