Shakopee Marriage Amendment Discussion Ends Without A Resolution

With three marriage amendment resolutions set before Shakopee’s City Council Tuesday night, the council chambers was packed. The resolutions asked the council to support the amendment, oppose it, or take no action on it.

Each side had fifteen minutes to present their case. Supporters of the marriage amendment spoke first. They said the amendment would guarantee, for example, that judges and lawmakers could not change the definition of marriage in the future. Others asserted that the amendment is about preserving a definition and not about denying rights.

The right definition of marriage is that of being between a man and a woman, said Fatima Franzen.

Other supporters emphasized their belief that the marriage amendment is a state issue and should not be discussed or voted on at the city level.

“This has nothing to do with a yes or a no,” said Curt Olson. “I urge you to table the issue and move on with the responsibilities that you have, which is maintaining this city."

Olson added, "It’s not your business what people in this room vote or not vote for, and try not to influence that.”

Next spoke opponents of the marriage amendment, including some in long-term same-sex relationships. The amendment, they said, would hurt them and shut down conversation surrounding marriage rights for same-sex couples.

Andrew Janson, who originally asked the council to consider a resolution opposing the marriage amendment, told his personal story of his experiences as a gay man and his desire to have the same rights as other married couples. Just as his parents have celebrated a decades long marriage, he hopes to one day experience the same 

Opponents said that if the marriage amendment does not pass, same-sex marriage will still not be allowed; however, passing the amendment would mean a continual denial of equal marriage rights.

“Should this hurtful amendment pass, it will forever shut down the conversation about whether or not hardworking, tax-paying citizens… will ever have the freedom to marry,” Janson said.

Christopher Straub, asked others to imagine what it would be like to be spit on or to have possessions defaced or burned.

“I pay taxes to a government that denies me civil rights… I want you to imagine what that’s like—that everyone around you has the same rights, except you,” Straub said.

As time for comments ended, each council member spoke about their views on the marriage amendment and the resolutions.

Council Member Jay Whiting spoke first. He shared that his mother was gay, as is his son. The amendment is anti-gay, he said, and he believes that is appropriate for the city to discuss it.

Council Member Steve Clay and Mayor Brad Tabke agreed. Both came out firmly against the marriage amendment; however, they did not think it an issue for the city to vote on.

"I don't think it's right for us to pass a resolution," Tabke said. "I do think that it's absolutely right for us to talk about it. I do think that it's right for us to take time, and to think about what we're doing and to make sure that the word is out there to people that it is OK to be who you are. It's OK to vote no and to talk about it."

In disagreement were Council Members Pamela Schurman and Matt Lehman. They said that whatever their views on the amendment, they did not believe it was the city's role to make a determination on a state issue. The way people vote on the amendment is their personal choice, Schurman asserted.

The city council passed a motion to table indefinitely the marriage amendment resolutions with a 4-1 vote. Whiting gave the dissenting vote.