The legislation passed the Michigan Senate — which has a supermajority of Republicans — last week. Gov. Rick Snyder, also a Republican, has called on the legislature to pass the bills by the end of the year.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on the case brought by states — including Michigan — about the constitutionality of the law passed nearly two years ago. A ruling is expected in the summer of 2012, in the heat of the race for president.

Last December, the FCC implemented rules that limited the establishment a “fast-lane” by internet service provides available to those with the highest bid. Under the rules laid out in December by the FCC, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

That rule takes effect on Nov. 20, but House and Senate Republicans have pushed to have that rule withdrawn through legislative means. The House already passed the bill, and Senate Republicans are pushing a similar one as the deadline approaches. They are using a procedural gimmick in the Senate to force a floor vote without the option of a filibuster.

Republicans have put the issue into a resolution that simply reads that the FCC rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Franken penned an column explaining what he feels will be the result if Senate Republicans are successful.

“While millions of Americans have become familiar with the concept of net neutrality, it’s important that we’re all on the same page,” Franken wrote. “Net neutrality isn’t a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged. It isn’t even a change from what we have now. Net neutrality has been in place since the very beginning of the Internet.”

He added, “But many Republicans want to change that so that the large corporations they represent can increase their profit margins at the expense of small businesses and consumers.”

Franken has been a champion of net neutrality since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008.

But he also felt the net neutrality rules created by the FCC weren’t strong enough.

“The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications and devices,” Franken said in December. “Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

The Obama administration pushed back on Tuesday as well, indicating to Senate Republicans that a veto any bill that weakened net neutrality would be likely.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy—an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Today more than ever, the open Internet is essential to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness,” the White House said on Tuesday. “If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.”

Paradoxically, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the author of the rules repeal, says her bill would encourage an open and free internet.

“The Internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector. It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing,” Hutchison said in a statement on Tuesday. “More regulation of the Internet is going to stop the investments, it’s going to stop the creativity — and put our businesses and our providers at a competitive disadvantage with Europeans and others that have kept their Internet free of over-regulation.”

Franken spoke of several recent suicides of LGBT students around the country, including Justin Aaberg who attended the Anoka-Hennepin School District.

“Our federal laws say you cannot discriminate based on religion, race, sex, disability or national origin, but they do not explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex orientation or gender identity,” Franken told the committee. “We are faced with a a group of students that is facing pervasive systemic discrimination. They are being viciously harassed and bullied, they are dropping out of school, staying home from school and they are literally killing themselves. Our schools aren’t doing enough to stop it.”

Franken said he was disappointed that the amendment wouldn’t be added to the No Child Left Behind bill but that he would press to have it included when the full Senate takes up the bill.

“I would like to make it clear that if it came up for a vote, it would pass by bipartisan support,” he said.

Here are Franken’s remarks during the committee meeting on Thursday:

Politics in Minnesota’s Paul Demko notes that MCCL President Leo LaLonde went after House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, both of whom are Republicans. The letter notes that MCCL’s finances are at an all-time low.

“I am going to be brutally honest,” LaLonde wrote. “I am devastated by the fact that not only were we unsuccessful in enacting any new pro-life laws this session, but we lost an existing pro-life policy for the first time since Roe V. Wade legalized abortion on demand!”

LaLonde criticized Republicans for the group’s legislative failures.

“[We] felt confident that House and Senate leaders would insist that at least some of our protective measures would be included in the final budget,” he said. “Senate Majority Leader Koch and Speaker of the House Zellers quickly struck a deal with Gov. Dayton, and in the blink of an eye all five pro-life measures that has been passed by nearly two-thirds, veto-proof margin during the legislative session were negotiated away.”

He added, “The Republican leaders lost sight of what is truly at stake—the lives of innocent human beings.”

The letter asked supporters for donations because MCCL is struggling financially.

“The uncertainty of the economy has not been kind to MCCL. Donations are down,” the letter reads. MCCL also said that they spent a lot of money in the 2011 legislative session: ”Our coffers are at an all-time low-will you help us?”

