March 10, 2010 - Legislative Report #13

I spent about an hour sitting in the civil justice committee hearing this morning. One bill after another came before the committee, and each bill had a lobby group presenting testimony in support of the bill. No citizen gave public opinion on the bills presented for consideration.

The few Republicans on the committee presented a small opposition to several bills before the committee. The disappointing observation is that when they were opposed to a specific bill, they failed to even force a roll call vote on the bill. A roll call vote would at least put on record the vote position of all committee representatives.

Two especially troublesome bills,  HF 3134 introduced by Representative Frank Hornstein (DFL), District 60B, along with other DFL leaders, and HF 3086 introduced by Representative Paul Thissen (DFL), District 63A, along with  four other democrats, expanded domestic partner privileges across multiple aspects of life, making domestic partners equal with married couples. Included areas were medical services, end of life, court access, medical records access, wills, estates, marriage dissolution, and so on.

Additionally, the bill's definition of domestic partners now includes any;

(14) "Domestic partners" means two persons who:
2.28(i) are the same sex;
2.29(ii) are adults and mentally competent to enter into legally binding contracts;
2.30(iii) have assumed responsibility for each other's basic common welfare, financial
2.31obligations, and well-being;
2.32(iv) share a common domicile and primary residence with each other on a permanent
2.33basis;
2.34(v) have a committed interdependent relationship with each other, intend to continue
2.35 that relationship indefinitely, and do not have this type of relationship with any other
2.36 person;
3.1(vi) are not married to another person and have not entered into a domestic
3.2 partnership arrangement with another person that is currently in effect; and
3.3 (vii) are not related by blood or adoption so that a marriage between them would be
3.4 prohibited under section 517.03, subdivision 1, paragraph (a), clause (2) or (3).


HF 2899 also passed the committee today. That bill, designed to protect public access to government data and provide a more affordable recourse than a court, received an amendment from Education Minnesota. The amendment approved by the committee, exempted Education Minnesota data access from the bill and your liberty to gather data from education or schools.

Should this data access bill HF 2899 pass in the current form with the education exemption, no parents in Minnesota would have access to their minor children's school records, unless the school district approved.