The Roseville Human Rights Commission is expected to vote tonight (Wednesday, May 16) whether it should pass a resolution opposing the proposed state constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
The commission's meeting comes on the heels of it holding a public forum last Thursday night, seeking citizen input on whether it should take a stand on the controversial issue.
In case you missed it, here is our original story:
Just a day after President Barack Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage, more than 50 Roseville residents signed up to share their views on the issue with the Human Rights Commission at last week's public forum.
At the public forum, the city hall chamber was packed with more than 70 Roseville residents, most of whom applauded after citizens made statements in support of same-sex marriage.
Mary Walser, a retired professor of veterinary medicine at the University of Minnesota, said she has lived in a Roseville home she bought with her partner for 20 years. She said she had been encouraged by legislators who supported marriage equality, such as Sen. John Marty and Rep. Mindy Greiling, to stay hopeful about legal changes but that proposed constitutional amendment has turned her hopes into fears.
“The people of Minnesota are getting to vote about me—not about my veterinary career, not about my good citizenship but about who or who not I may choose to marry,” she said. “Can you think of anything—anything—that is less of the public’s business?
“My partner and I are prepared to leave Minnesota, we are prepared to boycott this state and take our bank accounts elsewhere, our property taxes elsewhere and our community service elsewhere.”
T.W. Held of Roseville, who said he was speaking for the “tens of thousands of families” in Minnesota who oppose same-sex marriage, said that people who take a position other than “one man, one woman” are speaking with “hate speech” against religious beliefs.
“If this amendment were to fail then the human rights, which are guaranteed by the federal constitution and the state constitution, the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, would be attacked,” Held said.
Duane Sanocki described himself a Catholic and said that in his religion “we have raised matrimony to the level of a sacrament.
“Many countries—take Europe, for example—are dying, and they’re dying because they’re not reproducing, and one of the reasons they’re not reproducing is because they’ve dropped marriage from a high level to where it is now,” he said. “I see homosexual marriage as an attack on religion because it’s changing what marriage has been for centuries.”
Dan Johnson-Powers, a firefighter who lives in Roseville, said the argument that same-sex marriage infringes on religious rights did not make sense to him since many religions are accepting of same-sex relationships.
“If we choose to include religion, then who gets to decide which religious beliefs we adhere to?” he said. “If we remove religion from the equation as our national constitution mandates, then the quintessential issue is human rights: Do I, as a gay man, have the same rights as a straight man to marry the person I love and thus participate in all the rights and obligations of a married couple?
Johnson-Powers said he objected to the line of reasoning that states that “gay marriage threatens the sanctity of the state of matrimony.”
“My commitment to my partner will in no way denigrate my heterosexual neighbours’ commitment to each other,” he said.
Eventually, same-sex marriage will probably be passed. Not because it is the right thing to do but because people get tired of hearing about it and dont want to be ridiculed for fighting against it.
I am grateful that no one fought to restrict my right to marry 25 years ago. I would have fought back if others had thought they could decide who I could marry. I would have been angry and motivated to work for the right to marry my husband. While same sex couples must also be angry, what was more obvious to me on Thursday night was that they and their children are hurt. By denying them their right to marry, WE ARE HURTING THEM. Yet, they continue to have hope, hope that it is only a matter of time before the "majority" of us will recognize their right to marry. Unlike children, these adults have been admirably patient as they wait for us to do the loving, right thing, and they put up with a lot while they wait. As a group, these are not people who are used to getting their way, like "spoiled" children. I believe people are becoming more supportive of same sex marriage for these reasons: 1. As more people are being open about their homosexuality and their relationships, their friends, families, coworkers, etc. see who they are and can't imagine denying them such a basic right. 2. People are realizing that even with same sex couples in their lives, life goes on as usual. No harm is done. 3. People believe that marriage is good for kids, families, couples, and society; they want to encourage more marriages rather than place unnecessary restrictions on two consenting adults marrying. 4. People are embracing our human diversity.
I'd like to correct a misstatement of fact in your posting. People applauded speakers both opposing and supporting the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Having been at the Public Forum (I am a member of the Human Rights Commission) and having also viewed a Forum rebroadcast, I saw no intimidation expressed in any way except possibly by one speaker who described homosexuals as being alcoholics and diseased. Since you were not present I suggest you watch the rebroadcast of the Forum at 6:00pm tomorrow, Sunday, May 13th, on cable television 16. Gary G
Some are going to say that this is the same thing. No it is not. If the city council chooses to discuss the issue, their discussion will be much more broad than what the human rights commission will discuss. That is simply the case because the city council has broader responsibilities to the community. I talked with several members about the process after the conclusion of the meeting and I felt that everyone was on the same page concerning the these issues. The article writer needs to get on the same page as the rest of us. I have to echo other comments and state that it was a well run meeting. Also, based upon my observations, applause went out to everyone who spoke, regardless of where they stood on the issue. I spoke solely on the process and never indicated my support for or against and I even got an applause. For those interested the enabling legislation that allows for the Human Rights Commission to exist, it is located in the last sentence of Minnesota Statutes 412.621, subdivision 1.
While I wholeheartedly support the ability of the Human Rights Commission to receive public input and to publicly express its opinions as a body (and as individuals) on what it considers to be human rights issues, I do not believe that it is necessary or appropriate for the City Council to enact a City position on any issue that is not directly related to City business.
I understand that there may be some members of the council that do not want to touch this hot potato, but there is no middle ground here. You can't say go take positions over there, and we will keep our hands clean over here.
