Goodwin: If State Bans Same-sex Marriage, Ban Divorce Too
She says the effort is about discrimination.
Supporters of a Constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage should also support a ban on divorce in heterosexual marriages, said state Sen. Barb Goodwin (DFL-50) at a high-profile Capitol hearing Friday.
Goodwin suggested tweaking the text of the proposed amendment so the Minnesota Constitution would not only limit marriage to couplings of one man and one woman, but also to one marriage per person per lifetime—a ban on divorce, though not separation. (See video clip.)
See also this related post: Update (Video): Goodwin Re-tries Adding No-Divorce to Gay-Marriage Ban
The proposed ballot question:
Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
Goodwin, whose Senate district includes the western part of Fridley, first proposed adding the words "for life" after the word "union," then to replace "a marriage" with "one marriage."
After Goodwin's amendments both failed on 11-1 votes in the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, she explained the point she was trying to make—to audible, roaring response from people following the debate from outside the committee room:
I think what that vote proved, and those two amendments proved, is that it isn't basically an issue of how sacred marriage is. I think it's an issue of discrimination. …
I will never in this Legislature—even if I get defeated—will never vote to put some language of discrimination in our state Constitution. And I feel very strongly about that.
I try to vote the way my constituents want me to vote. I survey them. I try to find out their feelings on issues. But I personally have a couple of things I will never do. And one is I will never vote to put discrimination in our Constitution. And I will never vote to put capital punishment on the ballot. I [could] not live with myself.And those of you who claim to be religious and good Christians, I think you really need to think about what you're doing here. Because you're hurting a lot of people.
In later comments to the committee (see video clip), Goodwin said voters elect legislators "to think about what we do," rather than follow a popular impulse toward creating discriminatory laws. It's a legislator's duty "to rise above that even if sometimes [the public] can't," she said.
Goodwin concluded, "This is craziness."
The bill passed the committee on a party-line, 8-4 vote. If the full state House and Senate pass the bill, the question of amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage will go on the ballot for Minnesota voters to decide.
More on the Minnesota marriage amendment:
DISCUSS: How Does Fridley Feel about the MN Marriage Amendment?
Glitter Bomber: Romney Uses 'Hate' to Gain Support
Fridley Reps Introduce Bills on Marriage Amendment, Mortgage Value Homestead Tax Credit
Ellison Hosts Forum On Same-Sex Marriage And Equality
Laine 'Sad,' Knuth Has 'Fear' as House Puts Gay Marriage Ban on Ballot
Controversial Pastor Cites Former Fridley Businessman in State House Prayer
Update (Video): Goodwin Re-tries Adding No-Divorce to Gay-Marriage Ban
Marv Anderson
6:40 pm on Friday, April 29, 2011
In case any of you have taken the time to notice or think about it, gay couples have who have comitted themselves to each other in marriage, or have simply agreed to be together as in marriage, have a longer time-span as couples than in man-woman marriages. I am not gay and have been married for nearly 40 years to a wonderful woman. We have met gay couples of either sex who have been with each other nearly as long, and sometimes longer, than we have. We , as a society have no business telling them that they are WRONG. As in ANY marriage, things change, people change, time changes, and perhaps they need to separate. Again, as a society, we have no business telling them that they are WRONG. Let us LIVE AND LET LIVE. As long as they are not harming us by their decisions, and actions, mind your own business.
Chris Nutting
6:10 am on Saturday, April 30, 2011
I believe that it is pure idiocy to think that you should have a right to dictate who should be able to marry who. It's just stupid. Just live your own life and let others live theirs. It's pretty simple, really.
David Troy
4:33 pm on Saturday, April 30, 2011
What ever happened to the separation of church and state? Why would the state care if a person is male or female, gay or not? Goodwin has a wonderful point here. Gay marriage has not disrupted children and families. Divorce has and will continue to disrupt around half of all non-gay marriages. This bill, if passed, will make it so gay couples can not get married. Keep in mind, gay couples can adopt children. So what we are telling the children is that it is okay to have children out of wedlock and insurance and medical situation decisions are out of the hands of gay couples.
With the budget issue, health care in crisis, flooding and other major issues affecting Minnesotans, why are the Republicans focusing on this? What is next? Do they want to see my birth certificate? Do they want to make fishing illegal?
I have an idea, let's tax married couples at a higher rate and nobody will get married.
Cheryl Theisen
4:32 pm on Monday, May 2, 2011
I watched aghast when California voted to repeal gay marriage there,
due to the unrealistic view that such marriages would "diminish (or
even destroy) the institute of marriage as we know it."
Marriages have and will always either succeed or fail, regardless of
whether or not gays are allowed to do so as well. I have always
believed that social issues should never end up on a ballot as the
ignorant many will always outnumber the knowing few.
John Anderson
10:38 am on Wednesday, May 4, 2011
This issue is about money pure and simple. This is a political move for gay couples to increase their exposure to government benefits. Why not simply remove government from the marriage process period and allow churches and private contracts to prevail?
Amy Paddock
3:28 pm on Wednesday, May 4, 2011
John, I disagree. Gay marriage wasn't even legal in MN when this was brought up by our politicians.
This was political, and has nothing to do with "government" bennies. Our legislative target should be about our economy - not social issues such as trying to ban gay marriage - when it is already not legal in MN for same sex marriage. This is a waste of time and money. Another diversion from the real issues.
John Anderson
4:21 pm on Wednesday, May 4, 2011
I agree it's a waste of time and money, so is the government involvement in heterosexual marriage. This is a church issue only. If people want to create an union between themselves private contracts will take care of that. The best solution to the issue is for the state to remove themselves from marriage, which also means that spouses of government employees should not be able to be covered by the benefits that the worker has.
The prize to gay organizations are to acquire these benefits along with any other benefits that a spouse would receive through the thousands of social programs being operated in the state.
This is the real solution, both sides are in the wrong.
Cheryl Grussing
8:53 pm on Friday, May 6, 2011
With all the important issues facing this state why in heaven's name are we messing with marraige? Who marries whom is not our business..budgets are,jobs are, transportation is but this is ridiculous. We did not elect people to decide what morality should be in this city, this state, nor this country. We elected people to get something done. That seems to be the most difficult task they have. Many Minnesotan's are out of work, our state budget is a disaster..get to work people or we will simply replace most of you. That my friends seems like a wise idea! A recall should be in the works for these people who do not give a whit about what we want. They only care about what their party wants!