MN Senate advances benefits bill for same-sex couples

03/25/2007

The issue prompted critics to caution against efforts to legalize same-sex marriage.


By Pat Doyle,
Star Tribune
Last update: March 24, 2007


In a session dominated so far by debate over taxes and transportation, the Senate on Saturday returned briefly to cultural wars that divided legislators in the past, approving health insurance benefits for the same-sex partners of state employees.

The benefit was included in a bill to fund state government that passed after senators argued over the long-range impact of the insurance provision.

"It does ... lay the groundwork for a court challenge to marriage laws," said Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, voicing a contention of several Republican senators who spoke against the benefit. "Is this a first step in trying to take our current definition of marriage and redefine it?"

Sen. Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, denied that the benefit moved the state closer to legalizing same-sex marriage.

"We're talking about some people, right now ... who cannot get health insurance no matter what the cost, no matter how much they want it," he said. "If other people want to pretend and read stuff into words that aren't there, I can't stop that from happening."

A similar bill extending insurance coverage to same-sex partners of state employees is pending in the House. Gov. Tim Pawlenty's spokesman Brian McClung said Friday that Pawlenty would veto legislation containing such a provision.

The Senate debate Saturday served as a throwback to disputes over same-sex marriage and abortion funding that have been largely absent from the 2007 session. One political observer said the debate over insurance for same-sex partners of state employees serves as a rallying call for activists in the Republican and DFL parties.

"Most people won't know or care about it because they won't see it as having a big price tag," said Carleton College political science Prof. Steven Schier.

While the issue divided most Republicans from DFLers, there was a dispute as well among Democrats supporting the measure.

In an effort to defuse concerns that the benefit would boost insurance costs, Betzold inserted a requirement that domestic partners of state employees would pay the state's cost of the premium. "Some people will not be able to afford this," he said.

"But if the argument is that ... this is going to cost the state a lot of money, this takes that argument away."

Sen. Sandra Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, said, "I can understand a little bit ... why you're offering this. I just wanted to protest. I don't think it's fair. I think we need to treat all families in Minnesota equally."

Betzold's amendment passed.

Laying the cornerstone?

Republicans objected to the benefit on other grounds. Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, tried to remove it entirely from the state funding bill.

"There's other issues here rather than just cost," Limmer said.

He suggested that the bill was unclear about how many people might qualify for the insurance in a single residence.

Hann followed up on the thought.

"Is that possible ... [to] extend the benefits to a group of people who happened to be of the same sex and are living in the same building?" he asked.

Betzold replied that the bill's language defining state employee and domestic partner "sounds like one plus one."

Pappas said the state is behind the curve, because many large businesses and dozens of local governments in Minnesota already offer health insurance to same-sex partners of employees.

"We are trying to respect their family unit and offer them the same health care benefits as people of the opposite sex who are allowed to get married," she said.

Hann replied: "It seems to me ... we're creating a definition of relationship that for all intents and purposes is identical to a marriage relationship. It seems to me the intent here is ... to create another definition of a relationship that is equivalent to marriage."

Sen. Thomas Neuville, R-Northfield, said, "I don't believe this is about insurance. I believe it is about laying a building block or cornerstone for same-sex marriage."

The insurance extension would put Minnesota on the same path as Massachusetts, where various benefits led to legalization of same-sex marriage, argued Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel.

Extending insurance to domestic partners of Minnesota state employees was included in worker contracts approved by former Gov. Jesse Ventura. But the Legislature, particularly the GOP-led House, balked at the idea and removed the benefit.

Limmer's attempt Saturday to remove the provision from the state government spending bill failed 40-22. Three rural DFLers joined 19 Republicans in voting to delete the insurance benefit. Two Republicans joined 38 DFLers in voting for the benefit.