When an official body of the City, whether elected or appointed, makes an official statement, or whether it is explicitly stated that "it shall be the position of the City of Roseville" or not, it will be so considered by the residents of the City, and that is an intentional misrepresentation. If individuals of the City, either elected, appointed or employed, have a personal feeling on a particular issue and want to make a personal statement in that regard, they may do so just as any other citizen of this country. However, when an official body of the City makes a resolution regarding an issue, even though it is only advisory to the elected body and ot authorized to make such an official statement, it will be understood by the public and seen as an official statement by the city, and I contend that this is an intentional misstatement and misunderstanding by the Commission and it's members. If the elected members of the Council do not want to address this issue, it should then give direction to the advisory commission not to address it also. This is not a Roseville issue and should not be addressed at this level of government.
I would only point out that the City Council has supported other human rights issues that are generalized to society at large (such as the rights of women). The City Council has commemorated a week (or was it a month) dedicated to such a cause at their meeting a while back, and I believe you read a resolution about the warrant for recognizing these rights. I can only assume this was done for the reason that such causes do directly impact citizens of Roseville - since we have such persons among our community. Perhaps the City Council took those causes to be directly related to City business. It would seem, in my view, that other human rights issues would be treated as equally relevant to City business (that is, whenever a Council member agreed that it was in fact a human rights issue).
Maybe the city council has supported other human rights issues. I don't have a list off hand. But only the city council can set positions for the city. All commissions appointed by the city council can only send recommendations to the city council. Doing otherwise would be a violation of Plan B government which Roseville is organized under.
§ Such proclamations must relate specifically to an interest of the residents of the City of Roseville; § Such proclamations must relate to a stated policy of the City of Roseville as established in documents such as Imagine Roseville 2025; § Such proclamations may be adopted to recognize the achievements of individuals or groups with a Roseville connection or to support the philanthropic works of such individuals or groups. § The Council’s policy is not to adopt proclamations designed primarily to advance political, financial, or religious viewpoints. The policy does not apply to other actions, such as passing resolutions, by the way.
I still don't follow why a State constitutional amendment, that clearly impacts the rights of Rosevillian minorities (given the turnout at this event), would not be considered City business. Maybe I'm missing some nuance, but I just don't see it. I appreciate the comments from all of you. Things for further reflection. . .
Does this affect city employment contracts? Does this affect taxes or the city budget? Those are questions that the council will have to ask themselves. But if it has no effect on the city as an organization, then the argument could be made that the elected officials are using a taxpayer funded organization to push their personal agenda. One day it is the marriage amendment. The next day it is an endorsement for a particular political candidate. The day after it is an endorsement of a particular child custody bill at the legislature. The list could go on and on. I would hate to see Roseville go down the road that some cities like Maplewood have gone down, in going way off topic of city business. For example, creating a domestic partner registry. I offer no opinion on this issue, but only offer this observation. Counties issue marriage licenses, not cities. Ramsey County is a home rule county and they have the authority to do something like this. That is the appropriate level of government for that issue. Blurring the lines of government responsibility leads to less accountability. What's next, the city starts some sort of life insurance regulation program? Something that is clearly a MN Department of Commerce function?
204.01: 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: There is hereby established within the city a human rights commission. (Ord. 566, 2-19-1968) 204.03: The purpose of the commission is to secure for all citizens equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public services and education and full participation in the affairs of this community by assisting the state department of human rights in implementing the Minnesota Human Rights Act and by advising the City Council on long range programs to improve community relations in the city. Additionally the commission will work to increase the sense of community by reaching out to all members of the community and ensuring that our city government and its activities, programs and services are accessible understandable and responsive to all. (Ord. 566, 2-19-1968; amd. 1995 Code, Ord. 1324, 08-08-2005) (Ord. 1381, 04-27-2009)
D. Advise the mayor, the City Council and other agencies of the government of human relations and civil rights problems. Act in an advisory capacity with respect to planning or operation of any city department on issues of civil and human rights and recommend the adoption of such specific policies or actions as are needed to provide for full equal opportunity in the community. E. Develop such programs of formal and informal education as will assist in the implementation of the Minnesota State Act Against Discrimination, and provide for the commission's assumption of leadership in recognizing and resolving potential problem areas in the community. (Ord. 566, 2-19-1968; amd. 1995 Code)
A statutory city, like Roseville, may only carry out those functions prescribed in state law. 412.621 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. Subdivision 1.Limit on boards; powers of council. In any such city there shall be no board of health as defined in section 145A.02, subdivision 2, library board, park board, public utilities commission, or any other administrative board or commission, except for the administration of a function jointly with another political subdivision. The council shall itself be and perform the duties and exercise the powers of the board of health and shall govern and administer the library, parks, and utilities as fully as other municipal functions for the administration of which no independent boards are authorized by statute for cities generally. The council may, however, create boards or commissions to advise the council with respect to any municipal function or activity or to investigate any subject of interest to the city.
Any such boards and commissions in existence in any city when Optional Plan B is adopted shall continue to operate in all respects as formerly until the qualification of the first city manager, at which time they shall cease to exist and their powers shall be vested in the city council. Any existing civil service commission shall not be affected by the change. After abandonment of the plan in any such city and the establishment of the standard plan or Optional Plan A, any board or commission authorized by statute in cities generally may be established in the same manner as in other cities.
204.01 makes it clear that human rights are a subject of interest to the city of Roseville - something for which I am grateful. The HRC is doing what it is supposed to do - investigating and advising on human rights issues. This is not an academic debate, and the proposed constitutional amendment is not just a definition. This is about real people and the real discrimination they encounter every day. Is it possible that a majority of us could decide to solidify that discrimination indefinitely by putting it into our Minnesota constitution? I hope not. I can't even imagine how I would feel about Minnesota if that would happen. How would it impact Roseville? It is a subject of interest to the city, because we care about ALL Roseville citizens. "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." Human rights are of interest to the city. Real people wanting to live their lives. Will we discriminate or will we provide equal access to the rights and privileges of marriage?