Skip to Content

Key anti-gay marriage legislators are divorced

MORNING EDITION

Shades of those who prosecuted Bill Clinton … Andy Birkey of the Minnesota Independent says: “According to a name, date of birth, and city search in publicly available Minnesota court records, Sen. Pam Wolf, R-Spring Lake Park, was divorced in 2000. She’s a sponsor of the Senate version of the bill that proposes a constitutional ban on gay marriage and voted to pass the bill in the Senate last week. Alexandria Republican Rep. Mary Franson’s divorce earlier this year was reported on a liberal website, and records with the Minnesota court system match the name listed as her husband’s on her legislator biography page. She’s a sponsor of the House version of the bill. Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, was divorced in 1994. In his first bid for office, the DFL attacked him when he tried to get his child support order reduced. He’s a sponsor of the House version of the bill. The campaign website of Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, notes his divorce. He’s not a sponsor of the anti-gay marriage amendment, but he was in the last session. Court records matched the name, date of birth and city of Rep. Doug Wardlow, R-Eagan, for a divorce in 2005. In a roll call vote in the House Civil Law Commitee, Wardlow voted in favor of the amendment. Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, is legally separated from his wife, which was revealed last November when he was stopped by the police in a Planned Parenthood parking lot with a gun in his vehicle looking for a woman he found on the Internet. He was among the Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee that passed the amendment by a voice vote. Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Fairmont, is listed as divorced on her legislator biography page. Her divorce occurred in 2010, years after she voted to force a marriage amendment bill out of committee and onto the floor in 2006.” And it goes on ...


But if gay marriage is about the only thing through the grinder this session, you might as well get out and make some noise about that. Mark Sommerhauser of the St. Cloud Times reports on the ruckuses at the Capitol yesterday: “[G]roups opposing the amendment expected a House vote on it today. Shortly after the House went into session this afternoon, [GOP Rep. Steve] Gottwalt said he’s waiting for word from House leaders on when members will vote on the amendment. ... marriage-amendment demonstrators thronged outside the House chamber, with opponents’ chants of ‘Just vote no!’ audible inside the chamber. Gottwalt said the timing of a House vote on the amendment won’t be affected by the protesters. He also pointed to the fact that the House recently finished passing a series of bills to set the state’s next budget. ‘We’re not hiding (the marriage amendment),' Gottwalt said. ‘We did say we’d get other work done first, and we are. The last thing we’ll do is this.” There’s Biblical scripture about when the first were made last, right?

Don’t read this if you’re in denial about real estate prices. Jim Buchta of the Strib writes: “Even parts of greater Minnesota that seemed to be weathering the real estate storm showed signs of trouble during April, according to a statewide report from the Minnesota Association of Realtors. It said that the median sale price of all closed sales during the month was down 12 percent, only slightly better than price declines in the 7-county Twin Cities metro area. During previous months, several of the 12 economic development regions showed signs of strength. Not so this time. Only one of the 12 regions showed an increase in the median sale price and that was probably the result of a statistical anomaly. The Headwaters region, a narrow slice of north-central Minnesota that's best known for its lakes and cabins, posted a 23 percent increase in sale prices, most of which was probably the result of a relatively small sample size easily impacted by just a few high-priced listings.”

I’m sure it’s just my imagination, but do the Vikings have more interaction with law enforcement than any other local team? Liz Collin of WCCO-TV broke the story of Vikes coach Karl Dunbar: “A restraining order has been filed against Karl Dunbar, who has been coaching with the Vikings for the last five seasons. But, Dunbar’s attorney said Wednesday there are two sides to the allegations. Paperwork was filed Tuesday in Scott County by a woman asking for Dunbar to stay off of her property. The woman said Dunbar has shown up at her home twice since a sexual assault in April. She said in the paperwork she is ‘afraid of retribution and unsure of his behavior.’ ”

Speaking of … Vikings player Ray Edwards’ abstinence training may at least keep him out similar trouble. The Hollywood gossip site TMZ reports: “6'5", 270 lb Edwards is scheduled to fight TJ Gibson at the Grand Casino in Minnesota ... and he isn't taking any chances — telling TMZ, ‘I have not had sex in the past six weeks and will not until after the fight.’ Edwards explains, ‘No real boxer should have sex before a fight ... it affects your legs.' " Hey, you learn something new every day.

At least Gov. Scott Walker and the Wisconsin GOP are delivering on their promises to create jobs … oh, wait. Wisconsin Politics writes: “The bill requiring voters to show a photo ID in order to vote ... is on its way to Gov. Scott Walker. The Senate passed the bill on a 19-5 vote. The Republican majority limited debate today to one hour over the objection of Dems. The body debated amendments to the bill for more than nine hours on Tuesday and Wednesday. ‘This bill has received a great deal of debate, not only in this body but around the state,’ Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald said, noting that it has been subject to public hearings and has already been passed by legislative committees and the Assembly. ‘If I were the Republicans I would put a 30-second limit on debate because I wouldn't want to talk about this either,’ Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, said. Republicans followed through with their plan for an 11 a.m. vote, cutting off Dem Sen. Fred Risser's floor comments. When the vote was finished, only five Dem votes were on the record and protesters in the gallery shouted ‘shame, shame, shame’ at the Republicans, a refrain that has become familiar over the last few tumultuous months in Madison.”

Remember that butt-ugly fish that was in the news a month ago? The Asian carp? Well, money to stop the thing from clogging up area lakes has been whacked from the budget. John Myers of the Duluth News-Tribune reports: “A move by the Minnesota House Ways and Means Committee eliminating funding for a carp-stopping dam at Coon Rapids on the Mississippi River has drawn sharp criticism from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. The suburban Minneapolis dam was set to be refurbished under a $16 million project ... designed to stop the northward movement of Asian carp, one of the most troublesome invasive species moving into Minnesota waters. The Republican-controlled committee cut the dam project out of the construction-bonding bill Wednesday night, with no public input.” The public doesn’t need to get all worked up about ugly fish. The public needs to worry whether the gay guys next door are getting married.

They should play Wagner as they fly in. Bill McAuliffe of the Strib writes: “Weather permitting, residents in parts of the metro area will be awakened next week by low-flying helicopters engaging in this year's first aerial spraying for gypsy moths. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture operation said Thursday that it plans to spray 1,500 acres in Hennepin, Anoka and Washington Counties, where infestations of gypsy moths were detected last fall.” Maybe they spray the Capitol for slugs?

Timothy Taylor, editor of the Macalester-based Journal of Economic Perspectives, serves a guest commentary in the Strib on the concept of “taxing the rich.” It’s good grist for any way you want to argue. “I'm not a no-new-taxes absolutist. I won't weep into my pillow if those with high incomes pay more taxes. However, taxation of high incomes shouldn't be viewed as a morality play about fairness, but instead as a matter of context and practicality. Those who support raising state taxes on the rich often start by pointing out that the highest-income Minnesotans pay a lower share of their income in state and local taxes than those further down the income scale. For example, a March 2011 report from Minnesota's Department of Revenue shows that Minnesota households with incomes from about $16,000 up to about $129,000 pay on average about 12 percent of income in state and local taxes. However, the top 5 percent of households, with incomes above $182,000, pay 10 percent of income in state and local taxes. The top 1 percent, with household incomes above $429,000, pay 9.7 percent of income in state and local taxes. But interpreting whether this outcome is ‘fair’ is far from straightforward."

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Comments (14)

I can't help but congratulate our Republican Legislators on the way they're remaining faithful to their "principles"...

(even if those principles are based on their dysfonic worldview which makes everything that does not fit their ideology invisible or incomprehensible to them).

But I'm wondering if they hear that loud BANG each time they nail down one of their "principled" bills and send it to the governor.

I suppose not since noticing that noise is excluded by their very limited perspective.

Let me just interpret that loud BANG for them: It's the sound of another nail being driven into the coffin of the Republican Party in Minnesota.

Listen more carefully and I'm sure you'll be able to hear at least a small "pop."

It's too bad they don't realize that it is the nature of dysfonic people such as themselves to engineer their own demise (figuratively speaking, of course).

Regarding the median real estate values being skewed by a few very large sales, no it wouldn't be, and that's why the results are reported using medians instead of averages.

