Community | May 22, 2011 | 25 comments

Minnesota voters to decide on gay marriage ban

source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/22/us-minnesota-marriage-idUSTRE74L0GZ20110522

Image
Schnookums
(Reuters) - The Republican-led Minnesota legislature approved late Saturday putting a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to voters in November 2012.

The Minnesota House of Representatives voted 70 to 62 after about five hours of discussion, cementing the amendment's place on the ballot for 2012. The Senate approved the proposed amendment earlier in May largely along party lines.

Minnesota law already bans gay marriage, but amendment sponsors argued that a constitutional amendment would ensure legislators or a small group of judges could not change that.

"This is not about hatred, it is not about discrimination or intolerance," Republican Representative Steve Gottwalt said of the amendment. "I have faith we as Minnesotans can have a reasonable dialogue on this issue characterized by respect and decency and allow the people of Minnesota to decide."

Democratic Governor Mark Dayton, who strongly opposes any constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, has no power to stop lawmakers from putting an amendment on the ballot.

Protesters supporting and opposing the amendment could be heard demonstrating outside the House chambers for days and anti-amendment chants were audible after the vote.

The amendment is "a real ill-advised attempt to use our constitution to place an important question out of reach of the elected officials and to impose our will in the year 2011 on future generations 100, 200, 300 or more years from now," Democratic Representative Steve Simon said.

Democrats questioned the drive for the constitutional amendment with the state budget still unresolved. They also said they were concerned it would lead to a divisive political campaign over the next 18 months to the election.

"Millions and millions of dollars will be poured into this state on both sides and the pain and agony that I have witnessed in this chamber this evening will be all over Minnesota," Democratic Representative Kerry Gauthier said.

Republican Representative John Kriesel, who was severely wounded in the Iraq war, said the amendment did not represent the state and country he fought.

"If there was a 'hell no' button right here, I would press it, that would be the one I'd press," Kriesel said. "But unfortunately I just have 'nay' and that's the one I am going to press."

Republican legislative leaders and Dayton reported little progress Saturday in closing a $5.1 billion gap in the state's two-year budget by the end of the session at midnight Monday. Most observers expect a special session to be required.

The vote came a day after Gallup released a national poll that found a slim majority of Americans believed same-sex marriage should be recognized. It was the first majority in the 15 years since Gallup began polling on the subject.

Support was heavily divided on party lines in the Gallup poll with the gains entirely from Democrats and independents and no change in support among Republicans.

Five U.S. states allow same-sex marriage, but only one in the Midwest, Iowa. Gay couples also have the right to marry in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire and the District of Columbia.

Twenty-nine states have adopted constitutional amendments restricting marriage as between a man and a woman, and 12 other states have passed laws to that effect, according to the Human Rights Campaign.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/22/us-minnesota-marriage-idUSTRE74L0GZ201...
  1. groups:
    Community,   Politics,   LGBT,   Elections 2012,   2 more
  2. tags:
    GLBT,  Civil Rights,  Rights,  Equality
  3.     
    |

25 comments // Minnesota voters to decide on gay marriage ban

  • Leen61
  • northernexpat
    • +4
      northernexpat  

    • This is another ploy by the GOP to ensure the evangelists vote in 2012. They did this in 2004 when Kerry was running. Because they do not have a viable candidate to run in 2012 against Obama, they need something to get their voters to turn out on election day. This is similar to the Southern Strategy. Put something on the ballot to give them a reason to vote.

      The GOP is doing everything they can to make sure Obama and the Democrats lose control of the Senate and the White House, from suppressing voter rights to putting controversial issues on the ballot that are only important to their base. I just hope and pray that their base is getting smaller and smaller, as the middle class realize that the GOP are not serving their best interests but Corporate Americas best interest.

    • 1 year ago
  • jamjaminyourmouth
    • +1
      jamjaminyourmouth  

    • why dose the right of a society have to be at vote ? Its discriminatory nonetheless if you love someone enough why do you have to get married ? cant you just plan better financially and use the loop holes that our founding fathers created....some people like the struggle i guess

    • 1 year ago
  • littlwarrior
  • ptr23
    • +2
      ptr23  

    • I really hope this ends up backfiring on them. Gay rights have come a long way in the past 10 years or so and this so called "discussion that is needed" about gay marriage will not change the views of the homophobes and the people that associate this with their religion but I think it could possibly sway the people who are on the fence or who are necessarily concerned about gay marriage just by opening up dialogue about. Obviously there will be tons of negative propaganda put out but either way the more exposure this gets the more it will change for the side of progress.

      There are a lot of different views about this 2012 vote but I see it as a MN Republican move that is holding back inevitable progress. It's going to happen eventually they are just trying to suppress it as long as possible.

