Capitol View: May 20, 2011 Archive

House opens session with prayer by controversial pastor, DFL protests

Posted at 10:21 AM on May 20, 2011 by Tom Scheck (8 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, Mark Dayton

From MPR's Elizabeth Dunbar and Tom Scheck...

The House opened its floor session today with a prayer by a pastor who has frequently spoken out against gays. The House could take up a vote today on sending a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters in 2012.

Bradlee Dean of Old Path Church of Minneapolis and founder of You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International ministry was the guest chaplain for the opening prayer. During his prayer, he questioned President Barack Obama's commitment to Jesus.

"I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this chamber, it's not about the Baptists, it's not about the Catholics alone, or the Lutherans or the Wesleyans or the Presbyterians or Evangelicals but rather the head of the denomination, and his name is Jesus -- as every president up until 2008 has acknowledged, and we pray it in Jesus' name," Dean said.

Note: You can watch video of the prayer and reaction on the House Archives page.

DFL House members were quick to express outrage over Dean's comments, and House Speaker Kurt Zellers, R-Maple Grove, restarted the floor session with another prayer by the regular House chaplain.

In a speech on the House floor following the second prayer, Rep. Terry Morrow, DFL-St. Peter, expressed anger over Dean's appearance.

"I've always thought of the House prayer as an opportunity for us to contemplate together, to come together before the heat and battle of what can sometimes be partisan politics. It was an expectation, it was a hope that I felt was fulfilled every day I came to this chamber until today. Within the last hour this hope has been crushed by a single person's words," Morrow said.

Morrow thanked Zellers for restarting, saying it was "an acknowledgement that there is a legitimate cause for deep concern."

Zellers and Rep. Matt Dean, R-Delwood, said after the House recessed that they were not involved in scheduling Bradlee Dean to open the floor session.

UPDATE: House Speaker Kurt Zellers just issued this:

STATEMENT FROM SPEAKER ZELLERS DENOUNCING MORNING PRAYER

I respectfully apologize to all members in the Minnesota House of Representatives and all citizens of this state for today's morning prayer. As Speaker of the House, I take responsibility for this mistake. I am offended at the presence of Bradlee Dean on the floor of the Minnesota House of Representatives. I denounce him, his actions and his words. He does not represent my values or the values of this state.

Meanwhile, the two openly gay members of the Legislature DFLers Rep. Karen Clark and Sen. Scott Dibble, both of Minneapolis, issued this:

"In my 30 years in the House, I have never seen such a hateful person be allowed to deliver the opening prayer," Rep. Clark said. "Bradlee Dean has a documented record of hate speech, and has suggested that extremists who call for the execution of American gays are morally justified. The decision by GOP leadership to allow his intolerance, fear and outright bigotry into the 'people's house' is reprehensible. Minnesotans are a peaceful, loving and caring people. It's this spirit of togetherness and shared hope that the House of Representatives should strive to embody. The Republican leadership should be ashamed of themselves. It reveals the underlying hateful nature of the anti-gay constitutional amendment movement."

"In this time of divisiveness, it's disgraceful and appalling to see the Speaker of the House of Representatives ‑‑ the body that is supposed to represent all Minnesotans ‑‑ invite hatred into the opening prayer," Sen. Dibble, a former House member said. "Instead of providing a message of inclusion and hope, the House began this day with hate and discrimination. Mr. Dean has a long and well-known record of intolerance, something that should have no place in the legislature, let alone in a prayerful blessing. This morning's action is a sad commentary on House Republican leadership's apparent ambivalence for supporting the equal rights and beliefs of all Minnesotans."

Two people with knowledge of the decision say Rep. Ernie Leidiger, R- Mayer, invited Bradlee Dean to give the House prayer.

Rep. Ernie Leidiger, R-Mayer, confirmed that he invited Dean to give the House prayer. He said it was "an honest mistake" that Dean was invited on the same day that the constitutional amendment to ban same marriage could have been debated.

Leidiger said he invited Dean after seeing him deliver a speech on constitutional issues at a school. He said a colleague of Dean followed up on the request. Leidiger says he was scheduled to speak a few weeks ago but it was rescheduled for today. He said he didn't know about Dean's views until a colleague told him about Dean's background after Dean gave the prayer.

Leidiger says he doesn't hold Dean's views.

"I don't go there at all," Leidiger said. "I believe in life. I believe in everyone having opportunity and that's not where any of the members agree with his stance. That radical stance that I understand is about as radical as it can get."

Leidiger says he's apologized to several Democrats including DFL Rep. Karen Clark of Minneapolis. Clark is the only openly gay member of the Legislature House.

