Minnesota lawmakers are currently debating the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed constitutional amendment from Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party (DFL) that would go on the ballot in 2026.
But several issues arose during the House voting session, mostly raised by Republicans, about the language used in the ERA. Abortion, age and creed are among those words debated about in the House session.
What the ERA Is All About
The ERA bill proposes amending the Minnesota Constitution by adding a section ensuring equality under the law, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.
If voters agree on it, many of the protections existing only in state laws would be added to the Minnesota Constitution. Republicans are vehemently opposed to it as it would include abortion, sexual orientation and gender expression on the list of protected rights.
The Issue of Religion
Some clergy have also pointed out that the ERA bill doesn’t include a provision barring discrimination based on religion.
According to a religious leader of the North Church of Minnesota, Rev. Steven Lee, the amendment “pits the constitutional guarantee of all Minnesotans to be able to worship according to the dictates of their own conscience against these newly defined, so-called rights of pregnancy, gender identity, gender expression and sexual orientation.”
Different Languages
When the Senate adopted this measure a year ago, the language that received support of all 34 DFLers and nine Republicans included both “age” and “creed.” But now these words are not included from the House version.
Sponsors of the bill said throughout the session that creed was not well defined in state law. Also, the freedom of religious expression is already in the state’s constitution (Article 1, Section 16).
‘Creed’ Not Stripped Out
When asked whether the word “creed” had been removed from the House version, Rep. Kaohly Vang Her responded, “It didn’t get stripped out.”
She told the House Rules Committee a week before the voting session, “Minnesota’s constitution has already included strong protections against discrimination on the bases of religion. Religion and religious beliefs are already offered the highest of constitutional protections in Minnesota.”
Republicans Still Worried
Yet, the Republicans and several faith leaders are still worried. If “creed” was considered necessary by Senate DFLers when they wrote their version, why wouldn’t the House version include it, too? Shouldn’t they also replace it with the better-defined “religion?”
House Minority Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, remarked, “I can’t speak to why it got taken out. It doesn’t make sense. If their excuse is that it is already covered, then there should be no problem with keeping it in.”
A Republican’s Suspicions
This war of words seems minor in comparison with the issues, but not including the words “creed” or “religion” raised Demuth’s suspicions.
“I can’t speak to their motive, but I believe everything done by the majority is very intentional,” she said. She also noted that DFL legislators and advocacy group attorneys have been “wordsmithing” the amendment for months.
Fear of Religious Freedom Superseded
Jason Adkins of the Minnesota Catholic Conference said the omission of religion from the list of rights is “troubling.” If it is intentional, he fears the rights listed “will supersede any claims of religious freedom and religious protection.”
“The practical effect of this omission is it communicates as a matter of our fundamental law that protecting people from religious discrimination — whether they practice a religion or not — is not a compelling governmental interest,” Adkins continued.
Concerned of the Consequences
Meanwhile, Rabbi Avigdor Goldberger of the Minneapolis Community Kollel said he was torn between his identity as a Jew and a Minnesotan. As a Jew, he would be “grateful,” but as a Minnesotan he was “concerned.”
“As a Jew I am grateful that democracy is an inclusive and ever-evolving process where mistakes and oversights can be corrected,” Goldberger said. “As a Minnesotan, I’m concerned of the consequences should we fail to make those corrections. So, as a grateful and concerned Jewish Minnesotan, I call on the state Legislature to fix this amendment to assure that religion is still able to be practiced freely while protecting the civil rights of all people.”
‘Creed’ Lacks Definition
Those backing the House language did agree that the term “creed,” which was included in the Senate version, lacked definition in state law and has less case law around it. Adkins agreed. He’d prefer the word “religion” be included in the amendment than the alternative.
“Religion is broader than creed,” Adkins said. “It speaks to a whole variety of practices. It has a whole line of jurisprudence in the case law. It matches up with words in our law and case law. Religion has a stronger legal pedigree than creed.”
Not Strictly About the Language
The legislators and faith groups opposing the House version of the ERA are probably not strictly concerned with grammar and definition but rather the inclusion of abortion rights and gender identification protections.
Despite the world “religion” being included in the House language, they would likely oppose it. What they are really opposing, though, is the forceful way religious groups might have to “acquiesce to the government’s near-liturgical worship of gender ideology and abortion,” explained attorney Rene Carlson. Because otherwise, they’d have to violate the law.
The Senate Version Won GOP Votes
It’s also interesting to note that the Senate version, which included protections for creed and gender identity but minus the abortion and pregnancy provisions, won nine GOP votes last May.
Demuth concluded, “Comparing the language from what was in the Senate would have a better chance than what is being proposed to have bipartisan support.” This indicates the real problem here might not be creed or religion, but abortion. And so the debate continues.
