DFL HOUSE MEMBERS AFRAID OF DISCUSSING GAY MARRIAGE
These DFL house members have forgot that Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch is the most partisan attorney general in the history of Minnesota.
The real issue here is the DFL being afraid to discuss gay marriage in Northern Minnesota.
##
Did lawmaker's run for attorney general determine location of panel hearing?
Two weeks ago, few people would have claimed that the center of the state’s homosexual marriage debate lies in Northeastern Minnesota. However, when the announcement was made that the state House Civil Law and Elections Committee will be holding a hearing on the so-called “gay marriage amendment” in Grand Rapids on March 18, the city became an unlikely player in this controversial debate.
Why, both Republicans and Democrats asked, was Grand Rapids chosen to host one of the most highly anticipated, controversial and heated discussions of the legislative session?
Not surprisingly, speculation and accusations began to run rampant throughout the State Capitol as soon the news broke. Some House Democrats spoke openly about what they believe is more of an early campaign stop for committee chairman Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth, than a real opportunity to engage Greater Minnesota in the political process. It is quite the coincidence, they said, that the announcement to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids was made the same day that Johnson held a press conference declaring his candidacy for attorney general.
One member of the committee, Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis, has been especially outspoken about the decision to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids. "I think it’s directly related to the chair’s run for attorney general," he said. “This is essentially a campaign stop for Johnson.”
Rep. Loren Solberg, who represents Grand Rapids, was also skeptical of Johnson’s motives for holding the hearing in his hometown. "I find it curious that the same day that Jeff Johnson announces he’s running for attorney general the announcement is made to hold the gay marriage debate in Grand Rapids." When asked if he considered the hearing a campaign stop, Solberg replied matter-of-factly, "Of course."
Johnson denied the accusations made by the opposing party.
He claimed that he did not make the decision to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids — that it was a group decision made by the leaders of the Republican caucus. He dismisses the Democrats’ claim that it is a campaign stop in his quest for the attorney general seat. "The decision to go outstate was made at the start of the session, long before I made my announcement to run," he said. He added that as chairman he simply leads the meetings and doesn’t expect to get much exposure or press out of it.
House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, also scoffed at the notion that the hearing is a part of Johnson’s campaign. "I think the Democrats are a little too paranoid," he said, "and I think they’re afraid of rural Minnesota." But questions still remain — of all the cities in greater Minnesota, why Grand Rapids? And why a hearing on such a controversial issue such as whether or not to include a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage? Sviggum said that at the start session he encouraged all committee chairmen to conduct meetings outside the Metro area. "We wanted to reach out to citizens all over the state," he said. "I think it’s good outreach to have action in outstate Minnesota."
Johnson said that several communities were considered for the hearing, including Moorhead, St. Cloud, Bemidji and Rochester. The executive board eventually decided they wanted it to be in a northern city since a few other committees had already made plans to hold hearings in the southern part of the state. Johnson said that Grand Rapids was finally chosen because no other hearings had been held there or anywhere on the Iron Range, and because it had a venue that could hold a lot of people. “Last year hundreds of people had to be turned away,” Johnson said, referring to the committee hearing held at the Capitol last year on the same issue.
In 2004, The House voted in support of the gay marriage amendment, but it was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a partisan vote of 5 to 4. Johnson also said committee chairmen were encouraged to pick one or two of the most well-known bills for the greater Minnesota hearings. “When (Speaker Sviggum) asked me to pick one or two of our highest profile bills, it wasn’t hard,” he said. The gay marriage legislation is clearly the most contentious issue his committee will face this session, Johnson added.
Although Solberg supports the idea of committee hearings being held in Greater Minnesota, he said that he would prefer that the chairmen choose bills that have a more direct affect on the area. He believes the Republicans are choosing to focus on the gay marriage issue rather than deal with more serious concerns. “The most important issues in the state, I think, are trying to create jobs, fund education, health care and fixing the roads,” he said. “Most people in the district are probably more concerned about (these issues). Those are the issues they are talking with us about and want us to solve. Gay marriage is not a burning issue, I think, with most people.”
