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:
The Minnesota River has long been praised as one of the great North American flathead cat fisheries, but the dam at Minnesota Falls near Granite Falls marked the end of the cat's upstream habitat.
To celebrate the history-making return of great fishing in Granite Falls, the Chamber of Commerce is sponsoring a unique contest, said Nicole Zempel, director. Beginning with the Minnesota fishing opener on May 11, the first person to catch a flathead catfish in the stretch of the Minnesota River from Memorial Park to the dam in downtown Granite Falls will be awarded a prize befitting the importance of this occasion.
Read the article to learn how to enter the contest. Since photographic evidence will be proof enough, it's a contest those who catch-and-release can enjoy.The article continues:
The removal of the Minnesota Falls dam about three miles downstream of Granite Falls has re-opened this section of river to the natural migration of fish. For over a century, the Minnesota dam served as a substantial disruption to the annual migrations of flathead catfish, walleye, sauger, paddlefish, shovelnose and lake sturgeon to this stretch of river.
The Minnesota River is famous for its trophy, flathead catfish population. But for more than a century flathead catfish have not been found above the Minnesota Falls dam.
Now, fisheries biologists are confident that these and other game fish will be drawn upstream to the Granite Falls area. There is an approximate, 17-feet gradient change in the river from Granite Falls to the Minnesota Falls rapids, creating riffles and other desirable fish habitat.
It’s also a great section of river to paddle, said Zempel.
Bluestem thinks there's little we can write about publicly that's as enjoyable as a good night spent going after cats, except perhaps a paddle down the river.
Image: A flathead cat.
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:
The Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture conference committee meets at 1:00 p.m., and Bluestem hopes that the House conferees--Jean Wagenius, David Dill, Jeanne Poppe, Rick Hansen, and Andrew Falk--can prevail on keeping $190,000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program in the final conference report.
Competitive grants for up to $25,000 are awarded to individuals or
groups for on-farm sustainable agriculture research or demonstration
projects in Minnesota. The purpose of the Grant Program is to fund
practices that promote environmental stewardship and conservation of
resources as well as improve profitability and quality of life on farms
and in rural areas. . . .
Eligible recipients include Minnesota farmers, individuals at Minnesota
educational institutions, non-profit organizations, and local natural
resource agencies. Priority is given to projects that are farmer
initiated. All non-farmer initiated projects must show significant
collaboration with farmers. . . .
The program objectives are to research and demonstrate the
profitability, energy efficiency, and benefits of sustainable
agriculture practices and systems from production through marketing.
Grants are available to fund on-farm research and demonstrations and may include, but are not limited to:
enterprise diversification and organic production using traditional and non-traditional crops and livestock;
cover crops and crop rotations to increase nitrogen uptake, reduce erosion, or control pests;
conservation tillage and weed management;
cropping systems to implement integrated pest management systems for insects, weeds, and diseases;
nutrient and pesticide management including prevention of entry into water bodies;
energy production such as wind, methane, or biomass.
The program does not fund projects that duplicate previously funded projects. . . .
It's not a big program, but one that's useful for farmers, especially those in fast-growing sectors like community supported agriculture (CSA). It's not as if traditional production agriculture is starved in either chamber's bill, so the omission of the program in the Senate bill seems a casual error that can be easily corrected.
Here's the Land Stewardship Project's position on the project (via LSP's lobbyist Bobby King:
Funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Demonstration Grant Program. LSP
supports the House position that provides $190,000/ year funding for
this program. (HF 976 lines 6.7 – 6.20) There is no dedicated funding
in the Senate position.
Here's the House staff comparison and contrast chart. Perhaps the greater problem with the Senate bill is the absence of funding for the Minnesota Agricultural Water Quality Program, which would be developed by the Minnesota Department of Ag and a board composed mostly of farmers and local soil and water commissioners. Oddly, Republicans have objected that farmers would not have a voice in establishing the program's policies. The program is a priority of the Minnesota Farmers Union.
With the suspension of the sustainable food production diploma program at M State-Fergus Falls, a peculiar hostility to toward small-scale, innovative agriculture seems to be gaining steam among some state lawmakers and bureaucrats. This is unfortunate, as the local food movement has been a boon for small business and job creation for those who seek to serve consumer demand.
Update: Those who support fostering our state's sustainable farming sector might consider contact the senators on the conference committee to ask them to agree with the House bill and fund this modest program. Be polite to the legislative aides who answer the phones and listen to the voicemail messages.
David Tomassoni: 651-296-8017
Tom Saxhaug: 651-296-4136
Dan Sparks: 651-296-9248
Jim Metzen: 651-296-4370
Torrey Westrom: 651-296-3826
Photo: Sexy buffer strips, via MnDA.
If you enjoy reading posts like this on Bluestem Prairie, consider throwing some coin in the tip jar:
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:
Recent Comments