This is part 2 of my conversation with Senator Michele Bachmann (Part One)

Triple_a: Why do you want to pass this bill in the Senate, allowing the voters to decide the fate of marriage?

Polling data shows support for allowing the vote on the amendment at 68% statewide. Outside of the Twin Cities urban area, those numbers are at 75%. The Senator believes that the amendment would pass with around 70% approval. She then went into some of the 18 states that have approved constitutional amendments like the one proposed in Minnesota.

Kansas is the most recent, passing it just a few days ago on April 5th. CNN story

With final, unofficial results from 104 of the state’s 105 counties on Tuesday, 414,235, or 70 percent, voted “yes,” and 178,167, or 29 percent voted “no.”

Then she mentioned Oregon. I thought she may have stumbled, and I confirmed. She said that Oregon, the very liberal leaning state, had voted on a constitutional amendment with 58% approval. Again, I gave her a look of confusion, and she said that it was true. Link

Voters approved the measure in the 2 November 2004 general election, with 1,028,546 votes in favor, and 787,556 votes against.
The measure was placed on the ballot through an initiative petition brough by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, a group dedicated to “preserving marriage as a union only between one man and one woman”. The group was formed in reaction to same-sex marriages preformed in Multnomah County and Benton County after their respective county commissions interpreted the Oregon Constitution and Oregon law as authorizing the issuing of marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Supporters of the measure, in addition to opposing same-sex marriage on principle, were also angry by the controversial means by which the Multnomah County Commission had come to its decision: no public hearings were held before the commission voted to allow the marriages.

Triple_a If this bill were allowed a vote on the floor of the MN Senate, it would pass with bi-partisan support.

She said yes, that there are enough votes for it to pass.

I asked Senator Bachmann why she wanted this amendment to go before the voters, and she said that she started it the day after the Goodrich decision in Mass in November 2003. (Link)

Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, (Mass. 2003), was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage rights in Massachusetts.
In a 50-page, 4-3 ruling delivered on November 18th, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found that Massachusetts may not “deny the protections, benefits and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry” because of a clause in the state’s constitution that prohibits “the creation of second-class citizens.” The legislature was given 180 days to change the law to rectify the situation.

It had nothing to do with the Bush election or her candidacy for the 6th District. The only way that all of the people in Minnesota can have their say is if the amendment is on the ballot. She pointed out that it is not a Republican issue; in states that John Jerry won the Presidential election, marriage amendments passed.

I asked the senator if she hated anyone, it has been part of the rhetoric, and I thought it should be asked. Her answer was, No!

Triple_a: There are some people who think traditional marriage between one man and one woman is the same as same sex marriage. What do you think, are they the same? Should they be?

She said that they are not the same. No nation or tribe has ever had any form of marriage other than man/woman marriage. There has been homosexuality, but not same sex marriage. Traditional cultures do not have same sex marriage. This was only a recent topic in the long history of marriage. Even here in Minnesota, the ethnic groups like the Latinos, African Americans, and other races from the African Continent support the amendment.

The supporters of the amendment believe that a marriage between one man and one woman is the lynchpin of the family. If it is pulled out, can the family stay as powerful and strong as it is? Tearing down the corner stone or pulling the lynch pin of the family will have profound impacts for future generations. It will change everything we now know, and as seen in Canada, the family will eventually be reinvented. Removing the traditional roles of mothers and fathers.

Triple_a: I’ve seen some stories about people who have had same sex marriages performed privately, in other states, or in other countries, Is there a possibility that those people could have the legal option to have their marriages recognized under current Minnesota law?

She says that under current law, that is not possible. But that a court could strike down that law just like has been done in other states.

Triple_a:Sen. Betzold, your #1 opponent to the bill in the Senate and my Senator, has an opposing bill that he says would solve this issue. It would ban judges from ruling on the subject, but does Sen Betzold’s bill really do that?

Senator Bachmann says that he has another one too, that wouldn’t go on the ballot until 2008. So our state would have to suffer this debate until then. Also she pointed out that all of the Senate is up for reelction in 2006, so passing his bill, would once again insulate the Senate from a political hot potato.

I asked her if the bill to allow the amendment is dead for the year. She says its not over yet. It could still happen. The last day of the session is May 23. If people can contact their DFl Senators, there is still hope. She wants to remind everyone that if the bill passes the Senate this year, it will give both sides until next November to persuade the public, right or wrong.

There is enough DFL support for this bill in the Senate for it to pass and allow the amendment on the ballot for Minnesota voters to decide. That is all that her supporters are asking. If it were given the chance to have a vote in the Senate, it would pass with bi-partisan support. There are also strong numbers for public support of the amendment proof again that the people want the opportunity to choose.

She wanted to explain just what this was all about. The opponents of the amendment are trying to redefine marriage and the family. Just like in Canada, a very small percent of our population is gay, and an even smaller number of those people want to be married. But if marriage is redefined, it will impact 100% of us. It will harm our children and the family.

We need to think into the future. We are in unchartered waters. This is something that has never been discussed before recently. We need to really think about changing marriage, before we do it. What effects will redefining marriage have on the family?

She raised the point that there are studies that show the best environment to raise children is in a traditional marriage. When there is a biological mother and biological father in the home, that is the ideal way to raise healthy children, and create a strong next generation. This amendment would simply continue the current definition of marriage as one man and one woman.

Stay tuned more will follow over the next few days.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 17th, 2005 at 11:48 am and is filed under Minnesota, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.