Sen. Tom Saxhaug, a DFLer who is also from Grand Rapids, agreed. “In these days when we have so many important things to be talking about — jobs, economic development, bonding bills, transportation, health care — why are we spending time going up 200 miles north to debate this when we already have a law (outlawing gay marriage in Minnesota) is just beyond me,” he said. “I think it’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my whole life.”
Even Ellison, who is from Minneapolis, felt that it would be more beneficial to hold a hearing in Grand Rapids if it was on a local issue. “I think it’s unfortunate that we are going up there to talk about gay marriage,” he said. “I doubt that’s the number one interest of the people of Grand Rapids. If we were going up there to say ‘how can we improve living for the people of rural Minnesota?,’ that’d be great.”
Both Saxhaug and Solberg referenced the homosexual marriage law that is currently on the books in Minnesota. In 1997, the Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as union between one man and one woman. The law prohibits same-sex marriage and also prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Solberg said he voted in support of the DOMA in 1997, but feels that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
Nonetheless, Sviggum and Johnson, who both support the bill, stand by their decision to hold the debate in Grand Rapids. Sviggum said that harsh criticism from the DFL caucus is just par for the course when you are the leader of the opposing party. “They criticize us for not reaching out to rural Minnesota,” he said. “They’re job is to criticize me no matter what.”
He added that he thinks the 12 members (seven Republicans, five Democrats) of the Civil Law and Elections Committee will benefit from traveling away from St. Paul for the hearing. “They’ll get a different flavor and a different perspective to greater Minnesota issues,” he said. “But really, the legislators weren’t even a consideration of mine. I think this benefits the citizens.”
The committee hearing is sure to bring throngs of protesters, supporters and reporters to Grand Rapids on that Friday afternoon. Solberg said that he hopes the visitors will go beyond the decisive gay marriage issue and take a closer look at the major issues currently effecting the community. “We always welcome people to come to the Grand Rapids area,” he said. “My hope is that they drive up here and see how bad the roads are and our lack of jobs. Maybe there will be some benefit if they notice these things and take a look at the more important issues.” Source: Mesabi Daily News, February 28, 2005
The real issue here is the DFL being afraid to discuss gay marriage in Northern Minnesota.
##
Did lawmaker's run for attorney general determine location of panel hearing?
Two weeks ago, few people would have claimed that the center of the state’s homosexual marriage debate lies in Northeastern Minnesota. However, when the announcement was made that the state House Civil Law and Elections Committee will be holding a hearing on the so-called “gay marriage amendment” in Grand Rapids on March 18, the city became an unlikely player in this controversial debate.
Why, both Republicans and Democrats asked, was Grand Rapids chosen to host one of the most highly anticipated, controversial and heated discussions of the legislative session?
Not surprisingly, speculation and accusations began to run rampant throughout the State Capitol as soon the news broke. Some House Democrats spoke openly about what they believe is more of an early campaign stop for committee chairman Rep. Jeff Johnson, R-Plymouth, than a real opportunity to engage Greater Minnesota in the political process. It is quite the coincidence, they said, that the announcement to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids was made the same day that Johnson held a press conference declaring his candidacy for attorney general.
One member of the committee, Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minneapolis, has been especially outspoken about the decision to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids. "I think it’s directly related to the chair’s run for attorney general," he said. “This is essentially a campaign stop for Johnson.”
Rep. Loren Solberg, who represents Grand Rapids, was also skeptical of Johnson’s motives for holding the hearing in his hometown. "I find it curious that the same day that Jeff Johnson announces he’s running for attorney general the announcement is made to hold the gay marriage debate in Grand Rapids." When asked if he considered the hearing a campaign stop, Solberg replied matter-of-factly, "Of course."
Johnson denied the accusations made by the opposing party.
He claimed that he did not make the decision to hold the hearing in Grand Rapids — that it was a group decision made by the leaders of the Republican caucus. He dismisses the Democrats’ claim that it is a campaign stop in his quest for the attorney general seat. "The decision to go outstate was made at the start of the session, long before I made my announcement to run," he said. He added that as chairman he simply leads the meetings and doesn’t expect to get much exposure or press out of it.
