April 6, 2005
Potential Discriminatory Constitutional Amendment
The news was extremely discouraging to me when the MN House of Reps passed HF6 last Thursday night; however, Iím very optimistic about a similar bill fading quickly after the Senateís review. This same bill, last year, displayed a stronger favor in the House than this year; however, the DFL-controlled Senate refused to vote on the bill. Optimistically, I truly believe the same result will transpire this year.
The DFL-controlled Senate, Majority Leader Dean Johnson already threatened to introduce several opposition bills such as universal health insurance, environmental protections, and a ban on state-run casinos. I think the majority of Republicans have too much to lose; therefore, they wonít vote on HF6, even though the bill is currently half way to the ballots.
The billís sponsor, Rep. Dan Severson, stated the main point of the bill is to further protect marriage by completely prohibiting any activist judge from issuing same sex marriage rights. This is completely illogical, in my mind, since Minnesota already has a ďDefense of Marriage Act.Ē The only reason I see behind this bill is to discriminate against and further separate non-heterosexuals from equality.
I strongly believe the tactics of the House failed; however, itís very disheartening that our lawmakers are diverting their attention from critical aspects of society pertaining to healthcare, economic issues, and education to create discriminatory laws. Conservatives need to reanalyze their reasons for representing their constituents; is it to create protection for heterosexual marriage (the only threat to heterosexual marriage is heterosexual divorce), or is it to help society in terms of healthcare, economic growth, or education?
Posted by ande4192 at April 6, 2005 1:18 AM | Equality/Freedom
Posted by: best baby gifts at July 11, 2011 11:26 AM