Minnesota Family Council scores with partner Pawlenty in 2008 session

"Thank you Gov. Tim Pawlenty," read a Minnesota Family Council blog post written as the legislative session closed. "You are truly a pro-family governor." And they have reason to thank him. He worked very closely with them this session.

The Minnesota Family Council, a group affiliated with the anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered rights group Focus on the Family, and Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), an anti-reproductive choice group, received a lot of support from Pawlenty on a host of topics. His vetoes stymied advances in reproductive health and research, and LGBT rights.

Surrogate mothers

The Family Council fought against a bill pushed by Republican Rep. Kathy Tinglestad to formalize the processes involved in surrogate motherhood. While the anti-choice group MCCL stayed neutral on the bill, the Family Council railed against it as "baby-selling" and promoting "designer babies." Another concern? "Nowhere in the legislation are the rights and interests of the born or unborn child mentioned in regard to anything," the group wrote in it's policy briefings.

In vetoing the bill, Pawlenty echoed the Family Council's talking points: "The bill also fails in any manner to recognize or protect the life and rights of the unborn child."

Stem cell research

A bill to loosen restrictions on stem cell research landed on the governor's desk this session as well. The bill was fiercely opposed by Catholic groups and the MCCL, and Pawlenty is expected to veto that bill any day now. In February, he sent a letter to all of Minnesota's legislators stating his opposition, echoing sentiments held by the MCCL: the destruction of embryos is morally suspect.

Sex education

Comprehensive sexual health and family education is perhaps the closest point of collaboration between Pawlenty and the religious right. As a condition of his signing any sex-ed legislation, Pawlenty to sign any sex education legislation, he forced lawmakers to meet with representatives of the Minnesota Family Council, a group that advocates for an abstinence-only-until-marriage curriculum.

"We were told by the governor's staff that the Minnesota Family Council would have had to sign off on whatever negotiated agreement we have," Sen. Sandy Pappas said at the end of the session. "I was unaware that the Family Council had an election certificate."

Because legislators couldn't reach a deal with the Family Council, Pawlenty said he would veto the measure. DFL leaders dropped the bill shortly after. While unpopular with the Family Council, the components of the comprehensive sex education bill enjoy the support of 89 percent of Minnesota parents, according to a recent University of Minnesota poll.

Domestic partner benefits

The Family Council also strongly opposed a bill to give local units of government to ability to determine who could receive benefits -- even, potentially, same-sex domestic partners. Calling the measure "an incremental assault on marriage," the Family Council urged Pawlenty to veto the measure and he quickly obliged. His veto message read, "The provisions in this bill would permit unlimited expansion of employment benefits to domestic partners and others by local units of government. I vetoed nearly identical language last year, and my position has not changed." In 2007, his veto statement said, "I am opposed to any legislation concerning domestic partners benefits."

Sick leave

Another bill that raised the ire of the Family Council aimed to allow government employees to use sick time to care for a seriously ill family member. The bill would expand current laws that allow for the use of sick time to care for spouses and dependent children. The Family Council painted the measure as part of a strategy to create same-sex marriage. "The end game in all of this is a legal imposition of homosexual marriage upon the state of Minnesota," said Tom Prichard, the group's president.

However, the bill itself had become so watered down that it didn't even include domestic partners as a category for inclusion for fear of a veto. The governor vetoed the measure anyway, saying it would cost too much for employees to use their own earned sick time to care for loved ones.