With an insider’s eye, Hot Dish tracks the tastiest bits of Minnesota’s political scene and keep you up-to-date on those elected to serve you.

Contributors in Minnesota: Patrick Condon, J. Patrick Coolican, Patricia Lopez, Ricardo Lopez, Abby Simons, Rachel E. Stassen-Berger and Glen Stubbe. Contributors in D.C.: Corey Mitchell, Allison Sherry and Jim Spencer.

DFLer Falk last-minute marriage bill sponsor

Posted by: under Minnesota legislature Updated: May 9, 2013 - 12:37 PM

The House proposal to legalize same-sex marriage picked up a new last-minute sponsor the day of the dabate: Rep. Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock.

The farmer and third-term legislator was considered one of the final undecided voters.

Falk wrote a letter to constituents on Wednesday night saying he would support same-sex marriage.

Here's his letter: 

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Tomorrow the House of Representatives will be taking up a bill to legalize same sex marriage in Minnesota. I know this has been and continues to be an emotional issue for both sides of the debate. First and foremost, the bill (HF 1054), deals explicitly with civil marriage as defined in Minnesota Statute:

§517.01 MARRIAGE A CIVIL CONTRACT
Marriage, so far as its validity in laws in concerned, is a civil contract between a man and a woman two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential.

The bill does not force a religious institution to marry two individuals of the same sex. Furthermore, language has been added to the bill to offer additional comfort that no religious institution will be forced to act in violation of its own religious beliefs.

Throughout this legislative session, many constituents, on both sides of the issue, have provided faith based rationale(s) in support of their position(s). Who is right? Whose faith, interpretation, or religion is correct?

Our federal and state Constitutions protect and embrace religious autonomy and the freedom to exercise our own religious beliefs or lack thereof; all with equal protection under the law. We have a separation of church and state in this country for a reason.

As constituents have voiced their concerns about allowing same sex couples to marry, I have respectfully asked how this proposed change in the law would impact that individual’s life. In addition, I have asked what would be a legal, rational argument that would allow the continued discrimination of one group of citizens over another. While I do not question any individuals’ motivations or the sincerity of their views, the arguments I have received against same sex marriage thus far have been primarily biblical in nature or simply due to the fact that the person does not like people who are gay or lesbian. Neither of which are substantive arguments when deciding law in a secular institution that grants equal protection to all citizens under the law.

Frequently the issue of children is brought up as a reason to prohibit same sex marriage. The non-partisan American Academy of Pediatrics does not support this position. Their report, “Promoting the Well-Being of Children Whose Parents Are Gay or Lesbian [i],” complied from more than 30 years of data, rather recommends that civil marriage for same-gender couples become legal for the benefit of children. They state, “The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) supports civil marriage for same-gender couples – as well as full adoption and foster care rights for all parents, regardless of sexual orientation – as the best way to guarantee benefits and security for their children.”

Not a single person opposed to same sex marriage has stated how allowing two individuals of the same sex to marry will impact either his or her own marriage or life in a legitimate manner. Simply stating, “I don’t like it” is not a compelling argument to continue to allow the denial of happiness and equal rights to same sex couples.

The arguments have also been presented that being gay or lesbian is a lifestyle choice. It is not. Nobody chooses to be gay or lesbian; you either are or you aren’t. I never chose to be heterosexual. I just am.

GLBT rights are the civil rights issue of today. This is no different than the yesteryear movements to expand the rights of women, workers, and minorities. History has always looked favorably upon those who have stood on the side of expanded rights and freedoms.

Last summer, I married the person I love. I didn’t marry Marnie because she was a person I could live with; I married her because she was a person I couldn’t live without. We found each other and we knew we had something special.

How do I in good conscience not support that same right for all Minnesotans? A right that most of us take for granted. Marriage is about love. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage is about equality. Marriage is about finding the person that you cannot live without.

With that said, I will be voting to legalize same sex marriage in Minnesota.

Best regards,
Andrew Falk


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT