Bait and switch in New Jersey

They will never compromise.

In every state that has approved civil unions or domestic partnerships, same sex marriage supporters have insisted upon legalization of same-sex marriage - almost the very next day.

Don't expect anything different in Minnesota. Rest assured that if the Minnesota legislature had legalized same-sex marriage (domestic partnerships) for hospital visitation privileges in the 2007 session, OutFront Minnesota would be back demanding more in the 2008 session.

Just ask them.

N.J. Commission Expected to Push for Same-Sex 'Marriage'

From Citizen Link

Apparently, homosexuals are not satisfied with civil union law.

Gay activists are complaining that New Jersey’s civil union law is failing. Family groups say this is the next phase of getting what homosexuals want — full-marriage status.

The Civil Union Review Commission has launched its first of three biweekly meetings to hear complaints that civil unions are a “failed experiment” and carry a “second-class status.”

“The net effect of that law was simply to create a vehicle by which homosexual activists could run a dog-and-pony show, essentially to force the Legislature's hand to create same-sex marriages rather than civil unions," said Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action.

Len Deo of the New Jersey Family Policy Council said the commission is stacked. “Steven Goldstein is the head of Garden State Equality, which is the leading homosexual-rights activist group in New Jersey," he told Family News in Focus. "On top of that, he’s also the vice chairman of the Civil Unions Commission — which is basically the wolf watching the henhouse.”

The commission is expected to present its findings to lawmakers to justify a bill allowing same-sex marriage. John White with the Knights of Columbus said that was the plan all along.

“They haven’t been satisfied with domestic partnerships," he said. "That was supposed to be all they wanted. The next thing they wanted was civil unions, they got civil unions, and now that’s not enough.”

Just marriage by another name

“Domestic partnerships,” “civil union,” “legal recognition” are marriage by another name – and OutFront knows it.

Putting “hospital visitation,” “benefits” or even "fishing license" in front of same-sex marriage is clever but nothing more than manipulative.

It works like this:
“You believe in hospital visitation don’t you?”

Person answers yes. Who wants to be against hospital visitation?

“Then we need to legalize same-sex marriage (domestic partnerships for same-sex couples).”

Like all the major hospitals in the metro area, MFC supports hospital visitation for same-sex partners. However, we don’t support legalizing same-sex marriage for hospital visitation privileges.

OutFront claims they don’t support legalizing same-sex marriage, just redefining hospital visitation as marriage (domestic partnerships) for same-sex couples.

Decide for yourself.

From OutFront’s web

“Many organizations in Minnesota, including OutFront Minnesota, support the right of same-sex couples to enjoy some form of legal recognition. Marriage is one form that could take; others include relatively broad concepts live civil unions or domestic partnerships.”

Quote from Ann DeGroot
“As we move into the new legislative calendar, I wanted to write to you to let you know what we at OutFront Minnesota are doing to secure full legal rights for GLBT people including legal recognition of same sex relationships.”

Pawlenty vetos bait-and-switch scheme designed to create marriage-like status for same-sex couples

“We applaud Governor Pawlenty for vetoing bills that were nothing more than bait-and-switch schemes to legalize marriage-like benefits for same-sex couples, said Chuck Darrell, director of communications for Minnesota Family Council. “OutFront understands that 61% of Minnesotans do not want to redefine marriage. So they have changed their tactics from redefining marriage to redefining health care, visitation rights and local government as domestic partnerships for same-sex couples.”

“The question is: Will passing these bills bring any closure to the same-sex marriage debate? The answer is a resounding no!” said Darrell. “States that have compromised by legalizing domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex couples have learned ‘There can be no compromise...’ for homosexual activists until full marriage rights are achieved. This bait-and-switch scheme is currently raging in Connecticut, Vermont and New Jersey.”

“Legislators and the people of Minnesota must understand that domestic partnerships, and the rest of the OutFront agenda, are not compromise. Instead of closure, these measures will put supporters closer to legalizing same-sex marriage – exactly what many legislators say they oppose.”

Term - "Domestic Partnership" removed from state employees provision in omnibus bill

At MFC's Legislative Luncheon last February, Gov. Tim Pawlenty said he would veto any legislation that contained domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. According to the Star Tribune, "DFLers bowed to the threat of a veto by Gov. Time Pawlenty on Thursday," and removed the domestic partner language from the omnibus bill.

At this time it is not clear whether the provision, or just the term "domestic partner" has been removed. More later.

