From:
Phyllis Kahn
Date:
2009 Mar 25 16:46 UTC
Short link
As the chief author of HF893, the gender neutral marriage bill, I strongly
support Joe Mullery and his decision to have an informational hearing only.
Why? The votes do not exist in that committee at this time to pass these bills.
Many supporters believe that a vote to defeat the bills is more harmful than
no vote. I fully agree with Joe in his decision.
Phyllis Kahn State Rep 59B
From:
Bill Kahn
Date:
2009 Mar 25 17:49 UTC
Short link
I am so glad to read this from Phyllis Kahn; now I don't have to write
my representative about this issue. I'm fine with "informational"
hearings as well, but I do have some different sorts of views
triggered by David Strand's post.
As a man neither gay nor married nor likely to become so, I think Rep.
Joe Mullery and his co-authors on HF 999 may be the closest to having
it right; it may be past time for government to get out of the
marriage business, but perhaps Minnesota can be a leader in this or we
can wait for better federal direction than any Defense of Marriage.
Here's an amicus brief in a California case using the establishment
clauses and free exercise clauses in the US Constitution:
Here's a quote from the conclusion:
> At some point in the future, in a more enlightened and improved era,
> hopefully society will look back on the current religious-based
> prejudices
> against gay and lesbian people as a time of sorrowful barbarism.
> Amici can think of no better way to end this brief than with a quote
> from a sitting Justice on this Court:
> ...government must remain neutral among religious groups and
> adherents, and between religious and nonreligious members of
> societythat legislation may not have the purpose or effect
> of
> advancing, promoting, or endorsing religion or any particular
> religion. East Bay, supra., 24 Cal. 4 , at 727 (Werdegar,
> J.,
> th
> dissenting.)
>
I've not made a study of this and don't expect many would agree with
me (never mind for now the great cost to us all in dealing with those
who become married or unmarried or enter into domestic strife every
day in this country), but study of marriage is just what Rep. Mullery
has proposed in HF 1655.
Perusing the number of bills brought forward dealing with marriage
might convince folks that this is not the session, perhaps not the
state, to deal with marriage. Dealing with the deficit and the usual
minutia of a session is probably more than enough to do without going
in this direction now. Here's a keyword search of just the House bills
dealing with marriage:
http://tinyurl.com/d9993b
I think we've had the cart before the horse on much of this marriage
business, perhaps for many millennia before there were carts.
"Informational" is just fine with me. It is not that I don't think
marriage is a good thing for many folks, perhaps even me, but too many
folks enter into marriage and cause us all problems. If it truly is a
right, in too many cases that right is abrogated by failure to perform
the associated duties however those duties might be defined.
Solemnization of a civil union is about as far as government should
go, I think, and if folks want something more, they should get it from
somewhere else but government.
If you want a marriage with any sort of religious basis, you had
better deal with a church; if you want a union recognized by
government and conferring rights and duties on each spouse, then you
can deal with the government. Perhaps one day we'll have everything
clearly defined, but the middle of a horrible recession is not the
time to force any issues, I think.
On Mar 25, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Phyllis Kahn wrote:
> As the chief author of HF893, the gender neutral marriage bill, I
> strongly support Joe Mullery and his decision to have an
> informational hearing only. Why? The votes do not exist in that
> committee at this time to pass these bills. Many supporters believe
> that a vote to defeat the bills is more harmful than no vote. I
> fully agree with Joe in his decision.
The following file was added to this topic: