Byline: Paul Levy; Staff Writer
Grand Rapids, Minn. -- With a rainbow-colored flag as her backdrop, Persian Gulf veteran Nancy Evers stood Friday on a street corner, facing dozens of signs and buttons declaring, 'Defend Marriage.'
A painter from Minneapolis who is gay, Evers, 41, held her own sign, trying to defend a freedom that she feared members of the Minnesota Legislature were attempting to take away.
'Why must they mess with the Constitution?' Evers' sign asked as passersby jeered and cheered. A few hours later, the House Civil Law and Elections Committee approved a bill that would allow voters to decide in 2006 whether marriage in Minnesota should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.
As expected, the vote was along party lines: seven Republicans in favor, five DFLers against.
'Interracial and interfaith marriages were hard for some people to accept, but we've moved on,' Evers said. 'We [the gay community] are no different than anyone else. This is just an issue that will further divide Minnesota.'
The emotions outside the Reif Auditorium at Grand Rapids High School, where the vote was held, were evident well before the four-hour hearing began. About 650 people filled the auditorium to listen and to react, with dozens more outside.
Shannon Maul, 25, of Bigfork, Minn., wore a 'Defend Marriage' button on her lapel and a white brooch with the Virgin Mary and Baby Jesus on her blouse. The single woman came to Grand Rapids because she's 'excited about supporting traditional marriage.'
Wally Peck, 58, a retired teacher, came from Bemidji because 'we're opposed to any amendment that restricts the rights of individuals.' He said he has two children, one straight and one gay.
'We want our gay child to have the same rights,' Cathy Peck, his wife, said.
Folks traveled far
For every Susan Durocher, 20, a single woman from Cohasset who wore a 'Defend Marriage' button because, she said, 'God knows what's best for us,' there was a Kristin Warfield, 35, gay, from St. Paul, who said supporting the amendment is 'hateful.'
'This is an issue that divides us,' said Rep. Nora Slawik, DFL-Maplewood. 'It pits us against each other. It pits neighbors against each other.'
Ministers of various stripes spoke on both sides of the issue. The Rev. Dan Domke, of the Lutheran church's more conservative Missouri Synod, spoke in favor of the ban.
'Without marriage, we lose families and we lose communities,' he said.
Slawik and other DFLers talked about other issues - health care, meth problems in rural Minnesota, employment and housing - and asked why this issue should command so much time and emotion.
But the bill, sponsored by Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, is bound to inspire strong reactions whether the state Senate passes it or not. The Senate, which rejected it before, must pass it before it can go before voters next year.
Minnesotans came from all over the state to Grand Rapids, about 200 miles north of the Twin Cities and the birthplace of Judy Garland, long a gay icon.
Some advocates of gay rights who couldn't get tickets for the hearing said they were satisfied just being in town and watching the hearing on television with members of OutFront Minnesota at the Sawmill Inn, two miles away.
'We're here because we want people to know that this is a statewide issue,' said George Kelley, 42, of East Grand Forks, who arrived with partner Paul Holje, 30. 'It's appropriate to be here, in rural Minnesota.'
Several Republican committee members talked about 'activist judges' who might allow gays to marry in Minnesota, regardless of the way the law is phrased.
'The bill is meant to keep judicial tyranny out of the state of Minnesota,' Severson said.
'Who are the activist judges we're talking about?' Rep. John Lesch, DFL-St. Paul, asked.
Some Democrats wondered why the committee was meeting in Grand Rapids. Johnson, the chairman, talked about the advantages of taking issues to rural Minnesota, where other constituents could voice their opinions.
DFLers said Johnson, a candidate for attorney general, had political motives for coming to northern Minnesota.
'We're wasting time and money, where the vote is a foregone conclusion,' said Slawik, who suggested that the amendment could cost the state $200,000.
Severson said the cost to the secretary of state would be closer to $2,000. 'My son is gay, so I came here from Minneapolis,' Al Bertke said. 'We were told there would be thousands [of people] here against gays and for this bill. There weren't thousands. The support seems pretty equal.
'No matter what happens, this won't go away.'
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Paul Levy is at plevy@startribune.com.
