Legalizing same-sex marriage

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. In 1971, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota marriage laws, though not explicitly barring same-sex marriage, could be interpreted as limiting marriage to one man and one woman. In 1997, the DFL-controlled Minnesota Legislature passed the Defense of Marriage Act which said “lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex” and explicitly bans “marriage between persons of the same sex.” Republican Gov. Arne Carlson signed it into law.

There have been efforts to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but they haven’t gone anywhere. Three same-sex couple sued the state in 2010, but a district court judge dismissed the case. The couples filed an appeal in May and that case is still pending. Several DFLers have offered legislation to repeal the state Defense of Marriage act and allow same-sex couples to marry, but those efforts were stymied, even when Democrats has control of the Legislature, and are dead-on-arrival in a Republican-controlled House and Senate.

The anti–gay marriage ballot question would not change current Minnesota law. If the majority of voters vote “no” and it is defeated in 2012, same-sex marriage will remain illegal as the Minnesota Supreme Court decision in Baker v. Nelson still stands. Further, it’s extremely unlikely a GOP-controlled Legislature would pass a bill allowing same-sex couples to wed.

If the voters approve the amendment, the Minnesota Constitution in addition to the Minnesota courts and Minnesota statutes will all ban same-sex marriage.

Majority rules: Unmarked ballots count as “no” votes

Minnesota’s ballot initiative law says that if a voter casts a ballot but does not vote for the specific ballot question, it counts as a “no” vote. The amendment must receive a majority of all votes cast in order for it to pass. In other words, even if the amendment garners more “yes” votes than “no” votes it still may fail if a large number voters skip the question on the ballot but still vote for president, U.S. Senate or local representatives. As Minnesota Public Radio notes, since 1898 when that law took effect, 62 amendments have failed even though they received more “yes” votes than “no” votes.

But, in recent history, voters have still approved nine out of every 10 amendments that have been on the ballot.

Other states, including Hawaii, Tennessee and Utah, have similar rules for constitutional amendments.

Language makes a difference

Proponents of the anti–gay marriage amendment have claimed that such amendments have passed in every state that has had it on the ballot. For instance, Minnesota Majority recently claimed, “In every state in which the question of marriage has been put to a vote of the people, voters have moved to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

But that’s only half true.

Anti–gay marriage amendments have passed in most states that have offered them on the ballot. One exception is Arizona, where voters narrowly rejected the amendment 51 percent to 49 percent in 2006.

That ballot question read:

“To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union of one man and of one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to marriage.”

The language has the effect of outlawing civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples, something Arizona seniors — many of whom live in domestic partnership arrangements — found problematic.

Arizona approved a different marriage amendment in 2008 that did not include ban on a “legal status for unmarried persons.”

A ban on civil unions and domestic partnerships in addition to gay marriage has been the standard offering of religious conservatives in the Minnesota Legislature since U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, then a state senator, first offered it in 2004. In every legislative session, the amendment has stated:

“Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.”

But, the current amendment that will go to the Minnesota voters omits that last line, and in theory, would not prohibit civil unions or domestic partnerships.

“31 states have protected marriage”

Eighteen states have passed amendments with language that bars not only gay marriage, but either civil unions, domestic partnerships or both: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Eleven states have passed the language similar to that being proposed in Minnesota which, in theory, addresses marriage but not civil unions or domestic partnerships: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Kansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Tennessee.

Proponents of the amendment have often made the claim that 31 states have passed marriage amendments. For instance, Minnesota Majority says, “31 states have amended their constitutions to protect the definition of marriage.”

And an ad last fall by NOM and the Minnesota Family Council stated that 31 states have “voted to protect marriage,” a claim repeated in an April press conference by GOP state Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, the lead author of the anti–gay marriage amendment.

In an email to supporters by NOM’s president Brian Brown, “In 2012, we hope, pray and expect that the people of Minnesota, after a dignified and civil debate, will join 31 other states in voting to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

But that’s not quite accurate.

In Hawaii, the voters voted to allow the legislature to ban same-sex marriage. The amendment read, “The legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.”

Even including Hawaii in the states where voters have passed some form of anti-gay marriage amendment, only 30 have passed such amendments. Arizona voted on the measure twice, but only once did the amendment pass. Nevada voters had to approve a constitutional amendment in two consecutive elections, 2000 and 2002, which may account for a double vote by amendment proponents.

Only 29 states have passed an amendment similar to what is being proposed in Minnesota, not the 31 touted by amendment supporters.

Bolstering turnout?

One of the more minor complaints the DFL had when the GOP was pushing the marriage amendment was that it would be used to increase voter turnout among social conservatives. Bush White House strategist Karl Rove is often credited with the strategy of putting gay marriage bans before voters in 2004 and 2006, and conventional wisdom has said the amendments increased turnout and helped Republicans, especially Bush in 2004.

But research shows a different story.

Jeffrey Makin of the Initiative and Referendum Institute of the University of Southern California summarized the research on voter turnout and anti-gay marriage amendments:

However, research based on actual election returns, rather than opinion surveys, again casts doubt on the idea that marriage amendments influenced votes for candidates in 2004. Assessing Bush’s vote totals in 2000 and 2004, Abramowitz notes that Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and in particular, gains were not larger in states with a marriage amendment. Bush gained an average of 2.5 percentage points in states with a marriage amendment and an average of 2.7 percentage points in states without a marriage amendment. A study by Professors Stephen Ansolabehere and Charles Stewart corroborates Abramowitz’s findings. Comparing Bush’s vote totals in 2004 and 2000, they found that Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment (from 49.7 percent in 2000 to 49.6 percent in 2004). In contrast, Bush gained an average of one percentage point in battleground states without a marriage amendment. Thus, because Bush had consistent gains across almost all states, and because Bush lost vote share in states with a marriage amendment, the amendments do not appear to have been an important influence on voting decisions for president in 2004.

While the numbers mainly focused on presidential elections in 2000 and 2004, little data exists on how such amendments might impact local races. Anecdotal evidence, however, shows that anti–gay marriage amendment are actually becoming a liability for Republicans.

In Wisconsin in 2006, Democrats and Republicans credited the marriage amendment for a huge turnout among college students who overwhelmingly opposed the amendment. Though the amendment passed, local Republicans lost a large number of seats particularly in communities that had college campuses.

“The timing ended up backfiring,” Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2006. “I think the opposite worked out this time.”

“Minnesota showed civic resilience in a year when much of the nation saw a sharp drop in civic effort,” the report found.

Its findings show that the state continues to lead in civic participation:

1st in voter turnout, with 77.8 % of those eligible voting, 14.2% higher than the national average.
1st in citizen consciousness of having a “strong civic tradition,” with 26.5 % saying it is strong compared to other states, compared to 13.2% for the national average.
3rd in donations to charitable organizations, with 60.2% donating $25 or more.
4th in statewide volunteering, with 60.5% volunteering in the last year.
6th in working with others to fix something in the neighborhood, with 12.4%.

Despite economic problems, the state fared better than most:

72.2% nationally said they had cut back in volunteering; in Minnesota the figure was 58.6%
41.4% of Minnesotans said they had increased volunteering – compared to 27.8% for the nation as a whole.
40.3% reported being involved in community discussions about the effects of the economic recession.
50.9% of Minnesotans say they would be willing to “work less” if doing so would create more jobs for those who are unemployed.
Almost 53% say they are willing to volunteer more.

And support for efforts to increase civic participation is still high:

86.4% believe that young people should be able to earn money for college through community service projects.
80.8% believe that young people should be required to do community service in higher school.
71% believe that students in high school need to pass a new civics test.
43.7% support training opportunities to learn skills as part of volunteer activities.
15.3% value the opportunity to learn and to be challenged as the first priority for their career, while 9.3% of Minnesotans seek to make a “public benefit” as the first priority. The quarter of the population who prize civic and educational aspects of jobs contrasts to 18.7% for the nation as a whole.

The polls in downtown and south Minneapolis are overflowing with voters — even after the early morning rush.

Elliot Park in downtown Minneapolis is home to a diverse population of elderly voters from nearby Augustana Apartments; East African immigrants; African-Americans, and Pentecostal Christian college students from North Central University. The wait to vote at 8:30 a.m. was approximately a half-hour.

In Minneapolis’ heavily populated Loring Park just south of downtown, the lines stretched around the block at the Emerson Spanish Immersion School — and then some.

Up the street in Loring Park, the Oak Grove Towers also saw huge lines.

A small grocery was offering voters discount refreshments while they waited in line.

Minneapolis’ diverse Whittier neighborhood saw a fairly long line at the Minnesota Church Center.

Minneapolis’ wealthiest ZIP code encompasses the mansions on Mount Curve Avenue. At 10 a.m., even the well-to-do had to wait at least an hour to vote.

In the southeast Minneapolis neighborhood of Longfellow, a crew donned signs touting their favorite candidates and issues while a supportive biker rode by with a “thumbs up.”