Long a holdout in signing on to back the Respect for Marriage Act, Sen. Amy Klobuchar indicated this week she’ll sponsor the bill, which would repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act. Klobuchar is the last Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee to back the measure after Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin expressed his support in April. Fellow Democrat Al Franken was an original sponsor of the act.

Noting Klobuchar’s silence on the measure, local and national groups pressed Klobuchar to take a stance on the bill last spring, and the Minnesota Independent reported in March that she would vote in support of the act, which would abolish the federal ban on relationship rights for same-sex couples.

The same groups again pressed Klobuchar last month to attach her name as a cosponsor, and on Tuesday she did. Klobuchar became the 29th senator to give complete support for the bill.

The bill had its first hearing on July 20, a hearing during which Franken called out a member of Focus on the Family for what Franken saw as misleading testimony.

The White House announced Tuesday that President Barack Obama is throwing his support behind legislation which would effectively kill the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The Respect for Marriage Act (RMA) would repeal all three sections of DOMA — which federally defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman — including section 1, which is the name; section 2, which instructs states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states; and section 3, which prohibits the federal government from recognizing legally performed same-sex marriages.

Change.org quotes White House spokesman Shin Inouye on Obama’s endorsement of the legislation:

“The President has long called for a legislative repeal of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” which continues to have a real impact on the lives of real people – our families, friends and neighbors,” Inouye said. “He is proud to support the Respect for Marriage Act, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Jerrold Nadler, which would take DOMA off the books once and for all. This legislation would uphold the principle that the federal government should not deny gay and lesbian couples the same rights and legal protections as straight couples.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney also said the same thing.

The announcement comes on the eve of historic Senate hearings on the bill and could signal Obama’s continuing “evolution” on the issue of marriage equality. Obama said in an interview in December that his opinion on the matter is changing from his 2008 statements that he believes marriage was between a man and a woman, to possibly endorsing marriage equality for LGBT citizens. That move drove activists to demand Obama “evolve already” in protests the day before the New York legislature approved marriage equality — which goes into effect Sunday.

Gay right groups were quick to praise Obama’s endorsement.

Human Right Campaign President Joe Solmonese had this to say in a statement:

“We thank the President for his support of the Respect for Marriage Act. He has repeatedly expressed his desire to see the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act repealed and his Justice Department has taken the historic step of ending its defense of that odious law in court. By supporting this legislation, the President continues to demonstrate his commitment to ending federal discrimination against tens of thousands of lawfully married same-sex couples.”

Rea Carey, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force issued this statement:

“President Obama did the right thing today by announcing his support of the Respect for Marriage Act. In doing so, he joins the large and growing chorus urging for an end to DOMA, a discriminatory, unjust and far-reaching law. There is no sound defense of the indefensible DOMA, which singles out and selectively denies fundamental rights to legally married same-sex couples. We thank the president for his support on the eve of the historic congressional hearing to repeal DOMA. We thank him and the many House and Senate members who recognize that DOMA has no place on the books and support its full, swift repeal. DOMA has only served to belittle our country’s deeply held values of freedom and fairness. It has only served to hurt families, not help. This must end now.”

And Evan Wolfson, president and founder of Freedom to Marry issued this statement:

“Freedom to Marry applauds President Obama’s strong endorsement of the Respect for Marriage Act and the repeal of so-called ‘DOMA.’ The federal government should not be picking and choosing which marriages it will honor and which it will disregard when it comes to the important federal protections that come with marriage, such as Social Security, health coverage, fair tax treatment, and immigration rights. Congress should follow the President’s lead and return the federal government to its traditional practice of honoring all lawful marriages equally – without the ‘gay exception’ of DOMA.”

Wolfson will be testifying Wednesday in support of the legislation.

Minnesota Democrats introduced a bill on Monday that would repeal the state’s Defense of Marriage Act, which prohibits same-sex couples from benefiting from the rights and responsibilities of marriage. The bill, the Marriage and Family Protection Act, was offered just as heated debate at the Capitol continues over a proposed constitutional amendment that would write a ban on gay marriage into the state constitution.

“Marriage is a legal institution recognized by the state to promote stable relationships and to protect people in those relationships and their children,” the bill states. “Minnesota’s current marriage law discriminates against same-sex couples, denying them and their families rights and responsibilities, including the right to pension and Social Security survivor’s benefits, the right to family and medical leave, and numerous other benefits and obligations. The state has an interest in encouraging stable relationships regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the partners and the entire community benefits when couples undertake the mutual obligations of marriage.”

The bill removes language from Minnesota statutes stemming from the 1997 Defense of Marriage Act. Instead, statutes that refer to “husband” and “wife” would also refer to “spouse.”

Doug Benson of Marriage Equality Minnesota, which helped draft a similar bill last year, said the bill isn’t likely to go anywhere.

“With little chance of passage this biennium, it is largely a symbolic gesture, but symbols are important,” he said. “We are pushing forward toward equality in the face of our oppressors’ onslaught,” he added, referring to a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The bill introduction coincides with a rally opposing the constitutional gay marriage ban hosted by LGBT group, OutFront Minnesota.

On the House side, the bill was sponsored by Reps. Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis, Diane Loeffler of Minneapolis, Erin Murphy of St. Paul, Carolyn Laine of Columbia Heights, Mindy Greiling of Roseville, Tina Liebling of Rochester, Jeff Hayden of Minneapolis, Ryan Winkler of St. Louis Park, Frank Hornstein of Minneapolis, John Lesch of St. Paul, Carlos Mariani of St. Paul, Michael Paymar of St. Paul, Jim Davnie of Minneapolis, Bill Hilty of Finlayson, Bobby Jo Champion of Minneapolis, Thomas Huntley of Duluth, Alice Hausman of St. Paul, Kerry Gauthier of Duluth, Rena Moran of St. Paul, Sheldon Johnson of St. Paul, Jean Wagenius of Minneapolis, Linda Slocum of Richfield and Marion Greene of Minneapolis.

Sens. John Marty of Rosevile, Linda Higgins of Minneapolis, Scott Dibble of Minneapolis, Patricia Torres Ray of Minneapolis, and Mary Jo McGuire of St. Paul.

Same-sex couples who are suing the state of Minnesota for the right to marry are urging Gov. Mark Dayton, Attorney General Lori Swanson and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman to follow the Obama administration’s lead. Late last month, President Barack Obama ordered the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a 1996 measure signed into law by President Clinton that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriage. In a letter sent to Dayton last week, the couples urged the Democratic governor to halt Minnesota’s defense of its DOMA.

Three same-sex couples filed suit in Minnesota District Court in 2010 to overturn Hennepin County’s refusal to issue them marriage licenses. The suit names both Swanson and Freeman.

Doug Benson, executive director of Marry Me Minnesota and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said his group hopes Obama’s decision will impact Minnesota’s laws barring same-sex marriage.

“If the federal DOMA is unconstitutional, which is what the President and Attorney General are saying, then by default, the state DOMAs which mirror the provisions of the federal law, are unconstitutional as well,” Benson told the Minnesota Independent. “The judge in our case has been informed of the very significant step by the president and [Department of Justice].”

On Feb. 23, the Obama administration said its review of DOMA found it to be unconstitutional and that the federal government would no longer defend a law it believes to be unconstitutional.

Benson added, “We hope it positively impacts our case and we also hope Attorney General Swanson will follow the federal lead.”

In its letter, provided exclusively to the Minnesota Independent, Benson’s group urged Dayton’s administration to halt Minnesota’s legal defense of DOMA and to recognize marriages of residents who have same-sex marriage certificates obtained legally in places like Canada and Iowa.

“We call on you to direct all state agencies and local governments to immediately stop the enforcement of the provisions of Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act and recognize the out-of-state marriages of Minnesota same-sex couples as legal and valid, to be treated in all state business in the same manner as any legally constituted, different-sex marriage,” the letter dated Mar. 2 reads.

Benson said he hasn’t yet heard from the governor’s office on the matter except that Dayton had directed the state’s legal counsel to look into it.

OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT advocacy group, has in the past said the lawsuit is not their preferred strategy for reaching marriage equality for same-sex couples. But in the wake of Obama’s decision said that Freeman and Swanson should think carefully about it.

