More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Scott Wooledge

GET UPDATES FROM Scott Wooledge
 

Let's Vote on Minnesota Senate Republican Leader Amy Koch's Marriage! (POLL)

Posted: 12/20/11 02:44 PM ET

When the Republicans of Minnesota campaigned in the 2010 midterms, their top priority would be jobs and the economy, they told voters.

But after taking power, a funny thing happened. The self-described "socially conservative" Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch decided that what really needed to be done was rewriting the State Constitution to permanently enshrine discrimination in the laws of the North Star State.

Under Amy Koch's majority leadership, the Minnesota Senate voted to amend the Minnesota Constitution to declare that "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in Minnesota." Koch, of course, voted for the bill herself.

And so, the amendment, having cleared the state House and Senate, will move to the voters of Minnesota on Nov. 6, 2012, who will be asked to vote on whether their fellow citizens should be (further) forbidden by law to marry the person they love.

I don't remember voting on Amy Koch's marriage. Is it too late?

See, some news has surfaced that begs the question: should defenders of the sanctity of marriage consider voting Koch out of their sacred matrimonial club?

Amy Koch, a married mother of one, resigned her leadership position late last week. News reports say she was confronted by her Republican colleagues over an "inappropriate relationship" with one of her direct subordinates. The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported on the press conference:

[Interim Senate Majority Leader Geoff] Michel and other senators said they had heard from several staffers over the past two weeks that Koch was having a relationship with one of her direct subordinates. They said that when they confronted Koch on Wednesday night, she didn't admit to the relationship or deny it.

"Her response to the conversation was ... 'I think I need to consider resigning,'" said Assistant Senate Majority Leader David Hann, R-Eden Prairie.

The GOP caucus members declined to name the staffer in question. Within hours it was announced that Michael Brodkorb, Koch's communications chief, was no longer employed as a Senate staffer. That could just be a coincidence, I'm sure.

Turns out Koch could be in more trouble than just losing her job. Did you know the act of adultery is still a crime in Minnesota? Statute 609.36 reads:

Adultery.

Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both.

Democratic Senator Ellen Anderson thought policing the private sex lives of citizens was perhaps not in the state's best interest and made an effort to repeal the law in 2010.

But the usual staunch defenders of marriage objected. Tom Pritchard and his organization, the Minnesota Family Council (MFC), have long been out front and center trying to protect marriage from the gays. (Pritchard also famously suggested that kids bullied to death were asking for it.)

In 2010 USA Today reported Pritchard was not only opposing repeal of the adultery law but calling for it to be strengthened: "Tom Prichard, MFC's president, said these laws are essential because 'they send a message. ... When you are dealing with a marriage, it's not just a private activity or a private institution. It's a very public institution. It has enormous consequences for the rest of society.'"

I have full confidence we can now expect Tom Pritchard to call upon the state to conduct a thorough investigation if the law of Minnesota has been violated. Enforcing the adultery statute vigorously will send an important message, after all. The "consequences" of letting scofflaws go unpunished are "enormous" to "the rest of society," I am told. The fate of marriage and society hangs in the balance.

Perhaps punishment for adultery should even be harsher. An even stronger message would be sent if the law, rather than just a $3,000 fine or a year in jail, actually forcibly annulled the marriage and the adulterers were barred for life from remarrying. It's a good way to ensure only the pure can participate in the institution, keeping it as solemn and traditional as possible.

I propose that the State immediately annul the marriages of any couple who has been found to have violated the sacred vow they made to God "to forsake all others." Only when people learn that they will pay the ultimate price of dissolution of their marriage will they regard the hallowed institution of marriage with the true reverence it deserves.

It might have helped Senate Majority Leader Koch.

Amy Koch's own marriage would have been better off had she spent less of her time worrying about the gays defiling its sanctity and more time at home, practicing her family values, with her own family.

So I ask, dear reader:

Quick Poll

Should Amy Koch be allowed to be married?

VOTE

 

Follow Scott Wooledge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Clarknt67

When the Republicans of Minnesota campaigned in the 2010 midterms, their top priority would be jobs and the economy, they told voters. But after taking power, a funny thing happened. The self-describ...
When the Republicans of Minnesota campaigned in the 2010 midterms, their top priority would be jobs and the economy, they told voters. But after taking power, a funny thing happened. The self-describ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 259
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
photo
bethechangeok
prefer alcohol
02:11 PM on 12/24/2011
This is all very odd to me...it's really none of my business what she is doing in her personal relationships. I'm more interested in her behavior as a member of the State legislative body, does she have business ties to companies that are advocating legislation...Of course you make enemies in that business...I think it's unfortunate. Fair game...but I would never have gone there...yeah, I mean Minnesota...ha sorry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Priestess of Ryleh
02:17 PM on 12/23/2011
curious, in the current political climate that she dropped "jobs and the economy" and instead focused on a push to further burden a already disenfranchised group.

but then again, what do we really expect from her? she sold her office long ago.
09:24 AM on 12/23/2011
Facebook page of the victim (guy who had to sleep with her).