MFC recognizes that the Governor's veto is the catalyst behind eliminating efforts to redefine marriage. "We thank Governor Pawlenty for his commitment to protecting marriage from OutFront's strategy to achieve same-sex marriage via incremental steps. I encourage supporters of traditional marriage to let the Governor know they appreciate his support and encourage him veto every bill that would enable same-sex unions, domestic partnerships, civil unions or vague language designed to create a loophole, " said Chuck Darrell, director of communications.

(Star Tribune article and link)

Domestic partner benefits are nixed
Yielding to a veto threat, legislators dropped health care benefits for state employees' domestic partners for this session.

By Norman Draper, Star Tribune
State health insurance for the domestic partners of state employees appears to be a dead issue, at least for this session.

House and Senate DFLers bowed to the threat of a veto by Gov. Tim Pawlenty on Thursday, eliminating language in one of their major spending bills that would have allowed domestic partners, including same-sex partners, of state employees to be eligible for health care benefits.

Instead, members of the state government finance conference committee called for a study to determine how much it would cost the state to insure "significant individuals" who live in the same house as a state employee. That designation could cover same-sex couples, but could also include "two elderly siblings who live together and so forth," said Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, co-chair of the conference committee.

Kahn's original bill would have extended health insurance coverage exclusively to gay and lesbian couples.
"It's a disappointment," said Scott Cooper, lobbyist for OutFront Minnesota, which advocates for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender causes. "I do understand their desire to accomplish something and to somehow accommodate the governor's wishes in the hopes of avoiding a veto."

Cost also a concern

Pawlenty had threatened to veto the entire state government finance bill because both Senate and House versions originally had a provision that would have allowed same-sex partners of state employees to get health insurance benefits.

"That was one of the reasons why we changed the language," Kahn said of the veto threat.
Pawlenty spokesman Brian McClung said "we really haven't had a chance to review" the new conference committee language on a health insurance study, but added that "generally, the state government finance bill has a lot of question marks."

Health insurance coverage for state employees currently includes only spouses and dependent children.
Tom Prichard, president of the Minnesota Family Council, and a prominent opponent of same-sex marriage and civil unions, said he feared that even the study approved by the conference committee might continue to advance an agenda intended eventually to lead to approval of same-sex marriage.

"It's a bit curious that they would need a study," Prichard said. "I think they're trying to move in that [same-sex marriage] direction. I'm a bit wary of that."

Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, the other co-chair of the committee, said that while the threat of a veto was an important reason to strike the same-sex coverage provision, he was also concerned about the potential cost of the House version, which would expand coverage to "significant individuals."

The Senate version of the bill would have required the "domestic partner" of a state employee to be eligible for state health insurance, but that person would have had to pay the entire insurance premium, costing the state nothing. The House provision split the payments between the state and the insured.

The state government finance bill funds such state operations as the Legislature, the attorney general's office, and the governor's office. The conference committee approved spending $552 million over the next two years, an increase of five percent over current spending.

Norman Draper • 612-673-4547 • ndraper@startribune.com

Let the People Vote

OutFront's plan to legalize same-sex marriage took a hit today from Sen. Warren Limmer and Rep. Dan Severson. Limmer and Severson announced the recent introduction of six Marriage Amendment bills to the legislature and exposed OutFront's agenda to achieve same-sex marriage via domestic partnerships and other legislation.

"After hearing Democrat caucus leaders suggest that this year's session was one that should be focused on budgets and more basic legalisation," said Severson, "we were surprised by the progress of bills that promoted divisive issues such as legally recognized same-sex domestic partnerships, and comprehensive sex education for elementary children. We must push the Marriage Amendment at this time."

"There is no question, the people want the opportunity to define marriage. In light of other liberal bills recognizing same-sex domestic relationships in the same way marriage is recognized, the time for a Marriage Amendment is now," said Sen. Limmer.

"Marriage is a bread and butter issue," said Rep. Tom Emmer. Emmer felt the votes existed to pass an amendment in the House, however, the bill has yet to be given a hearing.

The press conference was supported by nearly 50 CEO's from Christian Network Team. Also attending the press conference were Sen. Ingebrigtson, Sen. Gen Olson, Rep. Mike Beard, Rep. Bruce Anderson, Rep. Sondra Erickson.

