Minnesota Senate votes to put constitutional amendment on gay marriage before voters
Wednesday, May 11, 2011 at 3:38 pm
- 16 Comments
The proposal to place a question on the 2012 ballot that would alter the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriage passed the Senate on Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 38 to 27. The measure is waiting its final committee hearing in the House before that chamber votes on it. Virtually all of the testimony on the Senate floor was in opposition to the bill, which led one legislator to question whether supporters were ashamed to speak in support of it.
The bill’s author, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said, “There’s a growing uncomfortableness with a small group of politicians in St. Paul deciding this issue and an uncomfortableness of the possibility of a small number of judges deciding this.”
He added, “This proposal is simply to give the voters an opportunity to define marriage as between one man and one woman and place that in our state constitution.”
Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, asked the senators what is so different about his relationship. He spoke of his partner, Richard, and their struggles together to get by in a tough economy.
Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, tried to amend the bill to also ban divorce in the interest of protecting marriage. That measure failed.
“We heard a lot of testimony that this is important because of the sanctity and the sacrament [marriage] is. It’s good because we want stable families for children. My amendment would make marriage a for-life event. For those that do decide to get married, get married for life,” she said. “If marriage is something so important that we need it in our state constitution, then we should recognize marriages for life.”
Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, expressed concern that legislators are not taking the constitution seriously. “I’m concerned when we use the constitution to write into it elements that would discriminate against other people in our society, and I do not believe that is the purpose of the constitution. It’s not why the founding fathers created the constitution.”
She added, “Take the constitution seriously. Vote no on this amendment.”
Sen. Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, spoke of her brother who is gay and how the amendment would hurt him. She also read a number of letters from constituents who oppose the amendment.
“I believe that God created us all whether we are gay or straight,” she said, and then she cited scripture to support her statement.
“Gay people exist, and some of them kill themselves because of the shame our society puts on them,” she added. “Cruelty is wrong and compassion is holy.”
Goodwin also added some of her faith to the discussion. “Think how differently Christianity would be if Jesus asked the crowd to vote on whether or not to stone Mary Magdalene,” she said. “If people want to worry about other peoples’ relationships then I think they need to find other things to do.”
Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, questioned the wisdom of asking the public to vote on other peoples’ marriages.
“My wife and I were married 30 years ago in November. We chose to marry each other. My dad, a local minister, married us,” he said. “Nobody had any vote in it except for us. Yeah, we voted 2 to 0, but nobody else had the right to vote on our marriage.”
Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, said, “I very much hope that you go out and really try to ask same-sex couples the hardships they face. I had no idea 20 years ago,” she said, noting that she’s become close friends with a lesbian couple on her block. “And because I know their reality, I cannot come here and pretend that this is a problem for them.”
She pleaded with her colleagues, “We are creating a problem for thousands of couples. Members, please don’t do this.”
Sen. John Harrington, DFL-St. Paul, spoke about how he faced marriage discrimination when he met his wife who was of a different race. When they decided which state to move to, they had to eliminate a third of the country which, at that time, still had laws criminalizing interracial marriage.
“Why are we following in that line? I really do feel that this amendment follows int that line,” he said.
Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, talked about the negative economic impact the amendment would have as talented employees would seek employment in more tolerant states. Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis remarked that discrimination should not be put to a popular vote, while Sen. Mary Jo McGuire, DFL-St. Paul, who had just won a special election, said that none of the voters she met while campaigning asked her about banning gay marriage.
And Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, asked why Republicans insisted on bringing the issue up at all.
“Gay marriage is still against the law in Minnesota,” he said. “Republicans care more about passing their divisive social agenda than creating jobs in Minnesota.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter16 Comments
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 3:44 pm
Raise the Stars and Stripes. Play the National Anthem. Cue the American Taliban from stage (far) right. Here comes the religious state.
Praise Jebus, God hates the secular state, Amen.
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
Sen. Barb Goodwin, DFL-Columbia Heights, tried to amend the bill to also ban divorce in the interest of protecting marriage. That measure failed.
This shows the absolute hypocrisy of this amendment. I am ashamed to be a Minnesotan today. I can only think of one word to describe this…bigotry.
SHAME ON ALL WHO VOTED FOR THIS. YOU ARE TRULY THE LOWEST HUMANS ON THIS EARTH.
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 4:31 pm
My partner was watching the debate on tpt and commented on how the Republicans didn’t say anything to support the amendment. I believe they knew exactly what sort of cruelty and discrimination they were voting for and didn’t want to say anything that would be in the public record showing what sort of bigoted idiots they are.
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 5:10 pm
GOP leadership must have gotten to Sen. Ortman. She voted for it.
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 5:52 pm
The pressure to get anyone that might vote GOP in 12 for any reason… The kicking of dogs amendment…. will get a vote from the GOP
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 8:49 pm
After today’s vote, I got this email message from Ms. “I can’t walk the talk” Ortman:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the marriage amendment that passed through the Senate floor today. I understand that you have strong feelings on this issue, as do many. This is a difficult issue; there is a sea of fear surrounding the issue, with everyone on both sides concerned that their way of life is under attack.
