< Test your news knowledge on the quiz | Main | When tornadoes hit cities (5x8 - 5/23/11) >

Roll call vote: Same-sex marriage ban amendment

Posted at 11:40 PM on May 21, 2011 by Bob Collins (31 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

The House has joined the Minnesota Senate in approving a constitutional amendment on the November 2012 ballot that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. The vote came after several hours of floor debate, which actually wasn't debate at all since supporters generally kept to themselves, just as the Senate did a week ago.

For more on the bill and previous votes, see MPR's Votetracker. These are sorted by political party.

Legislator	Party	District	Vote
Tom Anzelc	DFL	03A	AGAINST
Joe Atkins	DFL	39B	AGAINST
John Benson	DFL	43B	AGAINST
Kathy Brynaert	DFL	23B	AGAINST
Lyndon Carlson	DFL	45B	AGAINST
Karen Clark	DFL	61A	AGAINST
Jim Davnie	DFL	62A	AGAINST
Denise Dittrich	DFL	47A	FOR
Kent Eken	DFL	02A	AGAINST
Andrew Falk	DFL	20A	AGAINST
Patti Fritz	DFL	26B	AGAINST
Kerry Gauthier	DFL	07B	AGAINST
Marion Greene	DFL	60A	AGAINST
Mindy Greiling	DFL	54A	AGAINST
Rick Hansen	DFL	39A	AGAINST
Alice Hausman	DFL	66B	AGAINST
Jeff Hayden	DFL	61B	AGAINST
Debra Hilstrom	DFL	46B	AGAINST
Bill Hilty	DFL	08A	AGAINST
Frank Hornstein	DFL	60B	AGAINST
Melissa Hortman	DFL	47B	AGAINST
Larry Hosch	DFL	14B	AGAINST
Thomas Huntley	DFL	07A	AGAINST
Sheldon Johnson	DFL	67B	AGAINST
Phyllis Kahn	DFL	59B	AGAINST
Kory Kath	DFL	26A	AGAINST
Kate Knuth	DFL	50B	AGAINST
Lyle Koenen	DFL	20B	FOR
Carolyn Laine	DFL	50A	AGAINST
Ann Lenczewski	DFL	40B	AGAINST
John Lesch	DFL	66A	AGAINST
Tina Liebling	DFL	30A	AGAINST
Leon Lillie	DFL	55A	AGAINST
Diane Loeffler	DFL	59A	AGAINST
Tim Mahoney	DFL	67A	AGAINST
Carlos Mariani	DFL	65B	AGAINST
Paul Marquart	DFL	09B	AGAINST
Carly Melin	DFL	5B	AGAINST
Rene Moran	DFL	65A	AGAINST
Terry Morrow	DFL	23A	AGAINST
Joe Mullery	DFL	58A	AGAINST
Erin Murphy	DFL	64A	AGAINST
Mary Murphy	DFL	06B	AGAINST
Michael Nelson	DFL	46A	AGAINST
Kim Norton	DFL	29B	AGAINST
Michael Paymar	DFL	64B	AGAINST
Gene Pelowski, Jr.	DFL	31A	AGAINST
John Persell	DFL	04A	AGAINST
Sandra Peterson	DFL	45A	AGAINST
Jeanne Poppe	DFL	27B	AGAINST
Tom Rukavina	DFL	05A	AGAINST
Bev Scalze	DFL	54B	AGAINST
Steve Simon	DFL	44A	AGAINST
Nora Slawik	DFL	55B	AGAINST
Linda Slocum	DFL	63B	AGAINST
Paul Thissen	DFL	63A	AGAINST
Tom Tillberry	DFL	51B	AGAINST
Jean Wagenius	DFL	62B	AGAINST
John Ward	DFL	12A	AGAINST
Ryan Winkler	DFL	44B	AGAINST
Jim Abeler	Republican	48B	FOR
Bruce Anderson	Republican	19A	FOR
Diane Anderson	Republican	38A	FOR
Paul Anderson	Republican	13A	FOR
Sarah Anderson	Republican	43A	FOR
King Banaian	Republican	15B	FOR
Bob Barrett	Republican	17B	FOR
Michael Beard	Republican	35A	FOR
Mike Benson	Republican	30B	FOR
Kurt Bills	Republican	37B	FOR
Mark Buesgens	Republican	35B	FOR
Tony Cornish	Republican	24B	FOR
Roger Crawford	Republican	08B	FOR
Kurt Daudt	Republican	17A	FOR
Gregory M. Davids	Republican	31B	FOR
Matt Dean	Republican	52B	FOR
Bob Dettmer	Republican	52A	FOR
Connie Doepke	Republican	33B	FOR
Keith Downey	Republican	41A	FOR
Steve Drazkowski	Republican	28B	FOR
Sondra Erickson	Republican	16A	FOR
Dan Fabian	Republican	01A	FOR
Mary Franson	Republican	11B	FOR
Pat Garofalo	Republican	36B	FOR
Steve Gottwalt	Republican	15A	FOR
Glenn Gruenhagen	Republican	25A	FOR
Bob Gunther	Republican	24A	FOR
Tom Hackbarth	Republican	48A	FOR
Rod Hamilton	Republican	22B	FOR
David Hancock	Republican	02B	FOR
Mary Liz Holberg	Republican	36A	FOR
Joe Hoppe	Republican	34B	FOR
Larry Howes	Republican	04B	FOR
Tim Kelly	Republican	28A	AGAINST
Andrea Kieffer	Republican	56B	FOR
Debra Kiel	Republican	01B	FOR
Mary Kiffmeyer	Republican	16B	FOR
John Kriesel	Republican	57A	AGAINST
Morrie Lanning	Republican	09A	FOR
Mike LeMieur	Republican	12B	FOR
Ernie Leidiger	Republican	34A	FOR
Kathy Lohmer	Republican	56A	FOR
Jenifer Loon	Republican	42B	FOR
Tara Mack	Republican	37A	FOR
Pat Mazorol	Republican	41B	FOR
Joe McDonald	Republican	19B	FOR
Carolyn McElfatrick	Republican	03B	FOR
Carol McFarlane	Republican	53B	FOR
Denny McNamara	Republican	57B	FOR
Mike Murdock	Republican	10B	FOR
Rich Murray	Republican	27A	AGAINST
Pam Myhra	Republican	40A	FOR
Bud Nornes	Republican	10A	FOR
Tim O'Driscoll	Republican	14A	FOR
Joyce Peppin	Republican	32A	FOR
Branden Petersen	Republican	49B	FOR
Duane Quam	Republican	29A	FOR
Linda Runbeck	Republican	53A	FOR
Tim Sanders	Republican	51A	FOR
Joe Schomacker	Republican	22A	FOR
Peggy Scott	Republican	49A	FOR
Ron Shimanski	Republican	18A	FOR
Steve Smith	Republican	33A	AGAINST
Kirk Stensrud	Republican	42A	FOR
Chris Swedzinski	Republican	21A	FOR
Paul Torkelson	Republican	21B	FOR
Dean Urdahl	Republican	18B	FOR
Bruce Vogel	Republican	13B	FOR
Doug Wardlow	Republican	38B	FOR
Torrey Westrom	Republican	11A	FOR
Kelby Woodard	Republican	25B	FOR
Kurt Zellers	Republican	32B	FOR