Leidiger says he still supports the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He said he doesn't believe the amendment has "nothing to do with gays. It's all about a statement on what marriage is."

Here's my short interview with him: Listen

Same-sex marriage ban vote may be coming

Posted at 11:45 AM on May 20, 2011 by Tim Nelson (4 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature

Protesters are back outside the Minnesota House chamber in full volume today, in a chanting battle over the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage.

House leaders haven't said when it might come up for a vote, and the House Rules Committee just recessed without putting it on today's calendar. Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, says the committee may consider the matter later.

But one of the few House Republicans who openly opposes the idea thought it might be today.The matter is expected to split mostly along party lines, as it did when it passed earlier in the Senate.

"I trust my gut," said Rep. John Kriesel, of Cottage Grove, who is one of two GOP members who have opposed the measure already. Tim Kelly of Red Wing is the other.

"This could go down today, and that's what I'm hoping for," Kriesel said. "There's a lot of people that think the timing is wrong. There's a lot of people that don't want to deal with it. But I don't think the timing is ever right, because I think it's the wrong thing to do."

Kriesel spoke, though, while the controversy over the prayer offered by Bradlee Dean was still percolating through the House, and before Kurt Zellers denounced the prayer in a statement and apologized on the House floor.

But that still leaves the same-sex marriage amendment up in the air.

Second term Rep. Tim Sanders, R- Blaine, said he supports putting same sex marriage on the state ballot, but has other priorities.

"I think the focus really should be on the budget. That's what the folks sent us all here to focus on," Sanders said.

But he too hinted that the same sex marriage amendment may play into budget negotiations.

"In our opinion, we have passed a balanced budget. It's up to the governor what he wants to do and his timeline," Sanders said after the House adjourned Thursday night. "So we're in a wait and see mode right now, and a negotiation mode with the governor. So until he give us some direction on some actual tangible steps we can take to meet in the middle, I think everything's fair game."

Freshman Rep. Andrea Kieffer, R-Woodbury, was elusive about the subject. Asked this morning if she would support putting the amendment on the ballot, she wouldn't commit either way. "I have my concerns," she said. She said she wanted to hear floor debate on the matter.

House members are privately debating whether the lack of floor action so far is a reflection of uncertainty whether the GOP caucus can muster the bloc of votes to approve.

Rep. Karen Clark, DFL- Minneapolis, the only openly lesbian member of the House, said she thinks the vote in the House will be more difficult than that in the Senate.

"There are members who feel torn, just agonizingly torn on the Republican side," Clark said. "They don't want to vote for this. They personally believe that its wrong. You know, people are crying about this. It's a very emotional issue. People who fell that their conscience tells them that they should not support a constitutional amendment, but their party is telling them they must."

Ethics complaint filed against Sen. Gretchen Hoffman

Posted at 3:11 PM on May 20, 2011 by Elizabeth Dunbar (2 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature

An ethics complaint was filed Friday against Sen. Gretchen Hoffman, R-Vergas, over something she wrote about a DFL colleague on Twitter.

Hoffman wrote this about Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights earlier this week:

"Sen Goodwin just called people with mental illness- idiots and imbeciles- while debating HHS bill #offensive #mndfl #mnsrc #mnleg"

But it's not what Goodwin said. Goodwin was talking about the history of developmental disabilities and mental illness in Minnesota during a debate over the Health and Human Services budget bill.

Sen. Ann Rest, DFL-New Hope, officially filed the ethics complaint today. Here's the complaint:

May20 Complaint

During the floor debate this week, Goodwin stood up to demand an apology from Hoffman.

Hoffman later released a statement through a spokeswoman, and Republicans released video of the comments they say Hoffman was concerned about.

Goodwin's full comments are here.

And here's the previous Capitol View post from Tom Scheck.

UPDATE: After the ethics complaint was filed, Hoffman issued this statement this afternoon:

On Wednesday, May 18, Senator Barb Goodwin referred to people with mental illnesses as idiots and imbeciles in the Minnesota State Senate floor. As a registered nurse who has worked with patients with mental illnesses for many years, I was offended by her remarks. I shared Senator Goodwin's remarks with my Twitter followers.

Until the Subcommittee on Ethical Conduct completes their work, I have no further comment.

GOP Chair Sutton: Don't be biased toward compromise

Posted at 6:12 PM on May 20, 2011 by Tim Nelson (3 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, Mark Dayton

GOP party chairman Tony Sutton sent out a letter to the Capitol press corps this afternoon, saying the media shouldn't be looking for the middle ground between Gov. Mark Dayton and GOP lawmakers.

Here seems to be what we in the business call the "nutgraf":

It is certainly not reasonable to expect people who understand the dangers of an unrestrained government to accept the status quo notion of "compromise"

We're not quite sure what that would mean to Capitol View or our coverage on MPR, but you're welcome to determine for yourself if we live up to the chairman's expectations. Here's his letter in its entirety:

A Personal Note to the Capitol Press Corps:

I am forgoing the usual press release format and writing a personal letter to the media because I am deeply and personally concerned about portrayal of "compromise" when reporting budget negotiations. I don't consider your coverage politically biased, and this letter is not a rant about the "liberal" media. I wanted to address you directly, sans political rhetoric. The media bias I see, which is a common perception, is the belief that compromise is ALWAYS a good thing, that the best solution is ALWAYS somewhere in the middle and that compromise is ALWAYS a win for the people of Minnesota. That is far from ALWAYS the case.

The favorable bias toward compromise is pretty well reflected in media coverage. It's a non-insightful "dog bites man" story: Gov. Dayton demands that Republicans act "reasonably" and "compromise" on a "balanced approach" to the budget. The implication is that if Republicans were indeed "reasonable," they would accept the idea of a balanced solution of spending cuts and tax increases. They would compromise and increase the budget and increase revenue, as compromise is in and of itself a good thing irrespective of its consequences.

I think the media is missing out on a more thoughtful and more interesting perspective of more service to readers and viewers - Does compromise necessarily yield a better solution?

Give and take on details of policy is not compromise; it's simply good governance to consider all ideas when formulating policy in search of an integrated solution that solves the problem at hand. Republicans have made it clear they are willing to negotiate on points of policy. Compromise requires sacrificing principle. Compromise is taking a position you have confidence in and "compromising" it to a position neither side has faith in.

Republicans have been down that road before.

When Democrats, wedded to a governing model making Minnesota a high service/high tax state, controlled the Legislature, they would biennially propose new spending and new taxes as the starting point of the budget process. The assumptive question of budget discussions was "How big can we grow state government?" Republicans fought tooth and nail against DFL spending and tax increases, but at the end of the day they were "reasonable" and "compromised" at less spending and lower revenue expectations than the Democrats wanted. Nonetheless Minnesota moved to the left and the next budget discussion started at a higher number. The only Republican victory was "it could have been so much worse."

My point is simply this: Starting budget discussions with the assumptive question "How big can we grow government?" is always going to yield a compromise to the left, a compromise toward bigger, more expensive, more resource consumptive government. Even if you are biased toward that approach, it is certainly not reasonable to expect people who understand the dangers of an unrestrained government to accept the status quo notion of "compromise" -- giving the DFL a little less of what it wants -- as a good thing in an of itself.

Without being overly rhetorical, a compromise to the left is a compromise of good and evil; it is foisting upon Minnesotans a high tax/high service model that Republicans believe (and budget deficits have vindicated) just can't be sustained, and the people hurt the most are the people government is supposed to protect, benefit and secure.

Preparing the state budget is not simply an accounting exercise; it is a philosophical definition of the proper role and function of government. The people of Minnesota sent Republicans to St. Paul to give new birth to the uniquely American ethic of "Live Free; Live Better." Republicans in the Legislature are not about to compromise that ethic for the solace that things "could have been so much worse." Republicans will not separate compromise from its consequences. Republicans will not compromise away the power of the free market to create the jobs and prosperity that make a compassionate society possible. And for that, Republicans need not apologize.

In closing, I am not asking the media to compromise its journalistic integrity. I would just ask that the press thoughtfully consider the nature of compromise in reporting ongoing budget negotiations. There are "man bites dog" stories in that perspective, and I trust you will find them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Tony Sutton, Chair
Republican Party of Minnesota

Zellers: Votes are there for same sex marriage amendment

Posted at 7:55 PM on May 20, 2011 by Tom Scheck (3 Comments)
Filed under: MN Legislature, Mark Dayton

Republican House Speaker Kurt Zellers says he thinks Republicans have the votes to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Zellers wouldn't say on TPT's Almanac program if the measure will be brought up this session. Several Republicans have suggested it's unwise to consider the amendment since the Legislature has not yet reached a budget deal with Governor Dayton. Zellers says the amendment would pass if brought up for a vote.

"We've had some motions on the floor to rerefer it back to committee and they've been defeated." Zellers said. "All along, we've been talking about getting our budget done first. Our budget is now, literally, some of the carts are going down the hall to the governor's office right now so there are the votes. We're not focusing on that we're focusing on the budget."

The House action would be the final step before the amendment is placed on the 2012 ballot. If a majority of those voting in the 2012 election vote in favor of the amendment, the constitution would define marriage as between one man and one woman. Critics of the plan say the measure is divisive and say state law already bans same sex marriage.