Once upon a time--in mid-April--Minnesota state senator Scott Newman (R-Hutchinson) stood in the presence of his district's representatives at a town hall and declared to voters in the small-town cafe:
Sen. Scott Newman thinks it will be a long shot for either a bill legalizing same-sex marriage or civil unions to come to the Senate floor for a vote this year.
Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, he said, may be a DFLer but he’s an Iron Ranger who hails from a fiscally liberal yet socially conservative district. “In the Senate, they’d have to get past (Bakk) and I doubt they can do it.”
In our post,Dean Urdahl assures town hall that some of Glenn Gruenhagen's friends are straight people, Bluestem expressed our doubts that Newman was a member of Bakk's Majority Caucus, or privy to the senate Majority Leader's thoughts.
We were on to something.
Today, Wednesday, May 8, 2103, Senate comm staffer Amos Briggs sent an email with this subject head: "Advisory: Senate Vote on Marriage Equality Bill." Contents:
Should the Minnesota House of Representatives vote to pass HF 1054, the marriage equality bill, on Thursday, May 9th, the Minnesota Senate will plan to schedule the bill for a floor vote on Monday, May 13th, with session likely to convene at 11:00 a.m.
The Senate will not be in session on Saturday, May 11th, as several members will be attending a funeral for Sen. Ruud's mother. . . .
At least one Twin Cities blogger called Minnesota For Marriage (M4M) divisive rural-vs-metro a sound strategy based on Newman's remarks. Guess both of them forgot to ask Bakk about it.
Nor did the M4M tour appear to have achieved its end--instead, rural DFL legislators began to declare their intentions to vote yes.FitzSimmons' amendment: clarification, not compromise
Conservative Wright County Republican freshman representative David FitzSimmons (Albertville) has offered an elegant amendment that clarifies the Clark bill, removing the muddle of debate over civil unions and marriage. It may possibly also banish fears that religious groups that acknowledge only straight marriage will at some point be forced to marry queer folk within their walls.
A13-0619 inserts "civil marriage" where "marriage" is now in state law and the Clark bill.
Simple. Respectful. A clarification that supports religious freedom, but not a compromise of the essential equality of the claim to marriage of all committed couples.
Reporters are tweeting that Minnesotans United for All Families executive director Richard Carlbom agrees with the amendment:
Richard Carlbom of MNU supports GOP's Fitzsimmons amendment to use "civil marriage" in all MN law. Could net GOP votes? #gaymarriage
— Patrick Condon (@pcondonap) May 8, 2013
Here's MNU's statement:
In advance of the historic vote in the Minnesota House of Representatives on extending the freedom to marry to same-sex couples, Representative David FitzSimmons, (R – Albertville) today introduced an amendment to House File 1054 that would insert the word “civil” in front of marriage in Minnesota state statute.Minnesotans United Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom released the following statement in response to this development:
“Minnesotans United supports this amendment, and we will encourage the members of the Minnesota House of Representatives to support it as well. Representative FitzSimmons’ amendment affirms the fact that Minnesotans want same-sex couples to have the freedom to marry in our state while also ensuring that clergy members and religious institutions are free to practice their beliefs free from government intrusion. We applaud Representative FitzSimmons for introducing this amendment, and we are hopeful that it will bring even more bipartisan support to House File 1054.”
It's unfortunate that while FitzSimmons can see the merit making the amendment but not declare support the bill as a whole. Update: Along with fellow Republicans Pat Garofalo, Andrea Kieffer and Jenifer Loon, FitzSimmons voted yes.
Representative tweets from the media:
Fitzsimmons wouldn't comment as to whether he'll vote for the final bill if his amendment isn't included.
— tomscheck (@tomscheck) May 8, 2013
FitzSimmons hasn't committed to backing bill if his "civil marriage" amendment prevails but says he has no doubt bill will pass #mnleg
— Brian Bakst (@Stowydad) May 8, 2013
Finally, the lone Republican who has declared his support for the marriage equality bill praises MNU's push for bipartisan support:
Petersen cont: "They [@mn4allfamilies] have the votes already, but I think it's great they are working toward more bipartisan support."
— Briana Bierschbach (@bbierschbach) May 8, 2013
Bluestem agrees. It's not surprising, given the group's history of hiring Republican staffers like communications director Jake Loesch.
Update: Tom Scheck's take at MPR: Amendment may garner GOP votes for marriage bill
Photos: Three guys who are so not in Tom Bakk's majority caucus (Jorge Sosa/ Hutch Leader, above); Dave Fitzsimmons (below).
If you appreciate reading posts on Bluestem Prairie, consider making a donation via paypal:
I wouldn't be surprised to see this adopted by other states that are having a hard time getting marriage equality over the hump.
Marriage equality isn't about forcing the Pope to marry Siegfried and Roy at the Vatican -- it's about letting Siegfried and Roy, or Larry and Gus, or Jane and Shirley, or Jane and John for that matter, all be able to have a marriage that has the same legal status and features as the marriage I have with my spouse.
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | May 08, 2013 at 11:38 PM