“OutFront Minnesota hopes that this new development will be examined carefully by the Hennepin County Attorney’s and Minnesota Attorney General’s offices as each determines its future approach to the marriage equality litigation currently pending in Hennepin County,” the group said in a statement.

Here’s the full letter sent to Dayton last week:

March 2, 2011
Governor Mark Dayton
130 State Capitol
75 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Governor Dayton,

This letter calls your attention to a February 23, 2011 announcement from the Department of Justice in which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder describes a change in the federal government’s policy with regard to the fifteen year old Defense Of Marriage Act. DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage in the application of nearly 1400 federal laws and regulations. Further, it purports to exempt the states from complying with the Comity Clause of the constitution, allowing the states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries.

This law has received several challenges in federal court as to its constitutionality and has been unsuccessfully defended by the Department of Justice. Attorney General Holder has now announced that, at the direction of the President of the United States, the policy of the Department of Justice will be to no longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense Of Marriage Act. The President and Attorney General have determined that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation merits heightened scrutiny, not mere rational basis analysis. They have further concluded that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman, is unconstitutional.

The federal government has rejected DOMA as unconstitutional. By analogy and federal constitutional sovereignty, state laws that mirror its provisions are unconstitutional, as well.

Because this change in policy amounts to a federal recognition of the legality same-sex marriages, we call on you to follow the President’s lead and immediately direct Attorney General Swanson to cease her defense of Minnesota’s own Defense of Marriage Act and statutes that discriminate against same-sex couples, which are currently under challenge in District Court in the case of Benson vs Alverson. Further we call on you to direct all state agencies and local governments to immediately stop the enforcement of the provisions of Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act and recognize the out-of-state marriages of Minnesota same-sex couples as legal and valid, to be treated in all state business in the same manner as any legally constituted, different-sex marriage.

We ask for your expedient action in this matter.

Thank you.

Sincerely yours,

Douglas Benson
Executive Director
Marry Me Minnesota

Minnesota’s two potential presidential candidates have weighed in on President Barack Obama’s decision to halt his administration’s defense of the federal ban on same-sex marriage. Obama’s office says part of the law may be unconstitutional, but Tim Pawenty said he was “disappointed” by the news and Rep. Michele Bachmann took the opportunity to raise money.

“I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, as President Obama told us he believed in 2008,” Pawlenty said in a statement. “But now President Obama and his Justice Department would have us believe that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional.”

He criticized the administration for not doing its job.

“I oppose the Justice Department’s political decision to reverse its policy defending the Defense of Marriage Act, a federal statute passed overwhelmingly by Congress and signed into law by President Clinton,” he said. “The job of the Justice Department is to enforce and defend laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.”

He added, “I am disappointed that the President and his Justice Department have abdicated this responsibility, all for the sake of partisan political gain.”

Bachmann sent a fundraising email to supporters asking them to sign a petition she created.

“This is just the beginning in our fight to repeal Barack Obama in 2012,” she wrote. “Had Barack Obama been on the ballot in 2010, he would have gone down in a fiery defeat. Yet he continues to push his far-left, socialist agenda on the American people. And today, he has declared war on marriage.”

She added, “I will continue to do everything in my power to fight back against Barack Obama’s attacks on marriage and I hope you will join me by adding your name to my “‘Support Traditional Marriage’ petition.”

She also asked for money: “Your contribution will enable me to spread this petition to millions of conservative activists across the country.”

A judge has rejected an attempt by the Minnesota Family Council to intervene in a lawsuit challenging state law that bans same-sex marriage. Three same-sex couples filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota earlier this year arguing that the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law in 1997 violates the state Constitution. The Family Council argued that it should be part of the lawsuit, in part, because if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional, it will cost them millions to fight same-sex marriage. The court said the group has no standing to defend DOMA.

“The Council’s alleged injuries would occur solely due to its sincerely-held belief that principles rooted in its interpretations of religious texts are best for the well-being of children and families, and that marriage only between one man and one woman accords with these principles,” wrote Minnesota Fourth District Court Judge Mary S. DuFrense (PDF). “The Court certainly understands that the Council feels strongly about the social issue of same-sex marriage. Strong feelings, however, do not establish a legal interest in a lawsuit.”

