Sign, Sign, Everywhere a Sign

By Cindy Gomez
Editor

The passage of a The Domestic Partner Registry (DPR) ordinance, an issue that seemed to be gaining so much steam, fizzled out quickly at the May 24 Moorhead City Council meeting. The council decided by a 5-3 vote to deny the passage of the DPR without giving the ordinance a second or third reading, while momentum was still building on the issue.

Mike Hintermeyer and Nancy Otto didn’t even deem it necessary to join the discussion, despite specific requests that they explain their support or opposition to the proposed ordinance. What seemed like a simple enough step to recognizing non-traditional relationships and families turned into a “queer” issue, an ordinance language issue, an issue of interpretation of faiths, an issue of big government interference, and an issue of jurisdiction. How did it all get so out of hand? 

If everyone agreed the DPR was not going to impose any requirements or economic burden on businesses, and no changes to the marriage laws, then how did the city council get so bogged down with all these other so-called “issues”? After watching the commission meeting (http://www.cityofmoorhead.com/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=317&doctype=AGENDA) we had more questions than answers.

Luther Stuland announced he could “divorce” himself (and fortunately he enjoys that privilege) from his religious beliefs about gays in order to vote fairly. But if his religion wasn’t going to sway him, why did he feel the need to bring it up? The need for a DPR extended to many different types of relationships, not just same-sex couples, making Stuland’s profession of faith sound disjointed. Did Stuland “protest too much?”

Tina Penn, a community member, spoke candidly about the plight of people on disability benefits who cannot marry because income requirements would cause them to lose their benefits. The loss of income would be financially unsustainable for many people,  in some cases forcing couples married for decades to divorce to keep getting benefits they desperately need to survive. Neither Stuland nor any of the other commissioners ever addressed this important community injustice.

Instead, among hazy explanations of fear of government intrusion on private life, Stuland stated the Moorhead HRC had not found any issues of human rights violations that would be corrected through the creation of the DPR, and therefore had no need for it. The statements showed a lack of understanding of the role of the Moorhead HRC, which has been given no authority to make such determinations and merely advises the city on human rights issues and policies; advice which a majority on city council chose to ignore. 

Diane Wray Williams, who urged the passage of the DPR because it is “the right thing to do,” aptly pointed out it was a rare occasion when the Moorhead Human Rights Commission works with the council to help pass an ordinance that is community-inclusive.

Yet the council missed the boat. Instead of building on the opportunity to partner with the HRC, the majority acted to end the relationship, even though they still had reservations and questions. Why not ask questions and vote later? Even better, why not ask the Moorhead Human Rights Commission or the Pride Collective, who worked tirelessly to provide the council with testimonials, research, and answers to their questions and concerns?

HPR’s own Joshua Boschee, who worked on behalf of the Pride Collective for the better part of a year to help pass the DPR, was surprised at the amount of “new” issues brought up by council members for the first time on May 24th. He said that to his knowledge, no one at the Moorhead HRC or the Pride Collective was ever contacted with regard to the “new issues” brought up by Elmer, Hunt or Stuland.

Way back in April, Mayor Voxland and several members of the council, including Luther Stuland, all publicly questioned the creation of the DPR, citing the “why us and not them” argument over jurisdiction between county and city. And indeed, the distaste for the DPR among the opposing council members and the mayor himself appeared to show, as Voxland admonished the audience for applauding and cheering after council member Lemke spoke in favor of the DPR, but forgot the same rules applied to the opposition when they applauded after the DPR was defeated.

The Moorhead Human Rights Commission voted to support the DPR. However, one of its members, Sel Nygard, who was reprimanded for using a racial slur during the last session of the Human Rights Commission and a “regular” at council meetings, waged a campaign to defeat the adoption of the DPR, and identified himself as a Human Rights Commissioner as he spoke against it, arguing that it violated his religious beliefs and had no useful purpose. Surprising that a member of a body entrusted with supporting human rights ran counter to that body who voted to support the DPR. Seems to us that individual should either leave the Moorhead HRC or should be asked to resign.

More interesting is the fact that one of the council members who voted against the passage of the DPR, Nancy Otto (and former Ward 1 Commissioner Dan Bohmer), recommended Sel Nygard to the Moorhead Human Rights Commission. Later on on Oct. 13, 2009, the entire city council simultaneously and unanimously approved all appointees recommended by all wards. Again, Otto chose not to say a word about why she voted “no,” but her recommendation of Sel Nygard raises many questions. Nygard’s current appointment runs until Jan. 31, 2012.

Although the opposition was small in numbers, their silent, invisible, and small-minded vocal minority seemed to curry more favor with a majority of the council members than the voices of the many who spoke and appeared supporting the passage of the DPR. 

Greg Lemke, who is also running for Minnesota House, gave no quarter to those on the council he saw as “passing the buck.” He pointed out in his passionate speech supporting the DPR that no one gave any tangible examples of the concerns voiced by the opposition.

Brenda Elmer, arguing that her only reason for opposing the DPR was a fear about the language in the ordinance, made no suggestion for changes in the language to resolve her concerns. The ordinance could have been tabled and new language proposed; perhaps by Elmer herself. In fact, several readings of ordinances (many receive three) frequently occur before a vote is taken.

Ironically, though many congratulations went out from supporters and council members for the open and civil discussion on the topic, the council belied their concern for public discourse, quickly moved to a vote and defeated the DPR without further research, language changes, discussion or testimony from the public.

Kudos to Lemke for trying to address the long list of excuses and thinly veiled bigotry used to oppose the DPR. He called it as he saw it and cut through the crap. Rather than give unfounded hypotheticals (like Elmer’s concern that due to unclear language, people from all over would come to Moorhead to use the DPR causing unneeded expense and stress on Moorhead city staff), Lemke gave concrete examples of how the DPR would help in situations of life and death or serious illness like the one he had suffered. He cited the research and information from testimony, the Moorhead HRC, and research materials provided to the entire council about the clear merits of the DPR to the community. He also dispelled the ridiculous fear that throngs of gay people would descend on Moorhead, pointing out states like Iowa, that already allow gay marriage.

“Inclusive”, and “welcoming” were terms tossed around by community members and opposing council members alike. But Lemke called them out by suggesting that signs promoting Moorhead as a welcoming community should be taken down if the DPR was not passed. At the time this story went to press, welcome signs had not yet been removed. We’ll keep watching and waiting. Moorhead city council either needs to read the writing on the signs, and honor it - or take them down!

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)