VICTORY: MN House Passes Marriage Amendment Bill 70-62!


Tonight the Minnesota House, by a margin of 70-62, voted in favor of a bill passed last week by the state senate allowing the people of Minnesota to vote on marriage in 2012.

Update: Voting yes were 68 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting no were 4 Republicans and 58 Democrats.

Congratulations to everyone, especially those on the ground, who worked to pass this amendment!


  1. Tennis Ace
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I keep seeing reference to gays being a "tiny minority." Putting aside questions about how many millions of gays there are, I don't think this has any bearing on what is right or wrong. In many places in the world, Christians are a tiny minority. Does that dictate how they should be treated. Is it the height of egotism and self-centeredness for Christians to ask to be treated in a certain way in say, Yemen? No, so let's leave that point out of this. It just suggests that you believe that small groups of people are inherently unworthy of protection. And I would've thought it was the tiny minorities that were in most need of protection!

  2. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    "Again, what rights did you possess previously that are now being taken from you?"

    What happens in 2 years when i turn 18? huh? I'm still gonna be denied those rights in 2 years.

  3. Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    I'm still gonna be denied those rights in 2 years.

    Nobody is denying you the right to marry a woman, a right adult men in Minnesota currently have.

    In two years, there will be no bar against homosexuals in the military.

  4. Carry wood
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Who says God is not watching over and protecting traditional marriage. God's truth prevails again!

  5. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    When you turn 18, Adam, you will have the exact same rights as the rest of us.

    If you're going to live a lifestyle that is not normal, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the world is not going to redesign itself to bow to your desires.

    I'm a full-time homemaker in a very liberal state with a strong feminist presence. Much of everyday society makes life more difficult for me, from the accounts (I can't ask for information on the mortgage I refinanced unless my husband takes time from work to let them know it's ok for me to reference the loan) to taxes (I get no childcare tax breaks, no schooling tax breaks because I homeschool, no Social Security points) and more.

    You, Adam, are demanding rights that have not been granted in the entire history of the world back before Ancient Rome. I am being denied rights that have belonged to women for thousands of years.

    But you don't see me joining feminist sites and public school blogs in order to tell them how outrageous they are. I don't need their affirmation. I don't even need their respect, as long as they let me live in peace... which, by and large, they do.

    You might also note that, through respectful discussion and a willingness to prove ourselves, homeschoolers have managed to make their lifestyle legal in all 50 states. Years of bullying, name-calling, floods of emotion, and blatant intimidation haven't gotten gays the special privileges they demand. Maybe you should reconsider your tactics.

  6. ncghostwriter
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I will clear the water for both parties on this one so you both can get some sleep tonight. Christians are not and homosexuals are not the most discriminated "minority" in the world. Women are the winner on this one guys. Although not a small minority, women are the most discriminated and oppressed class of people on earth. Both claims of victimization from Christians and gays does not propel the case of the other. Christians hold a religious majority in the United States so claiming a minority in the US is irrational. If this case was made in Iran or China perhaps this is a valid statement. Gays are discriminated class, however homosexuals have much more freedom now than they did 50 years ago. This fight would not only have been a lost cause then, but they would have been jailed for bringing it up.
    The topic of obesity and children however is a valid point though it was misused as a name calling device which holds no argumentative validity. Name calling has won no wars and has helped no cause. Be nice to each other, rude arguments build hate in the opposition. Hate sparks violence, and not a soul needs to get hurt from this cause, either side. Peaceful debate leads to peaceful resolution.

  7. Dani
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    "Come on in, Adam, the water's fine." just invited an openly gay guy into a pool with you...i think theres a hidden meaning in your words. BTW, I'm Adams best friend and hes one of the greatest people i've ever had the pleasure to meet and I like him more than my straight friends.

  8. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    "Who says God is not watching over and protecting traditional marriage. God's truth prevails again!"

    Oh god. I can't even.

  9. Adam Judovsky
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    "You, Adam, are demanding rights that have not been granted in the entire history of the world back before Ancient Rome. I am being denied rights that have belonged to women for thousands of years."

    You're being denied rights? You can marry, you can join the military, you're marriage is recognized federally. I don't have any of those rights.

  10. Little man
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Oh, my!!!

    The arguments offered the age 16 young man "Adam" are not all very compassionate, on this comment string....

    From his perspective he sees certain civil rights that should be his/hers upon reaching age 18. But the Minnesota Amendment that is to be put on the ballot (putting the present definition by lay man & woman couple) does NOT cancel the present law (or does it) if the Amendment doesn't get majority vote.

    What people like Adam want to know is how they can get some analogous rights, and as Christians we would not desire civil rights to be cancelled for any person.

    The problem is in how their legal activists have gone about promoting same-gender civil marriage or civil unions - civil unions, of course don't get (for sure) any Federal benefits or privileges.

    The effective, though not rapid way to get them these benefits is to create bills that provide benefits to same-gender partnerships - but this would have to be on its own merits, and applicable to any same-gender couple: whether of homosexual behavior or not, and including blood-related partnerships. Sexual behavior, since it is a right of privacy (and, in fact, has to be private) cannot be the basis of a legal partnerships to which benefits are granted depending on the interest the government would have have for these types of all same-gender partnerships. This is the proper way (call it civil unions or call it reciprocal beneficiary relationships act), not trying to piggy back onto the civil marriage act, so as to get the rights reserved for Motherhood (yes, mothers who sacrifice 9 months of their life in pregnancy, and engender the next generation). Same-gender couples who would bring in a third party to engender a child would be in their own category. But it took a long time to set up the marriage of man and woman as a legal, civil institution, and it's not going to be possible to piggy-back on it to benefit same-gender couples who are in essence hybrid. Trying to go that way, legally, is bound to develop such a back wave of confrontation in our USA society, that the same-gender couples will be worse off from it.

    I say this, in compassion for Adam, who criticized NOM for it's success. We love all people, Adam (or at least we are supposed to do so). We won't try to change you, but you have options, as you will see.

    Just don't ask us to add 2 +2 and get 5, because we will write you back to tell you we respectfully disagree, but the answer is 4 (and we would vote that way).


    Little man

  11. David
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    A great victory for those who LOVE popular self-government rather than judicial despotism, for those who LOVE traditional marriage rather than the sexual revolution.

  12. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Bravo Minnesota!

    If present trends hold in New York, this will in fact turn out to have been a great year for marriage.

    The observations about civil unions (from bnoth sides of the issue) were interesting.

    It is true that the civil unions have increased precisely as a result of the crushing defeats suffered by gay marriage in the same states.

    It is also true that at some point relatively soon, the gay marriage movement is going to realize it cannot win either ion elections or in legislatures, and will, predictably, go back to the only tactic that has ever worked for them:

    seeding the laws with Trojan Horse civil unions bills.

    Here's hoping NOM is preparing a response in advance.

  13. Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Congrats MN. I hope more states will push this for 2012.

  14. Gothelittle
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Er, wow. First off, I am not an actual degreed statistician. When I say "correlation", I mean the dictionary definition, not the statistical analysis type. Second, those of you who are claiming that my numbers are wrong did not listen to my explanation. I took a percentage of the victims based on the number of victims versus the population of victims. There were more gay hate crime victims than Jewish, but there are far fewer Jews in the country. Hence there are more Jews victimized in proportion to their population in the country than any other group, including gays, and black men take second place.

    Adam, of course I wasn't saying that no gays are persecuted at all, anywhere. But your claim was that they were the *most* persecuted minority, and that is untrue.

    The bit about women is a good point, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite fit into the definition either, as women are actually (barely) the majority gender. Oppressed, yes. But we were looking at the most oppressed minority in the world, and in that contest the gays are pretty well down the list.

  15. Gothelittle
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    "The arguments offered the age 16 young man "Adam" are not all very compassionate, on this comment string...."

    This is true.

    On the other hand, he started out with "F*** You" as the introduction to his tirade, and immediately went off demanding of us rights that are not ours to give and could not be legally acquired by him no matter his orientation for the next few years.

    In my ancestral culture, if someone under the age of adulthood comes in screaming insults and throwing fits in an attempt to get his own way, the adults do not treat him like one of them. In that culture, you become an adult when you begin behaving like one, and at age 16, that burden is not quite expected of you yet. So the adult explains and lectures... it is not the adult's job to validate a tantrum-throwing child's feelings. It's just the way I was brought up.

    You wait until the tantrum is over, and then you can start discussing instead of laying down the law, if the child shows the maturity necessary to understand or at least try to listen.

  16. Zak Jones
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    ke Brooks:
    "Believe it or not, you don't have to go along with your same-sex attraction. Especially at your young age, you can re-orient yourself and live a fulfilling heterosexual life like the vast majority of people do".

    Wow, you are one twisted individual. I was once where Adam is now. Believe me, he is not "questioning" his sexuality, like you did at that age, he KNOWS his sexual orientation, and now amount of psychotherapy or prayer will change Adam's sexuality.
    You may have subjected and accepted being brainwashed at a young age, Mike, but you know who you are are on the inside, and you can't lie to yourself.
    Adam is of a new generation, and kids today are more in touch with reality today than we were when we were Adam's age. Church was mandatory in the 60's and we were forced to believe and adhere to what we were taught in Sunday School. Kids have a choice these days to believe and adhere to religious doctrines and have the common sense to separate "real" from parable and know the difference.

  17. Simeal
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Ahhhhh, NOM, NOM, NOM. No, the rights of the minority are not voted by the majority. Oh sure, Minnesota can have its own little circus. But that's not how it works in a cirilized society. It's never been that way, and it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS no longer denies the discrimination that is done to citizens by banning them from seeking marriage for their relationships...

    The point is not how many children gay couples can foster or not. We've covered the fact that marriage is not linked to reproduction. This, anyways, is forgetting that gay couples do have and raise kids. Anyways.

    So much hate, again, coming from the little coterie of NOM homophobic supporters, which every year grows thin. So much cruelty in the responses above. But that in fact only suport our cause. The average American is not impressed by the lies coming from NOM, and it's only a matter of time before those lies get exposed.

  18. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    There are a lot of truths, half-truths and outright lies in the comments on this post, and they are all mixed up into an indistinguishable mash-up. So lets start with a documented fact. This year, the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriages (see link 1 below). Given that the vast majority of Americans are religious (or at least not identify as non-theist) this majority must include a lot of people of faith as well. Another fact is that the acceptance of gay relationships has seen a steady increase in acceptance (link 2).

    So what does that mean for MN in this post? It means that even if voters will approve the ammendment, it is likely that at some point in the future that ammendment will be overturned again. Or.... given the same trends, it may be possible that at a federal level legislation will be overturned (DOMA) or introduced that will introduce marriage equality in some form. Alternatively, SCOTUS may at some point in the future rule that prohibiting marriages of a same-sex couple is unconstitutional.

    The world is changing in regard to same-sex marriage, much to the dismay of organizations like NOM and their supporters. And that is fine, because standing up for principles is not bad per se. Just as HRC for example is rightfully standing up to their principles. Unfortunately, a lot of debate about same-sex marriage come from gut feelings, manipulation and name-calling, rather than facts and figures. And that unfortunately goes both ways: pro-SSM and anti-SSM.

    Wouldn't it be much better to try and have a civil debate to reach a common goal, rather than being so hung up in this "yes, we beat them" mentallity that goes around on both sides? Just wondering....


  19. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:36 am | Permalink


    There is a real insight to be had by comparing your words above to objective truth-which is that thirty one straight times your arguments above have been rejected by your neighbors in free and fair elections.

    It is lunacy to imagine that calling those who uphold marriage as it has been understood through all of human history "bigots", is persuasive.

    If it is persuasive of anything, Simeal, it is persuasive of the essentially Bolshevik mindset of violence and intimidation which underlies the agenda of the gay marriage movement.

    It is a matter of extreme urgency that it be defeated.

    NOM is doing a great job.

  20. mary sue butch
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Anyone who wants the right too prohibit same sex marriage is violating everyone else's constitutional rights. Your may choose your own religion, but not mine, and a law enforcing the rules of your religion is unconstitutional. I hope the people of Minnesota realize this.

  21. Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    No, the rights of the minority are not voted by the majority.

    I have already shown in Post 45 that the right to marry does not encompass the right to "marry" someone of the same sex.

  22. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Mr. de Vries:

    It is true that a level of respect and civility in political discourse is greatly to be desired.

    It is also true that the HRC strategy to brand supporters of marriage as bigots has rendered such an atmosphere exceedingly difficult to obtain in practice.

    As to the rest of your post, the gay marriage movement has never lost a poll, nor won an election.

    Our civilization is not governed by polls, but by elections.

    The failure of the polls and the elections to point to the same state of opinion leads us to conclude that the polls- much easier to employ as a political tool- are less trustworthy than the elections.

    This is now a political battle, it does not appear to be one susceptible of compromise, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ultimate outcome will be the defeat of gay marriage.

    But I am all for conducting the battle with mutual respect.

    Let us see if HRC agrees.

  23. fiona64
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Gothelittle wrote: Studies show that 90% of adolescents who experience same-sex attraction go on to become perfectly healthy, utterly heterosexual adults.

    This straight, married advocate for equality would like to see those "studies" you cite ... unless, of course, you just made them up. And surely you would not have done such a thing ...

    I suggest that all of you look long and hard about how you are PERSONALLY affected if some couple you don't even know, gay or straight, gets married. Because you AREN'T. And if your marriage is in any way weakened or threatened by someone else's? Get counseling, because it's obviously on shaky ground.

  24. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Now fiona 64's comment above is a perfect example of why the tone of the discourse is so ugly.

    In fiona's mind anyone who supports the concept of marriage as the union of the genders (which, after all, it has been always and everywhere since the beginning of recorded history) needs "counseling", because we are "on shaky ground".

    No, ma'am. We do not need counseling. We have examined the function and constitutive elements that make *marriage* unique (as opposed to one of the many other forms of loving, committed relationships between couples).

    We do not need "counseling", merely because we have elected to uphold what all of humanity has upheld before us.

    It is *you*, fiona, who bears the burden of proof, and it is far greater than your flippant dismissal of 5,000 years of recorded history suggests.

    In fact we are confident that our neighbors will reject your claims, and embrace ours, in any free and fair election.

    And we won't even have to suggest you need "counseling", either (although it is ever so tempting......)

  25. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    Mr. DeLano,

    In reply to comment #72, I would like to point out that there are at least two sides to any conflict. HRC is indeed using some tactics that I disapprove of, but opponents of SSM also say and do things that don't help civil debate.

    As for your reply in #74, I would have to disagree with your statement that Fiona bears the burden of proof. If someone posing the 90 percent statement as fact, he or she should be able to support that as such. Would you accept the statement that just eleven percent of the Dutch dissapprove of gay marriage at face value, or would you like to have that backed up by numbers?

  26. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    Mr. DeVries:

    I do not understand why you think the percentage of Dutch who approve of gay marriage is relevant to the question of whether the marriage laws in America ought to be radically redefined.

    In fact, the position of the Dutch is completely irrelevant, one way or the other, as I would have expected you to understand clearly.

    It is good in one sense, however, to see that you allow that thjs radical redefinition of marriage cannot be legitimately imposed without the consent of the people.

    Now all that is needed is for you to grasp that "the people", in this case, are not Dutch.

    Perhaps we can find some common ground on the question after all.........

  27. Midge
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Was the state constitution designed as a means for the majority to vote on the rights of a law-abiding minority?

    Was the state constitution designed as a way for a current generation to stifle the debate and conversation (and trends towards acceptance of gay citizens) of the next generations?

    Should we use the constitution this way?

  28. Sashabill
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Homophobia, defined, is any perspective which is different from that of liberals.

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) praised the Minnesota Legislature for voting in a bi-partisan fashion to put an amendment on the ballot in 2012 that would preserve marriage as [...]

  2. [...] Maryland and Rhode Island both rejected same-sex marriage, and in Minnesota the legislature just passed a marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. A vote for gay marriage [...]

  3. [...] W. defenders of marriage scored a big victory in Minnesota this weekend, when their State House voted to pass a bill already passed by their State Senate to allow Minnesotans to vote on the definition of marriage in [...]

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.