People have been working for many years to bring this issue to a vote in a general election, and they elected majorities in both Houses through direct representation to accomplish their goal.
I voted to table this bill in the Senate Rules committee last Friday, because this proposal is controversial and divisive; quite honestly, I would have preferred to finish our work on solving the budget crisis first. However, the bill did pass through all committees, as well as the Rules committee, and was moved to a vote on the Senate floor. I believe that the best way to resolve this issue now is to have faith in Minnesota voters, and to trust that they will resolve it in the best interests of the people of this State.
Thank you again for bringing your concerns on the marriage amendment to my Senate office. Your input does make an impact on our conversations at the Capitol. I encourage you to continue to write to me on any legislative issue of interest to you.
Sincerely,
Julianne Ortman
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 8:54 pm
As I just emailed Ms. Ortman, I just have to have faith that the good people of Minnesota will vote AGAINST ALL GOP-sponsored constitutional amendments and restore DFL control in both chambers next year.
Comment posted May 11, 2011 @ 9:37 pm
To think this was passed on the 153rd anniversary of Minnesota becoming a state. How embarrassing.
Comment posted May 12, 2011 @ 6:33 am
Nice to see John Marty saying something intelligent for a change. Didn’t know he had it in him.
Comment posted May 12, 2011 @ 7:47 am
well MN…add that to the LONG list of states to NEVER go too in this Hateful,Bigoted,discriminatory country……..what a disgrace america is…….Liberty & Justice for all my ass…EMPTY Words that make america sown better that itactually is, in reality…….LIES and Blatant Hypocracy…….F U america.
Comment posted May 12, 2011 @ 7:50 am
Sen. Scott Dibble..Great speech..but you WASTED your breath with the Hateful GOP………You might as well stood there and talked to a wall.
Comment posted May 12, 2011 @ 11:22 am
Linda Berglin made all of her constituents here in Senate District 61 proud. My sincere thanks to all who spoke so eloquently, including Barb Goodwin, John Marty, and Scott Dibble. Love will prevail!
Comment posted May 12, 2011 @ 1:17 pm
I was thinking about this situation we have here. Let me know if I am off base here.
First off, to go on record supporting this bill (ie lack of supporters speaking on the floor) would be extremely detrimental to ones career as a politician. It seems to me that the legislators that endorsed and voted for this bill (cowards) are equivilent to, say, some one that would purposely leave a knife sitting out when they know that someone that is extremely depressed or suicidal could use that knife on themselves. I guess what I am saying is, it seems that these legislators are too cowardly to make a stand on what they believe in (bigotry) so they have given themselves “plausible deniability”. Now they can come out and say “we didn’t legislate hatred and bigotry, it was the citizens of Minnesota”.
If by any chance one of the legislators that voted for this amendment is reading this, know this, you are nothing more than a coward and a snake, hell even a worm has a better soul than you do. Your legacy will be one of hatred.
Comment posted May 17, 2011 @ 11:06 pm
“I guess what I am saying is, it seems that these legislators are too cowardly to make a stand on what they believe in (bigotry) so they have given themselves “plausible deniability”. Now they can come out and say “we didn’t legislate hatred and bigotry, it was the citizens of Minnesota”.”"
As an aside, that is how the entirety of California is run, on issues of rights and on every other type of issue. Rather than risk getting voted out of office a term early (since legislators here are limited to two terms, which is kind of bats in and of itself), the assembly puts quite literally everything to the voters. Anything with any possible chance of inciting the slightest controversy between any two given people goes straight to the ballot, lest legislators be blamed for making a decision voters don’t like. Every ballot I’ve filled out since moving here has been five pages long, bare minimum, chock full of questions I thought I’d hired someone else to answer (since I, you know, have my own job that doesn’t involve knowing how to run a state).
And needless to say, California’s a hot mess. Not only is this a cowardly way for MN legislators to go about enacting personal bigotry into law without getting their hands too dirty in public, it’s an atrocious way to run a state. Buck up and do your job, legislators, or find a different job. If you want something legislated, legislate it. That’s your job; our job is to decide whether or not to send you to/keep you in office. Don’t make the voters do your job for you at the polls through this “ballot question” BS; it really doesn’t tend to go well for anyone involved.
Comment posted May 18, 2011 @ 10:23 am
One of MN GOP amendments is to require all future budgets including tax increases be passed by a 60% supermajority. The California voters passed this same exact requirement years ago; the state has been in continual fiscal crisis since then since it is very, very, very difficult to achieve the 60% threshhold. Do we want our state to become MississiCalippifornia?
Vote to reject ALL constitutional amendments on next year’s ballot! Be very, very reluctant to alter the Minnesota Constitution and force the politicans to earn their keep while in session!
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