Pawlenty ready to veto finance bill containing discriminatory domestic partnership language

From Pat Condon, AP

"Pawlenty's spokesman, Brian McClung, said the governor has always made clear he is opposed to the state offering domestic partnership benefits. He said Pawlenty is willing to veto the entire state government finance bill - the vehicle for the benefits - over the issue. "

"One of the things that concerns us is that the governor has been willing to set aside controversial issues and focus on bread-and-butter items, and we see here that Senate Democrats are unwilling to do that in the spirit of cooperation," McClung said.

"Fair minded common sense" understands OutFront will never compromise

By Chuck Darrell

OutFront begs the question whether it's the "Minnesota way" to draw attention to their Summary of Legislative Proposals. Apparently, "fair minded common sense" is keeping the voter clueless while legislators mandate state government to redefine marriage (domestic partnership) as two persons of the same-sex.

Would it be "fair minded" to question if their proposals pass, will OutFront demand more?

After the "no compromise" strategies in CT, VT and New Jersey, "common sense" says, no.

One small "incremental step" for OutFront - huge leap for state of Minnesota

By Chuck Darrell

According to the New York Daily news, the same day New Jersey legalized civil unions, Garden State Equality Chairman Steven Goldstein said "Civil unions are not marriage," and outlined a plan to legalize gay marriage in two years.

This same, no compromise, incremental strategy is well underway in Minnesota. In one week, OutFront Minnesota introduced two bills that escalated their benefits campaign from a local government option, to a statewide mandate that would also redefine family, (domestic partner) to include an adult of the same sex.

This may be one small, "incremental step" for OutFront, but it's a huge leap for the state of Minnesota.

Call your representatives and tell them you don't want to redefine family in Minnesota.

2nd benefits bill "requires" state to redefine domestic partner to include another adult of same-sex

By Chuck Darrell

Just days after introducing a bill that would allow municipalities the option of extending benefits to same-sex couples, a new bill has been introduced that would "require" state government to provide same. The bill would also redefine domestic partner as person of same sex.

This new bill is one of nine legislative proposals being pushed by OutFront this session.

So much for local control, now OutFront is requiring taxpayer funded benefits for same-sex couples state-wide. Excerpts from the bill indicate an aggressive attempt to redefine family state-wide.

"A bill for an act relating to state employees; requiring that health insurance benefits be made available to domestic partners of state employees..."

"'Domestic partner' means a person who has entered into a committed interdependent relationship with another adult of the same sex,..."

This is why Minnesota needs a marriage amendment. Last year legislators assured voters that our laws were sufficient to protect marriage and denied Minnesotan's the right to vote. We now call upon those legislators to assurethat these bills never make it out of committee - and begin efforts to pass the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment.

No "fear mongering," benefits bill slippery slope towards same-sex marriage

By Chuck Darrell

The "incremental approach" towards same-sex marriage.



"The reform toward gay marriage should continue incrementally and with a strong preference that it moves legislatively." Prof. Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota School of Law

A new bill (SF 960) has been introduced in both houses that would allow local government to extend benefits to same-sex couples. Sounds harmless until the bill is placed in the broader perspective of achieving same-sex marriage via incremental steps in the state legislature.

After suffering a series of stinging defeats last July, supporters of same-sex marriage changed their tactics from constitutional lawsuits to smaller, incremental gains in state legislatures. SF 960, is a perfect example of this incremental approach. In fact, the bill is one of nine legislative proposals being pushed by OutFront Minnesota this legislative session.

The question is: Will passing this bill, and/or all of OutFront's legislative proposals, bring any closure to the same-sex marriage debate? The answer is a resounding no!

States that have compromised by legalizing domestic partnerships or civil unions for same-sex couples have learned "There can be no compromise..." until full marriage is achieved. This bait-and-switch scheme is currently raging in CT, VT and New Jersey.

Legislators, and the people of Minnesota need to understand that this bill, and the OufFront agenda, is not compromise. Instead of closure, passage will put same-sex marriage supporters one step closer to achieving same-sex marriage - exactly what many legislators say they oppose.

This is why Minnesota needs a marriage amendment, and why MFC will be going into the districts of the bill sponsors and educating their constituents about the intent behind this agenda.

Just as "civil union" is marriage by another name, "incremental step" is the slippery slope towards same-sex marriage.

Last session many legislators said they supported traditional marriage - but opposed a marriage amendment. Now we call upon them to demonstrate that support by withdrawing support for SF 950 and HF 1097, and the broader strategy of obtaining same-sex marriage through incremental legislation.