Marriage amendment backer’s hopes dim

04/21/2006

Activist doubts measure will make ‘06 ballot, but others not ready to cede defeat

BY RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER
Pioneer Press

A key backer of the constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman said Wednesday he thinks it’s dead for this legislative session.

Jeff Davis of Minnesota Citizens in Defense of Marriage said he believes the soonest Minnesotans would be able to vote on the marriage amendment is 2008, and he is shifting his focus to bringing down the state senators who oppose the amendment in this fall’s election.

“I think it is done for the year,” Davis said. He said it would take a miracle for the amendment to pass this year, but he is working to see that it passes eventually. “One way or the other, we are going to do it,” Davis said.

Others are not so sure the controversial measure has met its end this year.

The Minnesota Family Council-backed group pushing the amendment, which is different from Davis’ group, is not conceding yet. And the Legislature’s most vocal amendment supporter — Republican Sen. Michele Bachmann of Stillwater — said she’s not ready to give up hope for this year.

“It’s difficult but possible,” Bachmann said. She and others at the Capitol have formed a “working group” to find a way to get the marriage amendment through the Senate.

“There is always something percolating out there,” said Chuck Darrell, communications and marketing director for the Minnesota Family Council. Without an amendment, he said, Minnesota laws defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman remain vulnerable to legal challenges.

Even C. Scott Cooper, of the gay rights group OutFront Minnesota, is not willing to believe the issue is dead this year. Still, he said, lawmakers and Minnesotans generally may not be as interested in the amendment as they once were.

For an amendment to become part of the state constitution, the House and Senate must approve placing it on the ballot, then a majority of those voting in a statewide general election must vote for it. In Minnesota, those elections are only held in even-numbered years.

The Minnesota marriage amendment has been an issue of major debate for the past three years, since a Massachusetts court struck down that state’s law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples and legalized same-sex marriage.

Since then, a constitutional amendment to define marriage and its legal equivalent as only the union of one man and one woman has received support in the Republican-controlled Minnesota House.

But the full Senate has repeatedly turned back attempts to bring it to the floor for a vote, and a Senate committee twice refused to approve the amendment, most recently two weeks ago.

Since then, there have been no public attempts to bring the measure up for a vote. The amendment has also been removed from a House measure that had included three constitutional amendments on one bill — one to dedicate funding to the environment, another to dedicate funding to transportation, and the marriage amendment.

Bachmann said there still are ways to force the Senate to pass the measure this year. Controversial issues have become law in the past despite lack of committee support.

But for Davis, those defeats mean the constitutional amendment won’t get onto the ballot this year.

“The only way we are going to get this marriage amendment is to get these people out,” said Davis.

His group ran newspaper ads last week to criticize Democratic senators who voted against the amendment in committee. The ads, which were run in the senators’ local newspapers, show doctored photos of each senator thumbing his nose, with text saying the senator “essentially thumbed his nose at millions of Minnesotans by voting to kill the marriage amendment.”

They also ask for contributions to elect senators who have pledged to support the marriage amendment.

Davis admits the photos were doctored and says they are perfectly legal and appropriate.

Others aren’t so sure.

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, said the ad that featured him was “childish” and “just mean” but not illegal.

“Free speech gives people quite a lot of latitude,” he said.

Brian Melendez, chairman of the Minnesota DFL Party, said the ads do not constitute “appropriate debate in Minnesota” and may be libelous.

The ads may give a taste of the election fight to come.

After Melendez held a press conference to denounce the ads, Davis posted them on his Web site and said senators should expect more to come.

If those backing the amendment fail to win its placement on the ballot this year, they will turn their attention to changing the complexion of the Legislature.

“It has always been a multipart plan. The core of this plan is to get this marriage amendment passed. … Our next step will be to get out the vote. … We are going to register voters all across Minnesota and we are going to educate people as to exactly what these senators said,” said Darrell.