Update (Video): Goodwin Re-tries Adding No-Divorce to Gay-Marriage Ban
Her point: banning heterosexual divorce is like banning homosexual unions.
Sen. Barb Goodwin (DFL-50) tried again Wednesday to amend the proposed change to the state Constitutional banning same-sex marriage so that it also would ban heterosexual divorce.
This time Goodwin's move came as part of debate on the Senate floor, but the result was the same as in committee on April 29: the motion failed.
In committee, Goodwin cast the only vote in favor of her amendment. On Wednesday, not even she voted for it: the roll call vote was 63-0.
But Goodwin's intention, as she made clear in comments after the full-Senate vote, was not actually to ban divorce but to make a point: "None of us want people to tell us what to do with our marriages."
Goodwin likened opposition to same-sex marriage to opposition in the past to marital unions between Lutherans and Catholics or between Norwegians and Swedes, which she termed "a terrible travesty."
She also made a religious analogy to asking Minnesotans to vote on a Constitutional amendment , asking her colleagues to imagine the difference "if Jesus would have asked the angry crowd [whether] to stone Mary Magdalene."
Goodwin said she didn't understand why "we want to tell other people how to run their private lives. ... [To ask people] to vote on other people's marriages that have nothing to do with them is really not appopriate."
Update (2 p.m.): Here is a transcript of Goodwin's remarks after the Senate vote (see video):
Thank you, Madam President. And I hope that amendment that I offered was not lost on this group. Because what we're saying is that none of us want people to tell us what to do with our marriages. None of us want people to tell us who we can love and who we can marry.
I remember when it was terrible travesty for a Lutheran to marry a Catholic, or for a Baptist to marry a Catholic, or for a Norwegian to marry a Swede. And I mean, that was pretty profound for people to buck that system, years ago.
So we don't want people to tell us how to run our private lives.
What I don't understand is why we want to tell other people how to run their private lives. Nobody's marriage affects me except for my own. I might worry about my kids and their marriages if they had bad ones, which they don't. But I would worry about it, but it still doesn't affect me personally. And I don't think that we need to worry about things that don't affect us personally.
The argument that Sen. Limmer continues to make is that this should be for the people to decide. Well, I don't like my government and religious views, but I do have to say this one thing. Think about how different Christianity would be if Jesus would have asked the angry crowd to vote on whether or not to stone Mary Magdalene. Think about how different Christianity would be.
Sometimes you just have to do the right thing. And if people want to worry about other people's marriages or relationships then I think they need other things to do. [laughter]
But for them to say that they should be able to vote on other people's marriages that has nothing to do with them is really not appropriate. Thank you.