House Speaker Steve Sviggum, R-Kenyon, also scoffed at the notion that the hearing is a part of Johnson’s campaign. "I think the Democrats are a little too paranoid," he said, "and I think they’re afraid of rural Minnesota." But questions still remain — of all the cities in greater Minnesota, why Grand Rapids? And why a hearing on such a controversial issue such as whether or not to include a constitutional amendment banning homosexual marriage? Sviggum said that at the start session he encouraged all committee chairmen to conduct meetings outside the Metro area. "We wanted to reach out to citizens all over the state," he said. "I think it’s good outreach to have action in outstate Minnesota."
Johnson said that several communities were considered for the hearing, including Moorhead, St. Cloud, Bemidji and Rochester. The executive board eventually decided they wanted it to be in a northern city since a few other committees had already made plans to hold hearings in the southern part of the state. Johnson said that Grand Rapids was finally chosen because no other hearings had been held there or anywhere on the Iron Range, and because it had a venue that could hold a lot of people. “Last year hundreds of people had to be turned away,” Johnson said, referring to the committee hearing held at the Capitol last year on the same issue.
In 2004, The House voted in support of the gay marriage amendment, but it was voted down in the Senate Judiciary Committee by a partisan vote of 5 to 4. Johnson also said committee chairmen were encouraged to pick one or two of the most well-known bills for the greater Minnesota hearings. “When (Speaker Sviggum) asked me to pick one or two of our highest profile bills, it wasn’t hard,” he said. The gay marriage legislation is clearly the most contentious issue his committee will face this session, Johnson added.
Although Solberg supports the idea of committee hearings being held in Greater Minnesota, he said that he would prefer that the chairmen choose bills that have a more direct affect on the area. He believes the Republicans are choosing to focus on the gay marriage issue rather than deal with more serious concerns. “The most important issues in the state, I think, are trying to create jobs, fund education, health care and fixing the roads,” he said. “Most people in the district are probably more concerned about (these issues). Those are the issues they are talking with us about and want us to solve. Gay marriage is not a burning issue, I think, with most people.”
Sen. Tom Saxhaug, a DFLer who is also from Grand Rapids, agreed. “In these days when we have so many important things to be talking about — jobs, economic development, bonding bills, transportation, health care — why are we spending time going up 200 miles north to debate this when we already have a law (outlawing gay marriage in Minnesota) is just beyond me,” he said. “I think it’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard in my whole life.”
Even Ellison, who is from Minneapolis, felt that it would be more beneficial to hold a hearing in Grand Rapids if it was on a local issue. “I think it’s unfortunate that we are going up there to talk about gay marriage,” he said. “I doubt that’s the number one interest of the people of Grand Rapids. If we were going up there to say ‘how can we improve living for the people of rural Minnesota?,’ that’d be great.”
Both Saxhaug and Solberg referenced the homosexual marriage law that is currently on the books in Minnesota. In 1997, the Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as union between one man and one woman. The law prohibits same-sex marriage and also prohibits the state from recognizing same-sex marriages from other states. Solberg said he voted in support of the DOMA in 1997, but feels that a constitutional amendment is unnecessary.
Nonetheless, Sviggum and Johnson, who both support the bill, stand by their decision to hold the debate in Grand Rapids. Sviggum said that harsh criticism from the DFL caucus is just par for the course when you are the leader of the opposing party. “They criticize us for not reaching out to rural Minnesota,” he said. “They’re job is to criticize me no matter what.”
He added that he thinks the 12 members (seven Republicans, five Democrats) of the Civil Law and Elections Committee will benefit from traveling away from St. Paul for the hearing. “They’ll get a different flavor and a different perspective to greater Minnesota issues,” he said. “But really, the legislators weren’t even a consideration of mine. I think this benefits the citizens.”
The committee hearing is sure to bring throngs of protesters, supporters and reporters to Grand Rapids on that Friday afternoon. Solberg said that he hopes the visitors will go beyond the decisive gay marriage issue and take a closer look at the major issues currently effecting the community. “We always welcome people to come to the Grand Rapids area,” he said. “My hope is that they drive up here and see how bad the roads are and our lack of jobs. Maybe there will be some benefit if they notice these things and take a look at the more important issues.” Source: Mesabi Daily News, February 28, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home