    • 1 year ago
  • freehit
    • +1
      freehit  

    • "This is not about hatred, it is not about discrimination or intolerance," Republican Representative Steve Gottwalt said of the amendment. BULL PUCKY! They pulled this same crap here in Flori-duh. They had two laws on the books and were so frightened that they could be removed that they had to ammend the state constitution to prevent marrage equality here too. (It ain't GAY marrage any more than calling it "straight" marrage.) Eqwil pertekshin clawz be-damned, we don't like 'em and we won't let 'em 'cause we ain't like 'em an' we can do it, by gawd! JERKS :-[

    • 1 year ago
  • SoCalFramer
    • +2
      SoCalFramer  

    • This has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is on the Nov 2012 ballot as a wedge issue to try and influence the national election by bringing out the religious freaks that are to afraid of gays. I usually like to add a joke at this point but would rather add a suggestion. Try to get a legalize marijuana and minimum wage increase on the same ballot and let the fight begin.

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
    • +1
      good_stuff  

    • "During Saturday's debate, which drew hundreds of people to the Capitol"

      -I think this statement pretty much sums up what a waste of time this whole ordeal is.

    • 1 year ago
  • Schnookums
    • +2
      Schnookums  

    • Even though the defeat of this amendment would affect me personally and marriage equality would impact my life in a very positive way, I intend to spend zero time campaigning or even advocating for this. People are going to vote they way they are going to vote on this issue, and there is little I can do about it between now and then (aside from carrying on as normal and being a good person).

      I am substantially more concerned with bombing campaigns in countries we haven't declared war on or unmanned drones patrolling US skies. On continued manipulation in the financial markets and Agri-giants slowly patenting our food supply. On corporate welfare taking precedent over the welfare of the citizenry and destroying mother nature looking for the last of the fossil fuels instead of admitting that a reorganization of society is necessary to adapt to that reality.

      Basically I believe this is intended to be a wedge, and so I refuse to be wedged.

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
  • iowawashington
    • +2
      iowawashington  

    • "This is not about hatred, it is not about discrimination or intolerance," Republican Representative Steve Gottwalt said of the amendment.

      This statement is not intended to be factual.

      Here's yet another occurrence of Republicans pulling out the discrimination card to avoid scrutiny on shady fiscal policy. No that they've completely distracted the public they can go about passing a budget bill that works against the best interests of 95% of the people their supposed to be representing.

      When will people quit falling for this crap?

    • 1 year ago
  • freehit
  • letsliveinpeace
  • letsliveinpeace
  • letsliveinpeace
    • +6
      letsliveinpeace  
    • Image

    • Minn. voters will decide on gay marriage ban
      ST. PAUL, Minn. – It's now up to voters to decide whether to ban gay marriage in Minnesota.

      After nearly six hours of emotional debate, a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between a man and a woman was approved in the Minnesota House late Saturday night. It was the last legislative step needed to put the question on the statewide ballot in November 2012.

      State law already prohibits gay marriage, but supporters of the proposed amendment said it's necessary to prevent judges or lawmakers from legalizing it in the future. Opponents said the constitution should be used to expand rights, not limit them, and predicted a long, divisive debate over the next 18 months.

      The House voted 70-62 mostly along party lines in the GOP-controlled chamber, though four Republicans crossed over to vote `no' while two Democrats voted in favor of the ban.

      During Saturday's debate, which drew hundreds of people to the Capitol, Rep. Karen Clark described her 22-year committed relationship with her female partner. The Minneapolis Democrat said they considered getting married in Iowa, where gay marriage is legal, so her ailing father could see her marry.

      "Please don't make me go off to Iowa," she told her colleagues. "I was raised in Minnesota. I'm a child of Minnesota."

      After the vote, Clark said it was "a sad day for Minnesota."

      But Jason Adkins, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, said it was an important step and that "Minnesotans have been given the opportunity to have an important conversation about the future of marriage."

      Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has no power to block the question from the ballot, but said before the vote that he would fight it. Dayton called the amendment, which the Senate approved last week, "un-Minnesotan."

      http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110522/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_minnesota_6

    • 1 year ago
  • ThirdSection
    • +10
      ThirdSection  

    • After 40+ years of gay-bashing, what have the Republicans accomplished? They certainly haven't reversed the tide of history, though they have tried mightily.

    • 1 year ago
  • Emucratic
  • August_K
  • Itsbatman_Durr
    • +4
      Itsbatman_Durr  

    • here is what i dont get. somethings are simply 'right'

      giving everyone the freedom to love and choose as a lifepartner or partners anyone they want is one of them

      marriage is either a church construct, or a business agreement. if it is a church construct, then fine let the churches decide on their own. if it is a business agreement, then it is discrimination to disallow people to engage in it.

      if the church wants to own the word, tough shit.

      what is the problem?

    • 1 year ago
  • UtopianSky
  • Swisher
    • +8
      Swisher  

    • Standard Repuglican tactic when they're afraid of losing votes to the Dems. Will people eventually catch on to their "scare" machine?

    • 1 year ago
  • tlbuffin
  • ThirdSection
  • Schnookums
    • +9
      Schnookums  

    • Somehow I'm not that comfortabl­e with the voters deciding whether we should discrimina­te or not. Call me crazy, but voters in general don't have a good track record in expanding rights....­..only limiting them.

    • 1 year ago
  • bambuu
more from Community:
from the community

top videos