The Minnesota Family Council attempted to enter the lawsuit with the help of James Dobson’s Alliance Defense Fund, an evangelical Christian legal group.

Douglas Benson, executive director of Marry Me Minnesota, an organization formed by the couples who are suing the state, said, “We appreciate the judge’s decision to deny the Minnesota Family Council’s motion and believe it ensures that our case will be decided on its merits, without the interference of anti-gay ideologues.”

Attorney for the couples, Peter J. Nickitas, said, “This decision is a great victory for the plaintiffs and their families, marriage equality, and the integrity of the court system.”

The three couples — Duane Gajewski and Doug Benson, Lindzi Campbell and Jesse Dykhuis, John Rittman and Tom Trisko — are suing the state for the right to marry after having their applications for marriage licenses rejected. The couples self-financed the lawsuit and have not received support from LGBT organizations which have said the case faces difficult hurdles. In 1972, the Minnesota Supreme Court upheld laws that ban same-sex marriage.

The couples said that if the Minnesota Family Council were allowed to join the lawsuit, it would have subjected them to significant legal costs that could have derailed the case.

President Barack Obama. Photo: WDCpix

“Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves,” Tauro argued. “And such a classification the Constitution clearly will not permit.”

Gay-rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign hailed the decision as an important step toward equality, while social-conservative interests like the Family Research Council slammed it as an affront to traditional values.

But the Obama administration could be setting up same-sex marriage advocates for another disappointment as it weighs an appeal of Tauro’s ruling. And both options for the administration come with risks: Challenging the ruling would be perceived as a major snub by the gay community, whereas standing behind it would give Republicans a powerful political weapon to use against Democrats in the November elections.

“President Obama has two choices: lose the gays, or lose the House,” said Michael Rogers, a Washington-based activist famous for outing closeted gay lawmakers who block the advancement of gay rights. “At least that’s how many leaders in the gay community see it.”

Appealing a court ruling that challenges established federal law is viewed as a Justice Department obligation, regardless of White House policy preferences. And lawyers close to the issue expect that to hold in this situation.

“We fully expect that the Obama administration will appeal the decision,” said Janson Wu, an attorney for Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) who argued on the winning side of the case. “It would be unusual if they didn’t.”

The Obama administration is in no hurry to announce its plan of action; spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said only that the Justice Department is “reviewing the decision.” A decision not to appeal the ruling would amount to a break from longstanding precedent in order to champion same-sex marriage, pitting national Democrats against the majority of Americans on a hot-button issue ahead of an already harsh midterm election climate.

“Polling indicates that DOMA is really popular in the public nationwide,” said Patrick Egan, a political scientist and expert on LGBT politics at New York University, “and there’s a lot of resistance in both houses of Congress to repealing DOMA, even among Democrats. So they realize that’s pretty much a political loser for them.”

But challenging Tauro’s decision would mean fighting to reverse what the gay community, a strong Democratic constituency, considers important and long-awaited progress. To some activists, a court battle could morph the community’s perception of Obama and the Democratic Party from sympathetic allies into outright adversaries.

“The courts are putting Obama and the Democrats in a pretty difficult spot that will probably force the administration to continue to defend this law that’s unpopular with its base,” Egan said. “They have to make arguments about why DOMA should be constitutional, and those arguments are going to go against the grain of gay and lesbian groups. So it really puts them in a bind.”

Apparently sensing a political opportunity, Republicans are already pouncing on the White House’s lack of displayed enthusiasm for DOMA in the face of the Thursday ruling.

“The Justice Department’s half-hearted defense in this case — exemplified by DOJ’s own attorney asserting that President Obama opposes DOMA — is unacceptable,” said U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, according to Politico. “The president’s personal views have nothing to do with the defense of a law passed by Congress.”

Smith’s attack could be a preview of GOP attacks to come in anticipation of November, which could further damage Democratic prospects in socially conservative regions during an election cycle where — as even the White House admits — the House of Representatives is up for grabs.

The administration has a complex relationship with DOMA, defending it last year in a court briefing, citing executive obligation, even while signaling Obama’s opposition to the law. “The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of DOMA because it prevents LGBT couples from being granted equal rights and benefits,” DOJ’s Schmaler said last September.

One progressive strategist with Democratic clients in the November elections acknowledged the perils of supporting Tauro’s ruling, but nevertheless said the White House’s wisest course of action would be to stand by it quietly.

“They’ve already pissed off the gay community unnecessarily, defending DOMA in court, and doing it while comparing being gay to incest and bestiality,” said the strategist, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “I know we have to worry about Blue Dogs, but Democrats are in serious danger of not only losing gay votes, but losing money from the community too, and having more Dan Choi-like protests.”

While support for same-sex couples’ rights is trending upwards, polls suggest that a majority of Americans continue to believe the concept of marriage should be reserved for heterosexual unions. The split is both generational and regional — younger Americans, for example, have more positive views toward same-sex marriage, and support is higher in the Northeast than in the South.

“We’re not going to see a repeal of this law anytime soon,” Egan said. “But polling nationally indicates that, if the current trends continue, a majority of Americans will support legal same-sex marriage sometime in the next decade, perhaps by 2014 or 2015.”

And if same-sex marriage is to be legalized in a sustainable manner, the most viable path may be through the legislative process — a long and thorny one — rather than the courts. The story of California in 2008 serves as a cautionary tale against bypassing the legislative route, when a court ruling that legalized gay marriage led to the passage of Proposition 8, which created a constitutional amendment overturning the decision.

“What we know from previous experience is that you actually need a supermajority of Americans to overturn a law like DOMA,” Egan added. “You need to overcome a filibuster, and you need a lot of members of Congress convinced that it’s not electorally risky to vote to repeal the law. So you need a lot more than 50 percent of Americans supporting same sex marriage.”

Kirk Johnson has a piece in Saturday’s New York Times that hints at divisions among conservative groups as to whether to support Judge Joseph L. Tauro’s ruling last Thursday that a Massachusetts state law allowing same-sex marriage should take precedence over the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The decision … supports and echoes a central tenet of the Tea Party, 9/12 and Tenth Amendment movements, all of which argue that the authority of the states should trump Washington in most matters not explicitly assigned by the Constitution to the federal government. [...]

[I]n using the argument to support gay marriage in Massachusetts, where the case arose, the judge created an awkward new debating point within the less-government movement about where social goals and government policy intersect, or perhaps collide.

U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro also said DOMA denies married gay couples certain federal benefits.

The state had argued the law denied benefits such as Medicaid to gay married couples in Massachusetts, where same-sex unions have been legal since 2004.

Tauro agreed, and said the act forces Massachusetts to discriminate against its own citizens. The act “plainly encroaches” upon the right of the state to determine marriage, Tauro said in his ruling on a lawsuit filed by state Attorney General Martha Coakley.

In a ruling in a separate case filed by Gays & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, Tauro ruled the act violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

In opposition to same-sex marriage rights, the National Organization for Marriage, which already had a summer anti-gay marriage tour up and running, immediately pounced on the rulings. NOM President Brian Brown said, “With only Obama to defend DOMA, this federal judge has taken the extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by huge bipartisan majorities and signed into law by Pres. Clinton in 1996. A single federal judge in Boston has no moral right to decide the definition of marriage for the people of the United States.”

NOM Chairman Maggie Gallagher took the rhetoric one step further, wondering aloud whether Tauro was asking for a reboot to the culture wars: “Does he really want another Roe. v. Wade?”

The decision magnifies the strains within the Iowa Republican Party in this election year over how to handle both rhetoric and promises attached to the state’s court-mandated allowance of same-sex marriage in the state. Republican nominee for lieutenant governor Kim Reynolds told our sister site, The Iowa Independent, Tuesday that she is in favor of allowing Iowans to vote on civil unions, which has created a firestorm among the state’s social conservatives. Reynolds was on a tour of areas gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad lost to the more conservative Republican running for governor, Bob Vander Plaats, who now may have new life in the race.

In an interview with The Des Moines Register, Branstad took the opportunity to reassure social conservatives in Iowa and to cover his ticket’s tracks on the issue, saying once elected (he is running against current Gov. Chet Culver) and if Republicans takes a closely divided Iowa House (the Senate is probably unreachable for the GOP), a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage is likely.

