Kiffmeyer: MN Same-Sex Marriage Bill Betrays Vow that 'Nothing Would Change'

Minnesota state Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, who represents St. Michael-Albertville, recalled promise that 'no' votes on constitutional amendment to ban marriage wouldn't lead to legalization.

Minnesota state Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake), who represents St. Michael-Albertville, argued against passage of same-sex marriage legislation on the floor of the Minnesota Senate Monday.

Kiffmeyer took the Senate floor after two Republican-sponsored amendments failed to pass, which she described as "First Amendment changes being rebuffed."

Kiffmeyer said introduction of the gay marriage bill went back on promises made to voters in the 2012 ballot referendum on amending the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex unions.

"They were told it was OK to vote no because nothing would change," Kiffmeyer said. "Do they feel betrayed? Absolutely. Do they feel lied to? Yes. ... So here we are today with a massive change."

Kiffmeyer referenced an earlier speaker, Sen. Jeff Haydon (DFL-Minneapolis), who told gay-marriage oppponents, "It's going to be OK."

She paraphrased Haydon: "It's OK. It'll all be OK."

But, she said, "in every other state [with gay marriage] we have not seen that to be the case. ... I'm voting no because of the lack of First Amendment protection [for those who believe defining marriage as] one man, one woman [couples] with the capacity for having children is the best public policy."

Dan Johnson May 19, 2013 at 08:16 PM
George. Your question relies on a false premise. Marriage has taken many forms over the years in addition to the 8 forms found in the bible. Our "tradition" of marriage would have to include inter-racial prohibitions, and treating women and children as property. Same sex marriages have also been an overlooked if not outright denied part of history as well. Allowing same sex marriages equal treatment under the laws currently in effect for opposite sex couples, does not change the current or future marriages of opposite sex couples. The "what" of marriage is not redefined. Only the "who" is changed to allow everyone to participate under the same laws, as promised in the founding documents and required by the constitution.
Dan Johnson May 19, 2013 at 08:29 PM
Allowing business owners to discriminate in their clients, resulted in segregation, apartheid, and abuse of other minorities as well. We know from history, allowing discrimination is a harmful practice.
CHDaggett May 19, 2013 at 09:10 PM
Let's not forget - Kiffmeyer used to be Sec. of State in Minnesota - and used that office to attempt to restrict voting rights. So glad she's not in that office any longer. I just can't see any way that allowing businesses to exclude serving some customers based on their personal biases/beliefs is anything other than outright discrimination. We don't allow that based on any other factor - thank goodness we're moving towards a society that won't allow it on this one either.
Dan Johnson May 20, 2013 at 02:50 PM
Even before marriage passed, business owners were not allowed to use their religious beliefs to discriminate based on sexual orientation. They are asking for special laws that would allow them to pick and choose who they serve, based on their beliefs. This is the same excuse that gave us segregation and apartheid. They now want a gay apartheid. If you decide to serve the public, you must serve everyone. A couple who wanted to hold a wedding ceremony even before the law, could rent a space offered to the public, hire a photographer, caterer, and buy a wedding cake. The law does not allow you to discriminate. The marriage law did not change that. Public accommodations laws covering race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, sexual orientation, and age were already in effect: "Subd. 2.Civil right. The opportunity to obtain employment, housing, and other real estate, and full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public services, and educational institutions without such discrimination as is prohibited by this chapter is hereby recognized as and declared to be a civil right." https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=363a.02
Philip Lowe, Jr. May 20, 2013 at 03:24 PM
Um, No, No Senator Kiffmeyer what you said in the debate is not true. The message of Minnesotan's United for All Families was "Don't limit the freedom to marry." In many of the advertisements from MN United they said that they were not going to deny the freedom to marry to same-sex couples by writing into the State Constitution and therefore leaving the door open for us to change the MN State Statute. That is what was accomplished with the vote in favor or granting the freedom to marry for same-sex couples last week, which Governor Dayton signed into law. That is what MN United for All Families was about, that is what 53% of Minnesota voters voted for in November 2012.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »