The Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition, part of a network of groups created by religious right icon Ralph Reed, is hosting a strategy session on the ballot measure to put a ban on marriage for same-sex couples in the Minnesota Constitution. Former gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer will emcee the October event, and Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, the lead sponsor of the amendment, will give the keynote speech.

According to the group’s release on the event, which will be held at a Bloomington hotel Oct. 7:

The Marriage Amendment will be addressed by chief author, Senator Warren Limmer. Additionally, Minnesota Congressional Representatives, Bachmann, Cravaack, Kline and Paulsen will be awarded the prestigious ‘Friend of the Family’ award for their voting record in 2010 – 2011 legislative session. The Strategy & Briefing session will kickoff the GOP’s 2011 Midwest Leadership Conference at the Doubletree Hotel, Bloomington, MN.

The group notes that Republican legislators Bachmann, Cravaack, Kline and Paulsen have not confirmed their attendance at the event.

The Minnesota Faith and Freedom Coalition is part of a network of state-based 501(c)4 groups founded by Reed in 2009 to re-energize the religious right. Reed was the head of the Christian Coalition in the 1990s and was a leading figure in the Jack Abramoff scandal. According to emails released in the Abramoff case, Reed secretly accepted funds from Abramoff to oppose Indian gaming in the South.

“We need to be hipper, more technology savvy,” Reed said when he launched the coalition in 2009. “This is where the culture is going and we need to be there if we’re going to compete.”

Reed is hoping to get the group operating in all 50 states. He will also be a featured speaker at the Minnesota event.

Sen. Scott Dibble told Minnesota Public Radio that 100,000 emails sent to legislators by gay marriage supporters were clogging the servers and that the Senate IT department was set to delete them Monday morning. The emails, sent through the Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT rights group, chided Republicans and a handful of DFLers who voted Saturday night to put a constitutional ban on gay marriage on the ballot in 2012. Secretary of the Senate Cal Ludeman said the emails were being help in a spam filter and that his office was workign to get them back into the system.

“Hundreds of thousands of emails have come in the aftermath, so many so that the Republican caucus is deleting them before their members even get to see them,” Dibble told MPR.

Sen. Warren Limmer, the chief author of the anti-gay marriage amendment, said, “Not true. Not true. We aren’t wiping off comments of our constituents. That’s just simply not true.”

Sen. Dibble answered back, “That absolutely is true, and that’s exactly what the secretary of the Senate has told us.”

Secretary of the Senate Cal Ludeman tells the Minnesota Independent that the sheer volume of email coming into the system had caused it to crash on Sunday. By early Monday morning 230,000 emails had flooded in, he said, adding that he ordered the IT department to send a large number to a spam filter.

He said that those emails coming in would not be deleted and that they were working to “filter them back in.”

He wasn’t aware which emails were coming in or which ones needed to be sent to a spam filter.

“We are managing the traffic and they’ll be flowed back into the system,” he said.

Already the flood of emails has rankled some legislators. Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, responded to the emails over the weekend in a manner some thought rude.

Here’s the audio of the exchange between Dibble and Limmer:

The Star Tribune’s Minnesota Poll, released on Friday, shows that 55 percent of Minnesotans oppose inserting a ban on same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Constitution. Only 39 percent favor such a ban, it found. The poll stands in stark contrast to a survey conducted by anti-gay marriage pollster Lawrence Research and paid for by the National Organization for Marriage, two groups that oppose rights for same-sex couples. A bill to propose such an amendment passed the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday.

The Minnesota Poll asked 806 Minnesotans, “Please tell me if you would favor or oppose amending the Minnesota constitution to ban same-sex marriage.”

Republicans favored a constitutional ban on gay marriage by a margin of 65 percent to 30 percent, while wealthier Minnesotans, those making $75,000 or more, also supported the amendment 50 percent to 46 percent. A plurality of Greater Minnesota respondents opposed the amendment at 49 percent to 42 percent.

Democrats and independents opposed the amendment with 71 percent and 57 percent respectively. And residents of the seven-county metro opposed it 59 percent to 36 percent.

The poll has a margin of error of 4.7 percent.

A poll cite by Republican legislators offered findings that were essentially reversed: 56 percent of Minnesotans said only heterosexual marriages should be recognized in Minnesota and 42 percent said they supported same-sex marriage. The poll, by the National Organization for Marriage, Minnesota Family Council and Lawrence Research, also says that 74 percent of Minnesotans want to vote on the marriage amendment. The poll’s authors have refused to release the questions and other poll data.

Maple Grove Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, the chief sponsor of the bill, has touted that poll’s findings. In a fact-check piece Thursday, MPR’s PoliGraph looked into Limmer’s statement that 78 percent of Minnesotans want to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

“Limmer’s claim is rooted in a survey commissioned by two groups that have a stake in the debate over same-sex marriages,” MPR’s Catharine Richert wrote. “Because there are no other current polls to compare Limmer’s numbers to, this PoliGraph test rates an inconclusive.”

Reaction to the passage of a Republican anti–gay marriage amendment in the Minnesota Senate on Wednesday was swift. “They have made a grave, grave mistake, and I think they will see that soon,” Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, the only member of the LGBT community in the Senate.  The bill’s author, Maple Grove Republican Warren Limmer, dodged questions by Dibble and reporters about whether he thinks same-sex marriage is immoral and whether the measure was really about morality. Though he didn’t answer, Limmer has made his opposition to homosexuality very clear in his 20 years in office.

Dibble chastised Republicans who seemed shy to speak on the Senate floor in support of the amendment. During three hours of debate, only Limmer and Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, spoke in favor of the amendment.

“I think they are ashamed of themselves. I think they know they are wrong,” Dibble told reporters after the vote. “I think the order from their operatives and party handlers was, ‘Be quiet, because what we are doing is not where Minnesotans are at.’ They are responding to the pressure of a very vocal minority.”

One reporter mentioned Dibble’s charge that GOP members are ashamed of their position and asked, “Do you believe gay marriage is morally wrong?”

Sen. Warren Limmer

Limmer refused to answer. “It’s up to the public to make a direction and advice to the Legislature and state government.

He added, “I’m sorry that Sen. Dibble thinks that way.”

Reporters weren’t content with that answer. “Is there, for you, a personal moral consideration in carrying this bill?”

Again Limmer dodged. “The purpose of this is for the public to decide. I’ve been around this issue, studied it. I’ve carried it for years.”

He said it was important for the people, not judges, to make decisions on who can marry.

But despite Limmer’s shyness about discussing his personal motivations for authoring the anti–gay marriage amendment, in years past he’s been a vociferous opponent of LGBT rights. In 2003, when the U.S. Supreme Court stuck down sodomy laws, which were historically used to jail gays and lesbians even for simply gathering in bars, Limmer was outraged.

“I think the decision reflects a continued downward spiral away from traditional values that have created a strong foundation for families,” he told the Star Tribune.

That same year Limmer sponsored a bill that would remove protections for gays and lesbians from the Minnesota Human Rights Act. That measure prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbian in employment and housing.

During a committee hearing on his bill, Limmer questioned OutFront Minnesota, the state’s largest LGBT equality group.

“Is it your organization’s desire to continue promoting this style of sex education and lifestyle in the public schools?” He asked. “Parents are fearful of the introduction of this particular lifestyle as a threat to their children’s health. That lifestyle is contrary to what they feel is the correct value system to teach their children. What happens if sex orientation as a protected class is taught to a 9-year old student? When does a parent have the opportunity to say that’s not right?”

He offered his view on civil rights based on sexual orientation versus those based on race. “Sexual orientation may be perceived as more of action,” he told the committee. “Do you teach a person to be black?”

Limmer has sponsored or cosponsored the anti–gay marriage amendment each time it has been brought up, and with the exception of this year, the amendment language has barred civil unions and domestic partnerships as well as same-sex marriage.

He was also the lead opponent of domestic partner benefits for state employees under the Ventura administration. Former Gov. Jesse Ventura had pushed for such benefits. Limmer was a major player in getting those benefits revoked.

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.”

A bill that proposes a ban on gay marriage on the 2012 ballot passed the Senate Rules Committee on Friday morning and will now head to the Senate floor for a full vote. During brief testimony, DFLers on the committee raised concerns about rushing the passage of such a contentious measure this year and about its possible unintended consequences for same-sex couples.

“This isn’t something that we have to do this year,” Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, said. “We don’t have a vote until next year. This is a very controversial constitutional amendment, and we have a limited amount of time before the session is going to be over.”

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said he was concerned that gay marriage might become legal soon.

“There is a reason; as you know the definition of marriage is a very personal one,” he said. “There is a court case that is pending regarding the definition of marriage. They were dismissed in court and they have avowed publicly that they are going to a higher court.”

He added, “That creates a sense of expediency for the Legislature to act.”

Sen. Richard Cohen, DFL-St. Paul, wondered about problems the amendment would cause problems given the number of states that already allow same-sex marriage. For instance, he said, what would happen if a same-sex couple married in Vermont divorced, move to Minnesota, and had a legal wrangling over property from the marriage.

Limmer’s witness, University of St. Thomas law professor Teresa Collett, said that the Minnesota courts would be able to sort that out.

Sen. Cohen, who is an attorney and has worked on family law, said he thought that was not accurate.

The amendment passed the committee by a voice vote.

Republican Sen. Paul Gazelka was a guest on Bradlee Dean‘s Saturday evening radio program to talk about the amendment to put a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota Constitution. Over the course of the program, which is part of Dean’s controversial ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide, Gazelka spoke about activist judges and concerns that Republicans might be labeled “homophobes” or “bigots.” Dean and sidekick Jake McMillian said that homosexuals are criminals and America will be destroyed if homosexuality isn’t criminalized.

“We want you to cover this topic of the marriage amendment,” McMillian said to Gazelka. “The immoral crowd, a lot of folks don’t want to see this happen.”

“I would not call it the gay-marriage bill; it’s a defense of traditional marriage bill,” Gazelka responded, adding that it simply defines marriage as between one man and one woman, and it protects marriage from the judiciary branch.

“It’s been just known that that’s the definition, but over the last series of years activist judges around the country have just arbitrarily thrown out those marriage laws and said they were unconstitutional,” said Gazelka, pointing to the decision in Iowa several years ago.

“We feel like this is going to be a choice, made by a handful of judges, a handful of legislators or the people of Minnesota.”

Gazelka won his seat by defeating fellow Republican Sen. Paul Koering, who was the state’s only openly gay Republican elected official. Anti-gay groups campaigned heavily in the district to help Gazelka win.

McMillian said, “You and your colleagues that are in support of this are not scared of anything. You’re saying, ‘Hey, let’s bring it to the public.’ You notice the other side, and I’m talking about the immoral crowd, what they want to do is legislate away law and create new rights that never existed.”

He said it was happening “because the church laid down, if you will, when they said ‘Well, the judge said sodomy was OK’ and that was the first infringement on the law.”

He continued, “I support what you are doing because I believe it’s right, and I think the people will realize where law comes from: It comes from God.”

Gazelka said that a poll from the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage showed that people want the measure on the ballot.

“We have had done some polling within the last 6 months — first of all, whether or not people want to vote on this amendment — around 75 percent that want the opportunity to vote. It’s a lower number that wants to vote for it, but in the end it’s hard to predict,” he said, adding that Christian groups are more likely to vote for the amendment once it is one the ballot.

“But they are concerned about being labeled a homophobe and a bigot,” he said. “The Christian perspective should be about truth and love. It’s not being a bigot or a homophobe, but saying that marriage has limits.”

To that McMillian added, “I am a redeemed creature. Any homosexual can be a redeemed human being, but when it comes into lawless action it’s our duty as Christians to know what they law is and act on it.”

The Brainerd Republican said that the bill is expected to hit the Senate floor this week.

McMillian said, “We need to support guys like Sen. Paul Gazelka, Sen. Warren Limmer [the bill's author], and all the other senators that are out there supporting this bill.”

Dean said that conservatives shouldn’t care if people call them homophobes. “Conservatives that are afraid they might be called a homophobe. ‘Oh no! Somebody might be calling me names! Or how bout bigots, oh no!” he said. “Read the law and you’ll know who’s doing the hating. It’s them that are doing the hating. They did it to Jesus Christ. Are they not going to do that to you?”

Dean added, “We are exposing them for their lies against the righteous. [Homosexuality] has been illegal since the foundation of our country. It has been illegal. It’s the conceived sin of homosexuality. The end of sin is death and that’s exactly what [homosexuality] does.”

McMillian chimed in, “It’s against the law; sodomy is against the law. Homosexual unions are against the law.”

Dean added, “And until America gets there, they are going to be destroyed.”

The full exchange can be heard at the Sons of Liberty podcast page.

The Minnesota Senate passed a sweeping voter identification bill Thursday that would require voters to present a government-issued photo ID card in order to vote in the state. Republicans said the measure is intended to prevent voter fraud, which they say has disenfranchised legitimate voters, while Democrats countered that it would be a travesty to democracy if even one voter was disenfranchised because they didn’t have an ID.

“Our freedom and democracy is at stake,” exhorted Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, in urging members to vote for the bill.

Maple Grove Sen. Warren Limmer brought up a familiar refrain among Republicans: “You need to use a photo ID to make a bank transaction, to rent a movie, to buy a drink at a bar, and to get on an airplane. But heaven forbid we ask someone to show an ID to vote and maintain integrity in our election system. If any illegitimate voter votes, it disenfranchises a legitimate voter, and this is a cure for that.”

Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, said there’s a lot of misinformation floating around and pointed to the controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s birth certificate.

“This bill won’t stop the .0001 percent of voters who were felons in the last election. It doesn’t indicate felon status on a driver’s license,” he said. “It doesn’t stop non-citizens from voting. It doesn’t have your citizenship status on an ID.”

He criticized Republicans’ argument that only 144,000 Minnesotans don’t have photo identification.

“Our gubernatorial race was decided by 9,000 votes; 144,000 is insignificant?,” he said. “This is as bizarre as asking the President of the United States to produce a birth certificate after two years in office. This is bizarre.”

Sen. Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said, “We just went through very intensive voter recounts in this state in 2008 and 2010. The whole country was watching. There were no cases of voter impersonation in those elections,” he said. “This bill is about putting roadblocks up to the ballot box.”

Sen. Linda Higgins, DFL-Minneapolis, said, “This voter ID bill is a bad bill. It’s disenfranchisement.”

She said the provision would keep low-income people, individuals living in battered women’s shelters and elderly citizens from voting.

“We should be proud of the system we have now,” she said. “If we pass a bill that prevents one person from voting we should be ashamed of ourselves.”

With that, the Senate voted along party lines to pass the bill. A companion bill has passed through three committees in the House and will have another committee hearing this week.

Business leaders, Democrats and LGBT groups are unified in one aspect of their opposition to a Republican Senate bill that would but a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the ballot in 2012: Gay marriage is a distraction from Minnesota’s economic needs.

House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, in a statement released in response to the bill introduced Tuesday, blasted the GOP for not spending more time fixing Minnesota’s budget.

“With only four weeks to go to balance the budget, this is not the time to launch an effort to amend the state constitution to further divide Minnesotans from one another,” he said. “Instead of focusing on gay marriage, Senator [Warren] Limmer should get to work on the Public Safety budget that he’s responsible for. Engaging in delays and distractions is unacceptable.”

“The clock is ticking,” he added. “Minnesotans are waiting for an honest, responsible GOP budget.”

Charlie Zelle, CEO of Jefferson Bus Lines and chair of the Minneapolis Regional Chamber of Commerce, criticized the push for the amendment.

“In so many ways, this constitutional amendment is bad for Minnesota employers and a distraction from the real priority for the state: growing the economy,” he said in a statement. “Instead, we need to move Minnesota forward by pursuing policies that are good for business, good for all Minnesota families and will make our state stronger and more competitive.”

He added, “Minnesota’s CEOs and small business owners alike need state lawmakers to stay focused on placing Minnesota’s economy and business environment back on track. A constitutional amendment against full inclusion is not only a distraction but would create a significant setback for Minnesota businesses.”

Ann Kaner-Roth, executive director of Project 515, said that research demonstrates that communities inclusive of gay and lesbian couples often perform better economically.

“The proposed amendment is anti-jobs, anti-business and anti-family,” she said, “A wealth of research finds that inclusion strengthens the economy and Minnesota employers know it. That’s why they are leading the way by implementing inclusive policies in the workplace. We hope state leaders will remember that equality is an advantage.”

Monica Meyer, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, agreed with that assessment.

“Even though the Legislature has critical budgetary issues that need to be addressed, they are taking valuable time to introduce a constitutional amendment that would discriminate against Minnesotans,” she said. “This is completely counter to the direction public opinion is moving. Plus, this constitutional amendment is redundant. Minnesota already has a law in place defining marriage. This proposal takes our state in the wrong direction and tarnishes our constitution with discrimination that Minnesotans don’t support.”

Project 515 and OutFront Minnesota offered evidence to back up their claims.

“Employers with engaged workers have 2.6 times more earnings per share growth and twice the annual net income compared to other companies and inclusive policies are among the strongest indicators of engagement,” according to research by Gallup and the Kenexa Research Institute. The groups also cited studies showing that cities that are more inclusive attract more talented workers, especially in the technology fields.

According to MinnPost, before the announcement, Gov. Mark Dayton said: “I strongly oppose a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. It [a prohibition] already exists in state law.”

DFL chair Ken Martin sent a passionate appeal to party member in an email Tuesday evening.

It’s official. Today, Republicans in the legislature officially introduced their constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage and write discrimination into our state constitution.

Our fight starts now.

Throughout history, our party has always stood up for equality and fairness. And now we need to mount a strong offense to ensure that the Republicans are not able to turn back the clock on equal rights.

But this fight is not just about fairness and equality.

It’s about our belief that every person in Minnesota should have the ability to marry the person they love. It’s about our belief that government should not sanction discrimination. It’s about creating a culture of respect in society so that every child will be safe at school and have a healthy, respectful learning environment free of harassment and violence.

Meanwhile, the Minnesota Family Council, a conservative religious organization that opposes LGBT rights, asked its members to contact their legislators in support of the amendment.

“After seven years, a bill to allow the people of Minnesota to vote on marriage has been introduced in the state Senate. This is fantastic news, but we need you to email your State Senator and tell him or her to pass the marriage amendment bill and put it on the ballot for the people to vote,” the group said. “Remind them that the right to vote is our most important civil right and that this is an issue for the people to decide themselves.”

MFC added, “Legislators are not being asked to decide if marriage is the union of a man and a woman. They are being asked to let the people decide this issue. Demand that House leadership introduce and pass the marriage amendment today.”

Republicans in the Minnesota Senate introduced three bills on Tuesday that aim to put a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage before voters in 2012. Minnesota law already outlaws same-sex marriage. State Democrats say the bill is a distraction from the economic crisis — and a state budget that the GOP has yet to pass.

Maple Grove Republican Sen. Warren Limmer, the measure’s chief author, said the bill was not about putting forth an issue that’d boost voter turnout for the GOP in 2012. “Quite honestly, it could cut both ways,” he said at a press conference. “We believe we owe the public the opportunity to be engaged.”

When asked about the timing of the bill and if he thought there would be a backlash, he said, “Personally I don’t think there’s going to be that much backlash on this. We want to give the public as much time as possible to consider it.”

The bill will be fast-tracked to meet Friday’s committee deadline for bills, Limmer said, and it will receive a hearing this week.

Sen. Paul Gazelka of Brainerd was questioned by reporters about whether his district is open to such an amendment considering he defeated the state’s only gay Republican, former Sen. Paul Koering, in the 2010 primary.

“The district, which I think reflects the state, wants gays and lesbians to live how they choose, but doesn’t want to redefine marriage,” he said.

Since the bill is a ballot initiative, it will bypass Gov. Mark Dayton’s veto pen should it pass both chambers of the Legislature, which — since both bodies are controlled by Republicans — it seems likely to do.

The ballot question would read, “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

DFLers called the amendment push a distraction.

“It’s disturbing that Republicans want to use one of the last weeks of the legislative session to marginalize one group of people and divide our state,” Sen. Scott Dibble of Minneapolis said. “We are facing a $5 billion budget shortfall, yet Republicans believe the biggest threat to our state’s welfare is who is allowed to be married.”

He added, “For same-sex couples, marriage is about economics; it’s about allowing families to take responsibility for each other and support their loved ones, creating strong households throughout our state. For this reason, there is significant evidence that the states that do the best economically are the ones that embrace diversity, not shut it out.”

“With this amendment, we are taking Minnesota in exactly the opposite direction of where we should be headed – toward a stronger economy that welcomes the contributions of all people,” he said.

Sen. Tom Bakk of Cook said, “Prior to the Easter recess, I told the Republican leadership when we got back there would be four weeks left to the session,” said Bakk. ” I don’t know if they don’t understand the budget challenges they face. It is time to get to work on these budget bills. These policy type issues can wait until next year.”

“When we reach May 23 with no budget deal, I will say to them, ‘I told you back in April, I told you to start focusing on the budget every day,’” he added.

Dibble said he expects that the Mormon Church and the Catholic Church to step in and spend tens of millions of dollars on a campaign to pass the amendment.

“The archbishop is probably going to try and raise millions of dollars on this,” he said. “We already saw his DVD campaign last year.”

In addition to Limmer and Gazelka, the bill was introduced by Sens. David Hann of Eden Prairie, Benjamin Kruse of Brooklyn Park, David Brown of Becker, Mike Parry of Waseca, Dave Thompson of Lakeville, Sean Nienow of Cambridge, Dan Hall of Burnsville, Pam Wolf of Spring Lake Park, Gretchen Hoffman of Vergas and Bill Ingebrigtsen of Alexandria.