The Defense of Marriage Act passed into law in 1996. Walz is the latest lawmaker to sponsor the repeal effort in the House, bringing the number up to 122 representatives. U.S. Rep. Jerrold Nadler of New York said the bill has been offered every year, but that this year it has gathered the greatest number of sponsors in its history.

Reps. Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum are original sponsors of the Respect for Marriage Act which was introduced in March. Sen. Al Franken is an original sponsor in the Senate, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar joined him this summer. Rep. Collin Peterson is the only DFLer in Minnesota’s delegation that hasn’t signed the repeal.

“Getting married to my wife Gwen and building our life together was the best thing that ever happened to me,” Walz said in a statement. “I simply cannot imagine why we would want to ban our fellow Americans from that commitment. Martin Luther King Jr. once said ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ I believe that arc is getting shorter and I look forward to a day in my lifetime when Americans are not discriminated on based on who they love.”

The repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act would ensure that same-sex couples who have been legally married in the United States would have access to federal benefits such as social security, file jointly on tax forms and enjoy less onerous immigration requirements for binational couples.

Same-sex couples can legally mary in Iowa, New York, Massachusetts, District of Columbia, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Connecticut, and the sovereign nations of the Coquille and Suquamish. In addition, couples married in California prior to the passing of Proposition 8 in 2008 hold valid marriage licenses in that state.

“As the march toward full equality for LGBT Americans is seeing some real, concrete progress, the movement to repeal DOMA is steadily growing stronger and more robust,” Nadler said of the 122 sponsors. “The coalition working for LGBT rights in the Congress and the nation as a whole is larger than ever before, and we gain new allies every day. And, just this year, New York State enacted marriage equality, hammering one more nail into the coffin of bigotry and discrimination against gays and lesbians. Dumping DOMA is simply not a question of if, but when.”

The bill’s House sponsor, state Rep. Kelli Stargel, R-Lakeland, is not only an anti-abortion rights advocate, she’s also the wife of Circuit Court Judge John Stargel. #

Judge Stargel is among a number of judges to whom young women can appeal in order to get a waiver for a parental notification needed to obtain an abortion. In short, Stargel’s wife sponsored legislation this year that directly affects how he does his day-to-day work. #

Like his wife, Judge Stargel once dabbled in politics, serving as state Representative in Florida for four years starting in 2002. #

During his time as a representative, Judge Stargel took on the issue of judicial bypasses for minors seeking an abortion very publicly. #

According to a 2006 Life News article, Stargel has long been interested in giving judges less latitude in granting parental-notification waivers, as well as more time in granting them. #

From the article: #

Rep. John Stargel, a Lakeland Republican says the “girl’s best interest” standard the law uses is too vague and is allowing judges to grant any abortion requests… #

“It leaves it wide open for the judge to make the determination that any negative consequence to the minor eliminates the parents’ right to know under the Florida Constitution,” Stargel said. #

Stargel will propose legislation that will give judges more time to thoroughly review each case — moving it from 48 hours to seven days. He also wants to make sure the provision applies only to girls who face personal harm from telling their parents. #

His wife’s bill addresses the very issues that Judge Stargel attempted to confront during his time as a legislator. HB 1247, which is set to become law, would give judges more time to rule on a petition. Some have even argued that the delays could extend the process up to three weeks. #

The new law would also require judges to “ask questions of the applicant that determine if she ‘has the ability to assess both the immediate and long-range consequences of [her] choices.’” #

A separate article in Life News, also from 2006, pointed out that Judge Stargel disliked an earlier version of the parental notification law, which gave young women options when seeking a judge for a petition. #

According to the article, Stargel introduced a measure that would tighten up judicial bypass requirements, effectively halting the practice of “judge-shopping,” or going to other parts of the state in an effort to get a case heard by a pro-abortion-rights judge. #

Rep. Kelli Stargel’s bill addresses this issue, too. If the law passes, young women will be restricted to only the district court in which they reside, a provision that legislators on both sides of the aisle and abortion-rights advocates see as an infringement on a woman’s privacy. #