Congratulations Brian on your plethora of pro-gay remarks scattered through today's Glean...we get your stance...don't beat it to death!!!

I fail to see the relevance of the divorced legislators on the anti-gay marriage side?
Can you do an equal opportunity comment on how many divorced legislators there are on the Pro-Gay marriage side???

Perhaps one's marital state can also determine
one's vote on the Viking's new stadium???
Or one's stance on Tim pawlenty's presidential run...

Actually Brien...I love your stuff...a little heavy-handed today however...

Seems to me that it becomes fair game to make a campaign issue out of the divorce of any legislator who votes in favor of banning gay marriage. If marriage morality is to be judged in the public sphere for some, then let's judge it in the public square for all.

Greg (#3), I can't believe this really needs explaining, but the relevance is this: Gay marriage opponents often cite the "sanctity of marriage" in support of their position. For many of these legislators, there doesn't seem to have been much sanctity in their own marriages. Its hypocritical to judge other peoples' marriages when they don't take marriage seriously themselves. Think about national gay marriage opponents. Does a guy like Newt Gingrich, who has been married three times and cheated on both former wives, have standing to oppose gay marriage? Is it fair that he can cheat on his wives and get remarried to other women as many times as he wants, but monogamous gay couples can't marry? Is that really upholding the sanctity of marriage?

In case the point hasn't sunk in, to answer your other questions, yes there are certainly divoced gay marriage supporters. But the point here isn't to judge people on their divorces, its to point out their hypocricy in judging other marriages when own their marriages failed. The fact that DFL reps got divorced is irrelvant because they aren't trying to stop other people from getting married.

@Greg: Here's the relevance you've missed: Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus condemn homosexuality (and it is the New Testament that gives Christianity its, uh, Christianity). However, Jesus speaks very forcibly against divorce and adultery in His "Sermon On The Mount."

Greg, a key "argument" on the anti-gay side is that we must prohibit marriage equality in order to "protect" marriage. Divorce, and its availability is a greater threat to marriage than allowing committed same sex partners to marry.

Seems relevant to me.

Absolutely it's fair to analyze the marital status of those that have pushed the banning of marriage for some. It is very relevant, particularly in light of the "reasons" for banning gay marriage: family stability (I'd say that divorce is pretty damaging), morality (divorce is ok, but gay marriage is not?), expense (providing marriage benefits to gays would stress employers, because divorce is cheap, right?), etc.

We should not be afraid to call out hypocrisy and bad behavior in our "leaders."

Really Greg? You don't see the relevance of pointing out the 'de-married' status of people supporting yet another version of "defense of marriage"?

There is so much else from my point of view that the legislature is doing wrong.Look at the bonding bill cut that puts the environment at risk.

Just the starting of the blame game.

Re: Income Taxes ... Please! Everyone must SOMEHOW pay the same amount of income taxes! Why not level the field? Why should the uber-wealthy get a BREAK? I certainly have no clue! Do they deserve special treatment? I doubt it! They are the group most able to afford to pay the SAME RATE as the people who make $16K. If there were a leveling of the rates for everyone, I doubt that the folks at the top would go broke as a result! They might do some complaining, but honestly, are they going to lose their homes if they have to pay another 2.2% to join the folks at the bottom of the spectrum? A Flat Tax Rate is needed please, across the board.

I wonder if anyone has considered the possibility that an anti-gay marriage ammemdment might simply be bad for business.
Certainly a homosexual business owner would think twice about locating in a state where gay marriage was constitutionally banned. Also as more corporations are becoming pro-gay (as well as the public in general), such an ammendment might reflect negatively on the business climate in Minnesota.

Some years ago (four, five?), Michelle Bachmann stated on some kind of TV program/news report that if "they" were allowed to marry, "they" would be getting the same legal benefits that "we" do -- thereby leaving less for "us."

How sacred is that.

Bri, you've darn near jumped the shark with the divorce records.

Really?

I fail to understand how this information could have ANY relevance on reserving the definition of marriage as that between one man and one woman.

Nor, I note, do you include any explanation as to how it does.

I do see that the Strib has gone to full "sobbing proponent mode" (SobCon4 I call it) with their daily photo selections.....