Mary Franson co-authors civil unions bill months after saying being gay isn't "normal"

mary franson debate rect.jpg
Franson has emerged as an unlikely proponent of civil unions.
We'll say this about Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria -- at least her views are evolving.

SEE ALSO: Scott Walker says it's time GOP concedes defeat on gay marriage

During a debate in September, Franson infamously said she "personally" doesn't believe homosexuality is "normal behavior." But barely six months later, she's now one of six co-authors of a bill that would legalize civil unions (click here to read the proposed legislation).

Among the six co-authors is one Democrat, Rep. Kim Norton of Rochester. In an interview with the Star Tribune, Norton said she doesn't think her constituents are ready for gay marriage.

"People want to do something, but they're just not yet comfortable with 'marriage,'" Norton said. "I'm trying to listen to my constituents and respond to what they're telling me, because it's representative government, it's not just Kim Norton gets to come to the Capitol and inflict her will on the state."

But as we told you about Wednesday, gay marriage advocates like Scott Dibble and Karen Clark staunchly oppose civil unions.

To the best of our knowledge, Franson hasn't yet spoken publicly about her support for civil unions. But in case your memory is hazy, here's more of what she had to say about homosexuality during the aforementioned debate last fall:
"Marriage has been around since the beginning of time, since Adam and Eve. You know, under current state law it is illegal for a man and a man or a female and a female to get married. It is currently under statue [sic], marriage is between one man and one woman. The constitutional amendment doesn't change anything that is in state law. All it does is give the voters a chance to decide how they want to define marriage. How do they see marriage? Two years ago, I stood on this stage and I said before the viewers that I support traditional marriage as defined between one man and one woman.

"You know, I just think there are also consequences if this bill is passed-- I'm sorry, there could be some consequences if the bill does not pass, the amendment does not pass-- if it were to fail there could be some consequences. My concerns are that our children in our schools could be taught some liberal agendas because of the marriage amendment. Because in the schools they may be taught... ah... that, this is normal behavior. I personally do not believe it is. But I also believe in the choice and I firmly support marriage between one man and one woman."
What a difference a failed marriage amendment makes!

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others. - Groucho Marx

[S]he may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. [S]he really is an idiot.  - Groucho Marx

Ed Burn
Ed Burn

What a profoundly stupid woman...even if supporting civil unions is a bit less hateful and ignorant than she's behaved in the past....

Rajean Moone
Rajean Moone

She is one of many reasons I believe God has a sense of humor.


This looks like a still shot from an SNL skit.  I guess not. Awkward. 

green23 topcommenter

The reason that Franson's constituents balk at the term "marriage" is because people like Franson have assured them that allowing same sex marriage means that churches will be *forced* into performing weddings for gay couples. 

The Right has devoted years to spinning scary scenarios of what will happen if SSM is allowed. Then they say that, regardless of their own personal opinions as legislators, their constituents are afraid of the effect SSM will have. 

I have yet to hear any opponent of SSM explain exactly how allowing same sex couples to marry threatens "traditional marriage". Virtually all of their arguments seem to revolve around the "gays are icky" narrative, and that granting a marriage licence to someone is (mysteriously) an immense stamp of approval on every aspect of their lifestyle. 

As far as the "children" argument goes, do children not see gays able to obtain every *other* licence offered by the State? Of course they do. Yet, the *marriage* licence is somehow the really important one that confers respectability, morality, and normality upon those holding it. Has allowing gay people to hold driver's licences brought up discussions of "normal" behaviour in schools thus far? Nope, because marriage licences are magical and require exhaustive investigation into every aspect of the applicant's character before being granted. Children apparently know that. 

We offer marriage licences to convicted criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts, mentally ill or deficient people, etc. Yet, this practise has never forced schools to teach children that drug addiction, alcoholism, atheism, or crime is "normal" behaviour.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault