I oppose the Amendment for reasons of simple justice. I believe that people should live up to their religions, but should not have the power to constrain others to behave as one religion sees fit. I am, by the way, "straight." I believe that the HRC should pro-actively live up to its mission by also opposing the Amendment. Both gays and straights are Human. We're talking about a Human Right.

I oppose the Amendment, as a married Catholic with three children, and my beliefs are that all humans have a choice to sin or not to sin. It is the ability to have a choice that makes us have the ability to obtain grace. All people sin and ultimately it is the individuals belief that if they are sinning that defines their action that way. So people truly in love and of the same sex are not sinning. Only those people and God know for sure. Plus our laws should not be based on one religion.

I am puzzled at the calling of this hearing. From watching the commission meetings on TV, it was pretty clear that the commission had already made up its mind and public comment wasn't going to change anything.

From a process perspective, I am troubled that the commission is considering taking an issue on this. The commission works for and at the pleasure of the city council. Anything they do, especially taking public policy positions on issues, has to go through the city council, who are the elected officials. When it comes to issues that go beyond the basic operation of the commission, like this issue, only the city council can take a position.

You can't have a commission get in front of the elected city council. I know this may have been done in other cities. That doesn't mean that two wrongs make a right.

Locally restricting human rights and legal decisions allowed to U.S. citizens granted while living elsewhere in our country defeats the entire meaning of the "United" States. In effect, it limits the mobility of U.S. Citizens to move freely within the country, and live where they choose. I see no rational distinction between now illegal anti-racial-miscegenation laws and the proposed anti-gender-neutral marriage laws we see today. Both were/are based on the concept that it is permissible for adherents of one religious belief to force non-believers to submit to onerous religious demands.

(City of Roseville) 204.01: POLICY:
It is hereby declared that it is the public policy of the city to fulfill its responsibility as a partner of the state department of human rights in securing for all citizens equal opportunity in housing, employment, public accommodations, public services and education, and to work consistently to improve the human relations climate of the city. (Ord. 566, 2-19-1968)

204.02: ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION:
There is hereby established within the city a human rights commission. (Ord. 566, 2-19-1968)

A couple must have a legally recognized marriage to have equal access to many opportunities in the areas listed above. (See http://project515.org/ to learn about the 515 laws that provide opportunities to married couples, opportunities that are presently denied to same-sex couples because their unions are not legally recognized.)

Given its purpose and duties (http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?NID=1653), I believe it is quite appropriate that the HRC learn and help others learn about this proposed amendment and its potential impact on all of us. Encouraging dialogue, gathering input, and advising the citizens of Roseville and their elected officials regarding human rights issues seems to be at the core of the HRC's existence.

HRC, thank you for doing this. When any of us are denied rights it impacts all of us.

I hope we stand together against adding discrimination to our state constitution. Let's support each other instead!

I oppose the amendment since it is clearly intended to limit the human rights of a certain group of people. If that is not a subject for the Roseville Human Rights Commission to offer an opinion about than I guess there never will be one.

There should be no constitutional amendment change. To make any class or group of human beings second class is truly un-American.

this whole issue would go away if people realized that "marriage", as far as the state of minnesota is concerned, is just a ready-made contract, which two people enter into. that is why you need two witnesses when you sign the "contract", when you get married. if we took the word "marriage" out of state law, and left that word to be used by religous organizations for their ceremonies, and used a different word for the contract that two people make with the state, then there wouldn't be such a divide between people.

at the moment, two same-sex persons can draw up a legal contract giving them many of the rights enjoyed by hetero-couples who get a ready-made contract through the state. it's just more work and expense.

so, basically, allow any two adult persons to go to the state and enter into a ready-made contract, not called, marriage, that legalizes their relationship, and leave "marriage" as a term used by religious organizations for their ceremonies, and those organizations can set their own standards as to who they will allow to go through their ceremonies.

Human rights need to be defended - no one should be discriminated against. I am opposed to this amendment and want the HRC to supports of all.

Roger, I agree with your suggestion that we "allow any two adult persons to go to the state and enter into a ready-made contract", one that "legalizes their relationship". If I understand your comments correctly you see that, no matter what these legally recognized unions are called, they should all come with the same rights and privileges.

As you suggest, religious organizations do not have to use the same name as the legal name for the union between two people.

I think we have some problems if we start letting the state of MN put a religious definition in our constitution. Many issues come to mind, not the least of which is separation of church and state. Minnesota’s Constitution is not a religious document.

Minnesotans enjoy a variety of religions. Putting into our constitution a religious definition that some religious people would heartily agree with and other religious people would strongly disagree with would create many new problems.

Religious organizations have the option to go through their own processes to determine what they would like to call it when couples seek support for and recognition of their union.

Most importantly …

We must remember that, as things stand right now, defining marriage in Minnesota’s Constitution as between a man and a woman, would put discrimination into our constitution.

Changing our constitution in that way would not help couples, families, or Minnesota.

Yes, people may enter into contracts that provide many of the rights and responsibilities that marriage provides. However, these contracts have no effect regarding statutes relating to spousal or biological family rights and privileges. For instance, wrongful death statutes would apply to the latter categories, not to persons entering into common law contracts. Also there have been countless instances where power of attorney contracts have been overridden by hostile biological family members in cases of hospital visitation or merely rejected when attempted to be invoked. The marriage contract provides a presumption of rights and responsibilites which common law contracts do not.
But, more simply, why would anyone want enshrined in the constitution a prohibition of legal recognition and enforcement of commitments between people who love and want to take care of one another?

If this is not an issue for the Human Rights Commission, then what is ??
Let's be a progressive, inclusive and welcoming community by working to defeat the marriage amendment.

I oppose this amendment and am grateful to the HRC for taking a stand.

My partner and I have been together for 33 years. We have raised her 3 children who are now married and we are blessed with 6 grandchildren. My niece lived with us from the time she was 11 until out of college and "launched". We took in my father for 11 years until he died after being admitted to the Vets home for 3 weeks. We actually had never lived alone as a couple until after my father left about 5 years ago. I don't know if this is considered a normal family but it was normal for us and the people we loved and served in our household. There are many laws that do not govern or protect us as they do a legally married couple. These are civil rights and have nothing to do with religion. I am Catholic and love my priest but am ashamed that a church that can try to cover up sexual abuses by its clergy becomes so righteous in this matter. But it doesn't matter to me if my church won't allow my union. I just want the state to recognize the need for the civil rights of other couples to also be ours.

I strongly believe the Roseville Human Rights Commission should pass a resolution opposing the marriage amendment.

What struck me in the forum last night was that it appeared that those who are opposed to the amendment had personal stories to support their views, while those in support of the amendment had more general rationale. For LGBT couples this amendment will very negatively affect how they live their lives and raise their families. It does not get more human than that. For that reason, I believe it is the responsibility of the Roseville Human Rights Commission to take a position against the amendment.

I can't imagine putting an amendment in our constitution which is meant to discriminate against a group of individuals. Constitutions are meant to protect the rights of the minority against the whims of the majority. The constitution should enshrine basic human rights.