LIVE VIDEO: Simon to Introduce Bill That Would Allow Same-Sex Marriage
Watch live video at 10 a.m. Wednesday as he introduces the legislation at a press conference.
Rep. Steve Simon (DFL-District 46B), whose district includes Hopkins and St. Louis Park, is among the authors of a bill that will allow same-sex marriage in Minnesota, according to a Minnesotans United news release.
On Wednesday morning, Simon, Minneapolis Sen. Scott Dibble (DFL-District 61) and Minneapolis Rep. Karen Clark (DFL-District 62A) will discuss the bill they authored and why they think it’s important to pass the legislation in 2013.
United Church of Christ Minnesota Conference Minister Karen Smith Sellers, Rabbi Michael Latz of Shir Tikvah Congregation and others will join the legislators at tomorrow’s event.
The legislation is not yet posted on the Minnesota Legislature’s website.
Watch the press conference live at 10 a.m. in the player above.
Mike Hindin
8:35 am on Thursday, February 28, 2013
Thanks Steve Simonfor standing up for religious liberty and equal protection under the law. My version of the law looks like this.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND MARRIAGE PROTECTION ACT
1. Minnesota affirms the US Constitution's First amendment protections of religious institutions' rights to determine their memberships and rules for marriage between 2 consenting competent adults of age in Minnesota. No religious institution or clergy shall be held liable for refusing to sanctify or solemnize a particular marriage.
2. Minnesota affirms the equal protection under the law guaranteed by the US Constitution to all consenting adults choosing to marry within the states definition of consenting competent adults and public health interest.
3. Minnesota maintains a Public Health interest in regulating marriage,
.
Dan Johnson
11:46 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.
The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.
Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.
Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related or currently married. Within those limits, gay people qualify.
While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.
Gender alone is not a restriction.
Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate restriction.
Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.
Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.
Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.