Landmark gay rights bills split state's congressional delegation

Proposals some call the most sweeping gay rights protections ever on the national level have divided Minnesota's congressional delegation and fueled debate over free speech, religious liberty and basic tolerance.

Two separate bills working their way through Congress would add gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people to the groups that federal law protects from hate crimes and workplace bias.

The political sensitivity of the issues surfaced last week, when leaders in the House delayed a vote on the Employee Non-Discrimination Act.

The move came after Minnesota's Rep. Tim Walz, a leader among freshman Democrats, informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that the new members did not want to vote on the bill if it included protections for transgender people, according to a report in the Hill, a Capitol Hill newspaper.

A Walz spokesman confirmed the report, but added: "As president of the freshman class, Congressman Walz is often asked to bring the concerns of any of the 45 newly elected Democrats to the leadership, regardless of whether he personally shares those concerns."

He added that Walz was a co-sponsor of an earlier version of the bill that included the transgender protections.

The bill, without the transgender language, is expected to come to the House floor for a vote this week. An amendment may be offered to restore the transgender protections.

Some Minnesota members say the gay rights issue transcends politics. "People are generally against discrimination," said Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison. "But some people have questions over whether this is the right time. I tell them there's never a convenient time to give a discriminated-against minority greater rights. You just have to do the right thing, even if there's a political price to pay."

The hate-crime legislation, currently in a conference committee where differences between House and Senate versions will be resolved, split Minnesota House members when it passed there in May.

Voting for the bill, which would allow more severe penalties for crimes motivated by bias based on sexual orientation, were Ellison, Walz and fellow Democrats Betty McCollum and Jim Oberstar.

Voting no were Republicans Michele Bachmann, John Kline and Jim Ramstad, and Democrat Collin Peterson.

Bachmann, an outspoken opponent of same-sex marriage when she served in the Minnesota Senate, declined through a spokesperson to comment on the federal bills.

A threat to free speech?

Among those who oppose the workplace protection bill is Janet Boynes, a minister from Maple Grove who said it would discriminate against her as a Christian.

"God called me out from homosexuality six years ago," she said. "I couldn't have a discussion about biblical morality. We have free speech, so if this does happen, doesn't it mean I'm being discriminated against?"

Some religious advocacy groups have lobbied against the workplace protection bill, saying it would inhibit their free-speech rights and religious freedom. There is language in the bill that would exempt religious organizations from the non-discrimination rules, but several conservative groups deem it inadequate.

Meanwhile, removal of the transgender protections has produced divisions among gay rights advocates.

OutFront Minnesota, the state's largest gay rights group, opposes the bill in its current form. It was one of more than 350 organizations that signed a petition urging lawmakers to defeat any legislation that doesn't include protection for transgender people.

With that protection included, OutFront has lobbied for the bill's passage, said Monica Myers, the group's public policy director, even though it wouldn't have much effect in the state. Minnesota law has given broad protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation since 1993.

Ellison said the measure was an important symbol to show that the federal government cares about the GLBT community. He said that he has been promoting the transgender protection amendment among his colleagues, but that he would vote for any anti-discrimination bill that comes to a vote.

"I just view it as a basic issue of tolerance," Ellison said. "You don't have to approve of everything people do; you don't have to understand everything people do. But if they want to do it, and it doesn't bother you, leave them alone."

In the Senate

The workplace protection bill has yet to advance in the Senate. But last month both Minnesota senators voted in favor of another long-sought goal of gay rights advocates: a bill that would broaden the federal hate-crimes definition to include violence based on a person's gender identity and sexual orientation.

Although the House version had divided the Minnesota delegation, both Republican Sen. Norm Coleman and Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat, support the Senate version, which has only minor differences.

Named for a young gay man who was beaten and left to die on a fence near Laramie, Wyo., in 1998, the Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Act would amend existing hate-crime legislation enacted in 1969 that federalizes crimes motivated by bias based on race, color, religion, national origin and gender.

Under the proposed legislation, local law enforcement officials could apply for federal grants to help solve such crimes. It also makes federal sentencing guidelines more stringent.

As in the case of workplace protections, Minnesota already has hate-crime language that includes sexual orientation. But the new bill would allow for harsher sentencing in some cases than state law.

Boynes said those guilty of assaults should be penalized no matter who they attack. "What the homosexual community is saying to me is that I had a lot more value as a homosexual than I have as a person living a heterosexual life, which is not true," she said.

Nina Petersen-Perlman • 202.408.2723

Nina Petersen-perlman • nperlman@startribune.com