LEGISLATURE: For now, cease-fire on social issues

01/27/2007

Legislators focus on 'bread and butter' while activists adapt to a DFL majority


BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER
Pioneer Press


In recent Minnesota legislative sessions, abortion and gay marriage have been front and center from opening day.

Not so this year.

In his State of the State address last week, Gov. Tim Pawlenty didn't mention abortion or marriage policy. No one has introduced a bill directly targeting the so-called wedge issues. And lawmakers on both sides of the issues say voters are tired of seeing their representatives consumed with talk of social policy.

"I think to date right now, most folks are focused on the bread-and-butter issues and not focused on issues about gay marriage or abortion policy," said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis.

But just below the surface, the social issues are ready to roil.

Eventually, if advocates and some lawmakers have their way, legislators will end up debating the same divisive issues, albeit in different forms than the state has seen before.

Gone will be the emotional discussion of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. After November's election, in which the DFL took control of both the House and Senate, the amendment's backers lost support in the Legislature.

But it may be replaced with a slightly less controversial debate over giving same-sex partners certain rights married couples have, such as visiting loved ones in hospitals or affording survivors the right to bring wrongful-death suits.

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, said same-sex couples deserve full equality with heterosexual couples, but he doesn't plan to push civil unions, which would grant them those rights, this year.

People are scarred, he said, by the emotional fights over attempts to ban same-sex marriage constitutionally and are ready for a rest from the divisiveness.

Ann DeGroot, executive director of the state's largest gay-rights organization, OutFront Minnesota, said educating people about the need for equality is as important as pushing any specific legislation.

As for civil unions?

"I don't think we are in a place to do that yet," she said.

Things may well be busy for Tom Prichard on the marriage front this year, as well. He's the executive director of the Minnesota Family Council, one of the chief backers of the marriage amendment.

He said his organization would fight any move toward civil unions, which he calls "pseudo-marriage." He'll also push to make divorces harder to get — perhaps requiring a pre-divorce waiting period — and advancing marriage-education programs.

Abortion fights, too, will look a bit different this year.

"It is going to keep on coming up," said Scott Fischbach, executive director of the state's largest anti-abortion organization, Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life. "Has there ever been a session where abortion isn't an issue?"

His group, which holds its annual rally at the Capitol at noon today, will continue pushing to ban state-funded abortions and to require abortion clinics have local hospital privileges.

But, he acknowledges, there was hope last year that the House and Senate would pass those measures. This year? November's elections make that less likely.

"We are in a different situation this year. We are in a situation where both the House and the Senate are controlled by those who are against us," he said. "We had gotten into a pattern over the last four or five years … Now, the mold is gone."

Meanwhile, abortion-rights backers are eager to recoup some of the family-planning funding they lost during the past several years.

Right now, the state spends about $7 million every two years on family-planning grants. Current law would cut that funding to $5 million every two years.

Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, wants to see the family-planning grants increased to $15 million every two years.

"That is fundamentally the most important aspect of health care for young women and young men," she said. Today, she and supportive legislators will officially unveil this year's agenda.

That agenda may include revisiting the $2.5 million in annual grants to organizations that help pregnant women but don't directly back abortion, called the Positive Alternative Act.

Stoesz said she'd be interested in changing the program or shifting the money elsewhere.

That might be perceived as a direct shot at MCCL and other anti-abortion activists, who made the creation of the act a chief priority in 2005.

Rep. Mary Liz Holberg, R-Lakeville, said lawmakers and interest groups are reluctant to talk about the hot-button issues, but the peace won't last.

"Candidates that had spent a lot of time on social issues were chastised in the election … That could make people a little shy," said Holberg, who has sponsored anti-abortion bills and the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the past. "The tea party will probably be over soon, and it'll turn into the Boston tea party … People just won't be able to help themselves."