I got this from Ann DeGroot at Outfront, Minnesota:
X-Apparently-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] via 68.142.206.167; Fri, 14 Oct 2005
13:53:03 -0700
X-Originating-IP: [208.254.148.71]
Authentication-Results: mta211.mail.scd.yahoo.com
from=outfront.org; domainkeys=neutral (no sig)
From: Ann DeGroot, OutFront Minnesota<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: A message from Ann DeGroot, OutFront Minnesota
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:50:53 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear friend,
As we celebrate this weeks events marking National Coming Out Day it is a
good time to reflect on the bonds of our community. Focusing on our lives
and unique experiences as GLBT and allied individuals strengthens our
community and builds our voice. Yet, celebrating GLBT citizenship is only
the beginning. The next step in our movement is to organize. I would like
to invite you, friend, to attend the community meeting on Tuesday, October
18th for all GLBT and allied people as we unveil the campaign to stop the
constitutional amendment in Minnesota. This event will be held at
Sabathani Community Center, 310 38th Street E, Minneapolis from 6:30
8:30pm.
In reflection of this week, please show your support in the community by
attending this important, ground breaking meeting on Tuesday, October
18th. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Ann DeGroot,
OutFront Minnesota
Does this mean that Outfront Minnesota is under the impression that this
amendment will pass the Senate this year?
If this amendment does pass - some of the gay political money that
typically goes to Democrats will get diverted into this campaign.
I'd like to see Hennepin and Ramsey Counties pass resolutions against this
amendment - and include this in their lobbying agenda. The amendment as
currently worded says:
Here's the text of the amendment:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0006.2&session=ls84
H.F. No. 6, 2nd Engrossment - 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted
on Mar 30, 2005
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution
1.3 by adding a section to article XIII; recognizing as
1.4 marriage only a union between one man and one woman.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.]
1.7 An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to
1.8 the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be
1.9 added to article XIII, to read:
1.10 Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be
1.11 valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other
1.12 relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal
1.13 equivalent by the state or any of its political subdivisions.
1.14 Sec. 2. [QUESTION.]
1.15 The proposed amendment shall be submitted to the people at
1.16 the 2006 general election. The question submitted shall be:
1.17 "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide
1.18 that the state and its political subdivisions shall recognize
1.19 marriage or its legal equivalent as limited to only the union of
1.20 one man and one woman?
1.21 Yes .......
1.22 No ........"
Bachmann is especially interested in going after Domestic Partner benefits
(such as those offered at the University of Minnesota). That is what she
said when she spoke in Hutchinson, Minnesota. I heard her discuss
that. She said civil unions are marriage with another name. The
University does occasionally argue that they were incorporated first and
therefore aren't in the state jurisdiction. This also specifically says
"state or its political subdivisions". This means even if the Minnesota
League of Cities gets legislators to pass a bill to overturn the state law
that says local governments can't offer domestic partner benefits, this
amendment would overrule that.
In Ohio, a similar amendment has had the unintended consequence of making
it so that the state can't prosecute domestic violence cases that aren't
married couples.
I hope there are efforts to talk to the Chamber of Commerce about this
one. In Ohio - the Ohio chamber opposed the Ohio amendment - and did so
publicly. It wasn't enough to defeat the amendment.
Eva Young
Near North
Minneapolis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lloydletta's Nooz
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com
Dump Michele Bachmann
http://dumpbachmann.blogspot.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759,
US author, diplomat, inventor, physicist, politician, & printer (1706 - 1790)
http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1381.html
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[email protected]
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