The ethics of the connection between Rep. Stargel and her husband’s job as a judge are not entirely clear. #

According to Bob Jarvis, a legal ethics professor at Nova Southeastern University’s law school, the only way that any impropriety on Judge Stargel’s behalf could be addressed is if a lawyer helping a young girl seeking a judicial bypass claims this connection as “a clear bias” and fights for Stargel to recuse himself. #

Says Jarvis, “It’s a long shot, though.” #

Jarvis explains that, to determine impropriety in the judicial system, bias would have to be proven, which is not always an easy feat. #

“What a lawyer would have to answer is, ‘Does this judge have a closed mind? Is there any evidence available of this?’” #

While a clear bias as a judge might be hard to prove, Judge Stargel did embroil himself in abortion-rights issues as a legislator. #

In 2005, he supported a decision made by Florida’s Department of Children and Families to block a 13 year-old girl living in shelters from receiving an abortion. #

But as a judge, Stargel is no longer able to voice his opinions as publicly. #

Opinions of Stargel’s performance as a judge vary widely across the board. In judges surveys, remarks have ranged from “works hard, studies the issues, gives everyone a fair chance,” to “confidence exceeds his competence” and even “smug, pompous, makes law from the bench, disregards established law.” #

Kelli Stargel, however, remains outspoken about her views on abortion as a legislator. #

A story in the Lakeland Ledger described how she and Judge Stargel dealt with an unplanned pregnancy early on in their relationship. Kelli was 17 years old when she got pregnant. She and John decided to keep the baby and marry. The couple now has four children. #

“God created that baby,” she told The Ledger. “We had some tough times. We had two kids and John was in law school, I look back and wonder how we did it sometimes. But we did it.” #

The article also notes that Stargel formerly worked at a crisis pregnancy center. In Florida, these state-funded clinics that discourage women from having abortions have been found to distribute misinformation about abortions. #

While it is likely that Florida’s governor will sign H.B. 1247 into law, the ACLU of Florida has already begun looking into whether or not it will challenge the legislation. Other groups, such as the Florida Association of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, have also expressed opposition to the law. #

DFLers pleaded with Republicans on the committee.

“The founding fathers warned against tyranny of majority,” said Rep. Kathy Brynaert, DFL-Mankato. “Don’t do this.”

Rep. Kate Knuth, DFL-New Brighton, said. “Why take away rights in our constitution? Why tear the people of our state apart?”

She added, “It makes me physically ill to think of the division we’ll see.”

Rep. Carolyn Laine, DFL-Columbia Heights, said, “Clearly this isn’t about the sanctity of marriage; it’s about discrimination.”

As the roll call was being taken, several protesters shouted “Shame!” and “You are damaging my life and my family!” One was dragged from the committee room.

According to OutFront Minnesota, five Republicans would need to vote with the DFL to defeat the amendment in the House. Along with Rep. Tim Kelly who voted against the amendment in the committee, Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, has said he will vote against it on the House floor.

The House will need to take the bill up before Monday, which is the last day of the session. The Senate has already passed the amendment, and if the House approves the measure, it will be on the ballot in 2012.

“I’m really not in tune with the whole marriage amendment discussion and really don’t think we should be dealing with that right now,” he told the Bulletin.

While McNamara voted for the marriage amendment in 2005, he told the paper, “I wouldn’t make an assumption that something I did five years ago would not change.”

McNamara represents Hastings, which borders on the district represented by Rep. John Kriesel, the Republican who recently said he would not vote for the amendment.

“John’s pretty good about representing his district and doing a good job,” McNamara said. “He’s talked to me about it. I certainly understand where he’s at.”

According to the Bulletin, McNamara did not say whether or not he would vote for the amendment.

“Contact your legislator and tell them to vote yes on the marriage amendment,” the Minnesota Family Council wrote to supporters. “Also, tell them that now is the time to pass the amendment and that any effort to postpone, delay or table the bill will be considered a vote against the amendment.”