Aside from being a proud husband and father, Michael is an unabashed pro-life, pro-family, pro-2nd Amendment, anti-tax and spend, lifelong platform Republican. Michael pledges to be a fearless conservative voice for our party who will challenge Democrats head to head. Michael's goal is very clear: he wants to build our party and win elections!

There. Now I have to get back to my war on Christmas.
05:50 AM on 12/23/2011
Very well written...
02:59 AM on 12/23/2011
This story hits home with me today. I called a very good friend, Michael, who had sent me a Xmas card. I didn't send cards this year but wanted him to know I appreciated his. Michael told me in our very long phone conversation today that he and his partner, who are legally married in another state, Jim, had been together for 29 years. Longer than I have been married. I fail to see how their committed relationship has done a thing to hurt my marriage. But, then, there is Kim Kardashion who spends thousands on a lavish wedding on TV to Kris Hummings and then asks for a divorce 72 days later. How is that not a mockery on marriage? And, to think, when Kris took the court this past week with his basketball team, HE was the one who was booed. WTH?
11:11 AM on 12/23/2011
Thousands? Try millions (about 10, to be exact).
10:53 PM on 12/22/2011
O Republicans, republicans, you just cant help to be vicious hypocrites. And so insecure in your supposedly "loving" relationships" that you need medieval laws to keep yourselves from betraying the ones you swore to love.
09:52 PM on 12/22/2011
Amy Koch is quoted in the morning Minneapolis paper as saying that she didn't break any laws. IOKIYAR?

"Turns out Koch could be in more trouble than just losing her job. Did you know the act of adultery is still a crime in Minnesota? Statute 609.36 reads:

Adultery.

Subdivision 1. Acts constituting. When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both."
photo
splashy
Really?!?!!!
02:06 AM on 12/29/2011
Notice it only says "woman" and never mentions men? Guess it's not illegal if you are a man.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JohnInDallas
John R. Selig - Writer, Photographer & Podcaster
08:15 PM on 12/22/2011
Let her be married but remove all the 1,140 federal benefits that LGBT couples who are married don't have!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
talkstocoyotes
09:00 AM on 12/23/2011
Yes, I'm such a sweet, tolerant person that I'm willing to make a big concession and let her call her relationship a "civil union." But "marriage"? NO WAY !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
goodgravy
07:49 PM on 12/22/2011
i don't like people voting on my right to marry so i won't vote on hers.
06:34 PM on 12/22/2011
I guess I know which state to stay away from. I am currently divorced, but who knows who I may fall in love with or marry for convenience - I'm 63 and don't like living alone.
06:30 PM on 12/22/2011
Any person of legal age to marry, should be allowed to marry any person of legal age to do so. Parts don't make a marriage, love and trust and committment make a marriage.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CateManhattan
Common sense is way too uncommon.
05:47 PM on 12/22/2011
Publishing the bans. Whosoever believes that this man and this woman should not be joined in marriage, speak now or forever hold your peace.
06:42 PM on 12/22/2011
Even when I married in 1970, over 40 years ago, this phrase was not part of my wedding. Publishing the bans originally came from the pre-Christian religions and, depending on the village, were posted a specific amount of time before the wedding could occur, very often a year and a day. If they are said at the wedding there is no time for contemplation, reasoning and making sure the bride is not pregnant all ready
CognitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum was taken when I signed up.
02:32 AM on 12/23/2011
My understanding is that the bans were published to ensure that the bride and groom weren't brother and sister. After all, back in the day, if children in a family were orphaned, they might well have found themselves split up among different guardians and lost contact with each other, only to meet later and not recognize that they were siblings.
05:32 PM on 12/22/2011
What a wonderful story! Committing adultery while trying to protect the sanctity of marriage. I love this kind of stuff!
05:09 PM on 12/22/2011
She, more than any gay couple I know, has debased the institution of marriage, so, by her own standards, she should be denied the right to marry.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eztempo
04:38 PM on 12/22/2011
As a mouthpiece for the Christian Values crowd, maybe the more appropriate poll would be based on Bible verse:
Leviticus 20:10 -- "And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Anyone?
photo
katie2673
Facts and faith are two separate concepts.
06:08 PM on 12/22/2011
Don't you think killing is a bit strong for this type of problem? Are you a closet Muslim by chance? I know that they believe in the honor killing thing.
06:43 PM on 12/22/2011
The quote above is from the Bible, First Testament. You should know that.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Olaugh
If you are sure, you've stopped listening.
07:02 PM on 12/22/2011
Let us set aside for a moment your bigoted and xenophobic comment concerning Islam and instead turn to the issue of the basis for most of the anti-gay marriage push by conservatives.  They base their position on the Bible because they view the Bible as an infallible expression of God's will which must be interpreted literally.  If we are to view the Bible in this way, then how can we justify not executing adulterers or even disobedient children.  The only alternative is to admit that the Bible is not a reasonable basis for laws in a civil society.