Jump to content

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

3/16ths, 4/16ths, 3/8ths, it doesn't matter, it's GONE...

Recommended Posts

That kind of stuff goes on ALL the time in congress, on all issues. Should be illegal, but doesn't seem to be. Hard to interpret or enforce if it was illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent Neuville an email expressing my disappointment attaching the gay thing on this bill. Almost a certainty that the bill wouldn't go thru with that attachment. Those that live in his district should email him letting him know he has lost some votes at the next election.

He could have attached it to a bill that I am interested in that he authored. It is a bill that will reform the marriage dissolution and child custody. Might make more sense to have attached it here instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone knows, but the dedicated funding for wildlife was killed in the Legislature late last week.


Sen. Tom Neuville, R-Northfield, offered the gay marriage amendment.

If you are living in Sen. Neuville's district PLEASE do not forget this next election!!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, I saw that in the newspaper too....politicians like him need to go. I don't see how the two issues should or would get lumped together?? We have some politicians that work for the people and some that are looking to make a name for themselves. Nav

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the most ridicules thing I have ever heard!!! I hope we have enough FMer's that can work towards removing this politician from office the next time he is up for election.

Just a note for anyone with an interest, you can find his email and ph. # at the capitol via a search engine!!


Link to comment
Share on other sites

How COULD the two issues get lumped together? I don't get it. There should be a law against doing that. I think that is just ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exact reason why so many dislike the who polical process. How could something so easy get that messed up?

I'm going to write this clown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone else get a responce to your email:

Here's the responce I got. Seems like tit-for-tat, passing the blame game. I'm still wondering what the definition of marriage or the arts has to do with sportsmen's issues.

Politics as usual both partys are good at it, leaving us high and dry.


If you want to play the "blame game" look to the author of the bill, who first
decided to encumber the environment bill with arts funding and then with
draw the bill - even when he had the votes to defeat my amendment.
Sportsmen should expect more from the author of this bill. My response to
this issue is below.

I can assure you, I am not tring to kill this bill.

Thanks for your email.


On April 29th, during the Senate Finance Committee hearing, I offered the
Definition of Marriage constitutional amendment to a bill authored by
Senator Dallas Sams. The underlying bill dealt with constitutionally
dedicating a portion of the sales tax to environmental, sportsmen, and arts

Senator Sams withdrew his bill before my amendment was even voted on.

The Star Tribune actually described Senator Sams’ move correctly. By
pulling his bill, Senator Sams did the legislative equivalent of “taking his bat
and going home.”

Senator Sams did not wait to see if my amendment would be approved before
he withdrew his bill. He did not even allow reasonable debate to occur on the
offered amendment. On April 28th, I moved in the Senate Rules Committee to
pull the Definition of Marriage bill to the Senate floor. Senate Democrats
adjourned the meeting rather than even vote on the motion. You can see the

The Senate Democrats are pulling out all the stops to avoid a substantive vote
on the Definition of Marriage bill. The fact the Senator Sams would pull his
bill before my amendment was even voted on, demonstrates several things:

*That Senator Sams is not truly committed to the underlying bill, which
has been proposed by sportsmen groups several years in a row. By
adding constitutionally dedicated arts funding to the bill, Senator
Sams made the bill so expensive that it may have difficulty passing.
The bill now takes $250 million per year from the state budget and

triples art spending, in the midst of a budget deficit.

*Senator Sams and other Senate Democrats simply don’t have the
courage to take a position on the definition of marriage. If the DFL
senators oppose my amendment, they had sufficient votes on the
committee to defeat it. If my amendment is adopted, it virtually
guarantees passage of S.F. 401 on the Senate floor.

*Senator Sams is playing politics with his bill. By adding dedicated arts
funding to the bill, he is attempting to entice more Democrats to the
polls this November. Hypocritically, Sams accuses Republicans of
trying to do the same thing by offering the definition of marriage
amendment to the bill. But, Sams is wrong; just as I support allowing
citizens to vote on constitutionally dedicated funding, I believe they
have a right to vote on the definition of marriage. Frankly, I don’t care
if that brings Republicans, Democrats, or independents to the polls.

The definition of marriage bill is one of the most important bills the
legislature will deal with this year. As far as I’m concerned, this bill
the cornerstone of our society and culture.

I have been a long time supporter of constitutionally dedicating a portion of
the sales tax for environmental and sportsmen purposes. The state has a
proprietary interest in protecting our game and fish, lakes and streams, parks
and trials. We own these assets and we have a fiduciary duty to preserve
them, even in times of recession. While I have also advocated for statutory
arts funding for museums, theaters, and cultural assets, I am hesitant to
mandate this voluntary support in the constitution. Arts funding is an
investment in our quality of life – however, it is not a constitutional, core
function of government. I support funding for natural resources and the arts,
but I believe this distinction is important.


Tom Neuville
State Senator

Metro Chapter IBOT #130
Clamping at Happy Hour

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still sounds like a load to me, even though he is trying to blame everyone else for his garbage add on! JMO!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"even when he had the votes to defeat my amendment"

But...WHY did he feel it was necessary to include that amendment? I'll tell you why - no politician wants to go on record with a YES or NO vote on the gay marriage issue so they bundle it up with other bills. Now they've killed a perfectly good bill that would have been good for Minnesota’s outdoors and they're still at a standstill with gay marriage. What was accomplished? NOTHING.

Politics...I shake my head.

[This message has been edited by nuts (edited 05-04-2004).]

[This message has been edited by nuts (edited 05-04-2004).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too just send an e-mail to him saying that was wrong to lump a gay marrige and a wildlife bill together. As a member of pheasants forever we pushed hard to get this bill passed. I do have a few choise words for Tom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone sent Sen. Sams an email voicing their concerns about attaching a cruddy amnd. to fund arts on an enviornmental bill? Both were wrong to attach amendments to this bill that was so important for enviormental funding. I say they (both Sams and Neuville) were wrong in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope he gets re-elected. What we need is more politicians like him that are willing to try to step up for what is right and not let the continual errosion of our society continue. I mean COME ON, gay marriage? Marriage is DEFINED as between a man and woman.

Now, I agree attaching it to this bill does not seem related, however, that is how laws are MADE! Things are included all the time and negotiated back and forth. The issue was not sown up either. The article clear states that it would have required a constitutional ammendment for either item. That is never a sure thing. Neither is this completely dead as the senate is still trying to look at it.

In the grand scheme of things .... a)some more funding for fish and wildlife b)protecting our society from decay and diluting the definition of marriage and family

hmmm seems to me b is a bit more important dontcha think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-In the grand scheme of things .... a)some more funding for fish and wildlife b)our state and local governments meddling in the personal lives of taxpaying United states Citizens.-

I think that polititions that play these games with our constitution, add a heck of a lot more "decay" to the the fabric of our society then two people who just want to be together ever would.

I would have to vote for a)

Big Island Dude

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would vote for a)

I've said this before, I'll say it again. We pay 1 billion dollars in licenses and other fees to hunt and fish, and only recieve 2.1 million in return. The rest is dumped into the black hole of the general fund, not the environment of DNR. This is why we need dedicated funding.

If the definition of marriage, and the right for gay/lesbian marriage is such an important issue, then why not have it as it's own issue?

If this is how laws are made, then the system is inherently flawed.

[This message has been edited by MT Net (edited 05-05-2004).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MT Net, I couldn't agree more. We need dedicated funding for our natural resources and gay marriage should be its own issue.

Focus on one thing at a time, make a decision and move on.

Get 'er done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops. that was weird.

[This message has been edited by little buddy (edited 05-05-2004).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.