The email continued, “The people of Minnesota deserve a full and open campaign to decide the future of marriage. Putting a vote off until 2012 means an abbreviated conversation about marriage that is overshadowed in the midst of a presidential race. The only ones served by putting this vote off are gay marriage advocates, not Minnesota voters or Minnesota families.”

That identical line appeared in an email from the Washington, D.C.–based National Organization for Marriage, which said it had heard rumors that Republicans wanted to table the bill.

“The bill now goes to the House where we are hearing rumors that some House members are talking of tabling the amendment until next year,” NOM wrote. “We need your help today! Gay marriage activists know they aren’t likely to defeat the amendment this year—and would like nothing better than to push the vote off for another year.”

“Let your representative know that a vote to table the amendment is a vote to undermine marriage!”

Brad Brandon, a pastor and talk show host who endorsed a slate of conservative candidates last fall, sent an alert out to his ministry’s membership.

“Right now the Marriage Amendment is in grave danger of being lost in the House of Representatives,” he wrote. “A few rouge [sic] Republican State Reps are trying to stall the Marriage Amendment in the House. We are urging everyone to call their State Reps and urge them to support the Marriage Amendment today!”

He added, “Let’s all stand up and be the SALT and the LIGHT Christ called us to be.”

The bill has passed the Minnesota Senate and several committees in the House. The bill was pulled off the agenda in the House Rules and Administration Committee several weeks ago, and no hearing his currently scheduled for the bill.

The legislative session ends on May 23.

Dibble chastised Republicans who seemed shy to speak on the Senate floor in support of the amendment. During three hours of debate, only Limmer and Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, spoke in favor of the amendment.

“I think they are ashamed of themselves. I think they know they are wrong,” Dibble told reporters after the vote. “I think the order from their operatives and party handlers was, ‘Be quiet, because what we are doing is not where Minnesotans are at.’ They are responding to the pressure of a very vocal minority.”

One reporter mentioned Dibble’s charge that GOP members are ashamed of their position and asked, “Do you believe gay marriage is morally wrong?”

Sen. Warren Limmer

Limmer refused to answer. “It’s up to the public to make a direction and advice to the Legislature and state government.

He added, “I’m sorry that Sen. Dibble thinks that way.”

Reporters weren’t content with that answer. “Is there, for you, a personal moral consideration in carrying this bill?”

Again Limmer dodged. “The purpose of this is for the public to decide. I’ve been around this issue, studied it. I’ve carried it for years.”

He said it was important for the people, not judges, to make decisions on who can marry.

But despite Limmer’s shyness about discussing his personal motivations for authoring the anti–gay marriage amendment, in years past he’s been a vociferous opponent of LGBT rights. In 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court stuck down sodomy laws, which were historically used to jail gays and lesbians even for simply gathering in bars, Limmer was outraged.

“I think the decision reflects a continued downward spiral away from traditional values that have created a strong foundation for families,” he told the Star Tribune.

That same year Limmer sponsored a bill that would remove protections for gays and lesbians from the Minnesota Human Rights Act. That measure prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbian in employment and housing.

During a committee hearing on his bill, Limmer questioned OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT equality group.

“Is it your organization’s desire to continue promoting this style of sex education and lifestyle in the public schools?” He asked. “Parents are fearful of the introduction of this particular lifestyle as a threat to their children’s health. That lifestyle is contrary to what they feel is the correct value system to teach their children. What happens if sex orientation as a protected class is taught to a 9-year old student? When does a parent have the opportunity to say that’s not right?”

He offered his view on civil rights based on sexual orientation versus those based on race. “Sexual orientation may be perceived as more of action,” he told the committee. “Do you teach a person to be black?”

Limmer has sponsored or cosponsored the anti–gay marriage amendment each time it has been brought up, and with the exception of this year, the amendment language has barred civil unions and domestic partnerships as well as same-sex marriage.

He was also the lead opponent of domestic partner benefits for state employees under the Ventura administration. Former Gov. Jesse Ventura had pushed for such benefits. Limmer was a major player in getting those benefits revoked.