A Republican majority in the Iowa House next year would apply sufficient pressure to force both houses of the Legislature to pass a measure allowing Iowans to vote on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, Terry Branstad said Thursday.

Democratic leaders in the Senate, who have blocked debate on such a measure, would be forced to take up the issue, even if the Senate stays in their control, the Republican candidate for governor said after a campaign stop in Newton.

And to help cleanup Reynolds’ comments, a Branstad campaign spokesman said the pair does “not favor state-sanctioned civil unions, but would not have the government step in to prevent private companies and entities from extending same-sex benefits if they so choose.”

Outside of Iowa, Tauro’s ruling and the issue of same-sex marriage will likely play a role in 2010 election-year politics. As Andrew Sullivan notes, the tea party faction of the Republican Party, which has consistently decried some of the Obama administration’s actions as violations of the Tenth Amendment in support of federalism, must decide whether to back Tauro’s use of the Tenth Amendment in striking down DOMA.

“The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state, and in doing so, offends the Tenth Amendment. For that reason, the statute is invalid,” Tauro wrote in a ruling in a lawsuit filed by Attorney General Martha Coakley.

At the same time Obama, a DOMA supporter, must decide whether to fight the ruling in court. And how will Democratic candidates answer when asked what they support? Republicans already enjoy a healthy lead in the voter enthusiasm gap, and Karl Rove long ago proved that social issues can bring out the Republican base. In June, Pew released polling results showing gay marriage was still of prime importance to social conservatives. In addition to the Justice Department’s decision to sue the state of Arizona for its immigration law, which is already playing a part in 2010 politicking, it seems the party has another social-issue cudgel at their disposal, if they choose to use it.

Photo: whitehouse.gov

Vice President Joe Biden has been booked for Al Franken’s swearing-in as a U.S. Senator, and Franken says he will be accompanied at the ceremony by former Vice President Walter Mondale and Sen. Amy Klobuchar. It “looks like” it will happen next Tuesday, he said — a date that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office told the Minnesota Independent is “likely.”

Franken was asked in a Thursday afternoon interview on The UpTake whether he was pinching himself.

“I am. There’s something surreal about all this. I don’t think it would been quite as surreal if I’d just won on election night,” Minnesota’s senator-elect said. “Finally, so suddenly, just boom! It happens.”

The six-month delay in getting seated rankles Franken. He called his absence — while a committee he’s assigned to (Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) tackles health care — “one of the things I’m most upset about not being seated right away. … I’m going to sit in on the [health care bill's] markup but I’m not actually a member of the committee until [after] they get this finished.

“I am very predisposed to a public option [for health care reform],” Franken said. “But the devil’s always in the details.”

Franken was interviewed by phone on the citizen-journalism website that streamed live video of most of the recount and election-contest trial. ”I want to thank you and The UpTake,” Franken said, “for showing the process for what it is.”

Did he watch the post-election proceedings on The UpTake? “I did watch. In fact, you ruined my vacation,” Franken deadpanned. “My campaign manager made us take a vacation the first week of the trial. We just couldn’t enjoy ourselves at all.” Apparently he still has a tanline from his laptop.

If Norm Coleman runs for governor, what advice would Franken have for a DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party) candidate running against him?

“To call me,” Franken quipped.

What does he think of Rush Limbaugh comparing Minnesota’s U.S. Senate election to Iran’s recent presidential election?

“That’s one of the great things about running for public office,” Franken said. “You don’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh. That’s one of the great pleasures of not being on the radio, where it was kind of the easy thing to do, listen to it and react to him.”

Franken offered no defense of the controversial Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). “I’m pro-same-sex marriage,” he said. “I think DOMA will be history soon.” He cited commentator George F. Will’s observation that to his daughter’s generation, being gay is about as interesting as being left-handed. “I actually think it’s more interesting,” Franken said, adding that despite predictions that his out-front support for same-sex marriage would sideline his Senate campaign, “it just never became an issue.”

UPDATE: Here’s a video of TheUptake’s online/radio interview with Al Franken on July 2: