2012-05-10_HRC_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission May 10, 2012 - Minutes Page 3 of 7 vote by the people of Minnesota on whom she would decide to spend her life with, a decision which, she added, she could not think of any other example less of the public's business. Resident Ann McNattin testified that the public has no right to deny individuals the basic human right to choose the person they wish to spend the rest of their life with, and encouraged the Commission to publically oppose the proposed amendment. Dan Johnson - Powers, a Roseville resident, introduced himself as a local firefighter and testified that he saw much of the debate as faith - based. He then questioned whether it was logical to use religion as a basis for defining marriage, because the next question would be `what religion ?' The proposed amendment would impose a government `one size fits all'mandate on all religions and thus interfere with a religions right to decide who may marry in its faith. JoAnn DeVries indicated that she had raised her family in Roseville for between 25 to 30 years, and that she wanted to raise two points for the Commission's consideration: first that as a human rights commission it was the Commission's duty to make a statement for human rights on this issue, and secondly that a constitutional amendment should not be negative or derogatory, as was the proposed marriage amendment. She added that she was also speaking for a Roseville church on this matter, a church which was open and affirming. Carole Cullum introduced herself as a Roseville resident who recently moved here with her wife from California where they were married, which event, she noted, publically acknowledged their relationship and nothing happened in the rest of the world. She urged the Commission to support the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission's position in opposition to the proposed amendment. Shari Dion, a married Roseville resident, said that many state laws provide real benefits and opportunities to married couples, and saw no reason to deny those benefits to same -sex couples. She said that given the purpose and duties of the Commission, it should come out against the proposed amendment. Dion added that she would leave with the Commission the city ordinances and policies which instruct the Commission to do just that. Mindy Greiling, a Roseville resident and State Representative, said that she assumed that the Commission as a human rights body would unanimously oppose the proposed amendment. She recommended that the Commission send on its recommendation to the City Council, saying it would be a disservice to all present if the Commission just stopped with taking a position against the marriage amendment. Resident Frank Strahan said he had discussed this issue with his family and they thought someone should represent them before the Commission in expressing their support of the Commission taking a stand against the marriage amendment which, he indicated, would codify discrimination against some Roseville residents. He said he had reviewed the Commission's charter and believed it had the duty to take a stand against this amendment. Tom Schraad, a Roseville resident for fifty -five years, asked the Commission not to promote this resolution to the Council. Although he had heard a lot of people saying they were not first class