2012-05-16_HRC_minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville Human Rights Commission May 16, 2012 - Minutes Page 3 of 8 and Commissioners Dao, Doneen and Siliciano had drafted opposing the constitutional amendment to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Commissioner Brisbois reported the Committee was recommending that the Commission pass a public resolution opposing the constitutional amendment and had drafted a resolution based on feedback from the Project 515 meeting, other meetings and comments from residents received at the public forum and afterwards. She said some people had raised the question whether it this was a human right or whether this action was within the - purview of the Commission At last week's meeting there appeared to be a majority consensus that this issue was a human right, and that the Commission should address the issue and make a public statement. Commissioner Brisbois moved and Commissioner Groff seconded that the Human Rights Commission pass a resolution to publicly oppose the proposed constitutional amendment entitled "recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman," and urge Roseville and Minnesota citizens to vote NO on November 6, 2012. Chair Grefenberg said this motion initiated the discussion but would not necessarily conclude it, since the question of whether the Commission would advise the Council to pass a similar resolution remained under consideration. Commissioner-s Groff said the HRC has discussed this issue for over two months, and if any other protected class, such as person of color or a person with a handicap, was substituted for a same sex couple, this would not be debated and there would be a resounding yes, the Commission should oppose the constitutional amendment. In response to a question from Commissioner Singleton, Brisbois clarified that her motion was simply that the Commission pass a resolution opposing the marriage amendment. It was not yet the actual resolution which was what she would subsequently report. Commissioners-Doneen said the motion -was within the scope of the Commission, as described in the City Code, section 204.05, citing that the Commission should assume the leadership in recognizing and resolving potential problem areas in the community. There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote on the Brisbois /Groff motion. Motion prevailed unanimously. Commissioner Brisbois then reviewed the resolution from the drafting committee, explaining that it included two draft resolution options. The first resolution included a provision that the Commission recommend to the Council that it pass a resolution opposing the marriage amendment, and the second resolution did not. Commissioner Brisbois explained her committee's report, the two attached resolutions, and the committee's thought process in developing its recommendation. The first two whereases describe that it is within the scope of the HRC to take a position. The third whereas describes why the Commission is addressing this issue at this time. The fourth and fifth whereases explain the proposed amendment, noting that constitutions have historically been designed to protect minorities.