Comments (31)

Thanks Bob. A Legislator's vote is a matter of public record, and I appreciate that you posted this promptly to help provide that transparency.

And here is the oath the Legislator's take: From the Minnesota Constitution Article IV, Sec. 8. OATH OF OFFICE. Each member and officer of the legislature before entering upon his duties shall take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution of the United States, the constitution of this state, and to discharge faithfully the duties of his office to the best of his judgment and ability.

Posted by Nancy Gertner | May 22, 2011 12:25 AM

Thanks for posting Bob....Just imagine if those that think this is important put as much work into housing the homeless, medicating the ill, and getting services to the poor & elderly...they wouldn't have nearly enough time to worry about what others did in the privacy of their own homes....wonder how many of those that voted FOR have GLBT children and relatives that are scared to come out because of the hate they see in their own families...that would be a good research project!

Posted by Nanci | May 22, 2011 7:15 AM

GOP is following hate minister Bradlee Dean these days. What's next, Republicans? Tracking down the truth about Obama's secret Muslim faith? Hunting down Kenyan birth certificates? Republicans have become a joke.

Posted by Hopo | May 22, 2011 10:01 AM

"The vote came after several hours of floor debate, which actually wasn't debate at all since supporters generally kept to themselves, just as the Senate did a week ago."

The word 'shameful' comes to mind.

Posted by Joe Busch | May 22, 2011 10:54 AM

Thedy should be at Walmart buying white hoods for the next meeting!!

Posted by Brad | May 22, 2011 11:16 AM

Looking down the pike, I can only predict that Republicans are worried about keeping up the breeding pool that supplies them with bodies for their low pay work force once known as slavery.

This will keep their system going,
that of dog eat dog, survival of the fittest at all costs society.
It insures them that there will always be candidates that will do their dirty work for under the table pay.

I would wonder why a party that promotes pro-life would vote against gay marriage where many couples might be interested in adoption.

Other than motives of greed, Republicans make no sense at all.

Posted by Lucy | May 22, 2011 11:22 AM

Why should one set of loving, consenting adults be denied a right that other such adults have and which, if exercised, will do no damage to anyone else? In CA, Judge Vaughn Walker struck down Prop 8 which was similar in nature to Minnesota's proposed amendment.

//"PROPOSITION 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples."//

The CA decision is based on the US Constitution and right now only binding on CA. However, if the Supreme Court of United States strikes down Prop 8 on constitutional grounds, that would call into question the MN proposal.

were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court then the MN senate plan would be unconstitutional.

Posted by George Hayduke | May 22, 2011 11:24 AM

Hooray, let's all vote to see whether other human beings get the same rights the rest of us do! While we're at it, let's put women and minorities and non-Christians on the ballot, to see if the people think they deserve rights too.

Posted by BevansDesign | May 22, 2011 12:18 PM

Punish these people who voted for this bill. Even if you don't live in their districts, make sure you boycott businesses in their districts until their constituents vote them out. And make sure the business owners understand why they aren't getting your business. This means restaurants, grocery stores, shops, gas stations, professional services, whatever.

This vote was cowardly and small and good people need to stand up against it.

Posted by Michele | May 22, 2011 12:41 PM

Signs of the Jim Crow of the North....Scary....

We must vote this down and mobilize to do so!

Posted by T | May 22, 2011 12:50 PM

Let Love Rule!

Posted by rich | May 22, 2011 2:05 PM

Thanks to everyone at MPR for covering this issue so thoroughly.

I also think this is a good time to thank all of the legislators who stood against this legislation. Thanks in particular to those who shared some painful and very personal stories on the House floor last night. And special thanks to those Republicans who stood against the amendment, because they stood for equality at risk to themselves.

But now we take our personal stories to the voters, our neighbors. We will spend the next year changing minds with stories of our relationships and our families. When we win at the ballot box the victory will be more profound and meaningful than this temporary defeat.

Posted by Alison | May 22, 2011 2:11 PM

The comments are amazing. This is not about "equal rights" This is not about what people do "in their bedrooms". This is not about "rights being denied" (it is already against the law in Minnesota for goodness sake!!!)

This is not about "Jim Crow". This is not even about "love". And this is not about “freedom”.

Society has given special rights to married couples for thousands of years. It is the smallest unit of 'government' in which a people procreate. To say this institution is only between a man and a woman denies no one any “rights”, any “freedoms”, and is NOT in any way comparable to civil rights for minorities. This is a behavior, not a skin color.

In Minnesota right now, gays are free to do whatever they want. Love whomever they want. Do whatever they want in their own bedrooms. But do not make society as a whole puts it’s endorsement on their behavior by granting this special classification of marriage.

Gays have all the freedoms they the rest of us have. This is not about “rights” but about acceptance. God says homosexuality is sexual immorality. Don’t make Minnesota call gay marriage “right” when God calls it wrong.

Posted by Jeff | May 22, 2011 2:51 PM

Jeff,

Married filing jointly DOES have benefits in our society. Along with child custody, medical decision making, and many other BENEFITS DENIED to those in gay relationships. Discrimination in this way parallels Jim Crow laws. We will not let this stand and vote bigotry down in November 2012.

Posted by T | May 22, 2011 3:00 PM

I would also like to follow up T's response to Jeff and address the involvment of God on this issue. We are debating a public, social issue. At most our civic access to ecconomic, medical, estate and insurance bennifits alloted to heterosexual married couples. The legal rights awarded by the state and national governments to married couples. This is not and should not be a debate over who's god is correct. Or what one group of people feel is their "God's Will" for everyone. It is a topic of being able to enter into a legally binding contract with all the benifits and expectations afforded to most of our society.

It is for this exact reason our forefathers had the forethought to create the separation of church and state into our way of government. To prevent the opression of our people by any group in the name of one god or religious theology. We live in an extremely diverse country with many views, beliefs and thoughts. The country all of our ancestors crossed the seas to find. A country with many freedoms. One of which is religious freedom. That is to have the freedom to practice whatever faith one chooses. It is also to have the freedom of opression from any group on another in the name of religion.

How far have we progressed if we still allow the religious views of one group to oppress or restrict the views and rights of others? Have we become the societies our forefather's worked so hard to get away from? Or are we better than that? A nation where all are viewed as equal regardless. Which, I might add, is the current view of most of those countries that our ancestors came from. How ironic.

Posted by Chad | May 22, 2011 7:01 PM

Bob, My son will be a newly eligible voter in 2012. How many new voters will there be? I have confidence in our youth to help defeat this measure.

Posted by Jim Hartmann | May 22, 2011 7:30 PM

T.
Granting those provisions to man/woman married couples is not bigotry to gays. And the parallels to Crow are obscene.

Chad.
The founders that you refered would be absolutely shocked and horrified that we were even discussing giving marrital status to homosexuals! To invoke their name for your cause is indefensible.

Laws based on the Word of God is our history, not "oppression".

(I find it amazing that I have to teach history and biology to the educated.)

Posted by Professor Jeff | May 22, 2011 8:39 PM

Jeff,

This will be fruitless with such condescending comments as you try to "educate" us.

Enjoy your isolated, hate-filled judgment and I guess your god will decide your fate.

I've never felt I can speak for a higher power as you do and will bow down to your great insight....but still vote no....I will also be able to look my gay child in the eye and hug her and hope her life remains full and open, something I don't think you could ever experience.

Posted by T | May 22, 2011 8:55 PM

Jeff - if procreation is so important, how about we create a litmus test for getting married. If you can procreate, then you can get married. We should test both men and women before they are married just to make sure. If you cannot (or choose not to) have children, then marriage should be denied to you. Oh, infertile couples should divorce immediately since they are not meeting the test to be married. Maybe we should also test to make sure they are a good genetic match. We wouldn't want any undesirable characteristics creeping into the mix. Smacks of some other type of social engineering someone in Germany thought was a good idea last century. All sarcasm aside, do you really believe that? Or is it just a convenient argument to support your prejudice?

Posted by margaret | May 22, 2011 10:36 PM

Chad.
The founders that you refered would be absolutely shocked and horrified that we were even discussing giving marrital status to homosexuals! To invoke their name for your cause is indefensible.

Laws based on the Word of God is our history, not "oppression".
The question is exactly who's god has the final word? And who's interpretation has more influence? There are plenty of devout christians that feel this exclusionary treatment of homosexuals is extreme bigotry in the guise of "What God Wants".

And the founders, our constitution, nor any laws afford the "separation of church and state" you mention. Rather, it is that government shall not establish a religion nor prevent the free exercise thereof. That may be the overlay intention of the artical, but you can be sure that they had every intention to keep the confusing and controversial context of religion and faith out of official dealings of state. Several of them had little to no faith claim of their own. They knew all too well how religion and faith passions could foul up a government.

Just last year a pastor in Briton was ARRESTED for preaching that homosexuality is a sin according to God's Word. A Canadian pastor was arrested a few years back for same. Soon it will be here. So much for the "freedom" you mention! I don't think anyone in our country really cares what is being preached or stated in any church or even in protest on the streets. Sure we all sling it back and forth. Mostly it's when one group starts to force their views through legislation that it gets out of control. Let's just keep it out of our state and national capitals and courts. Or else we'll just be cought up in a huge game of "Jesus said, Buddha said"

The 1st amendment was to protect religion FROM government oppression. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman, while Biblically based, oppresses no one. The "benefits" T. mentions in the previous post can be entered into by any 2 people contractually if desired (except for joint tax returns). Let me "educate" you with some facts. A gay partner is not legally allowed in the hospital room or to make choices on behalf of their sick or dying partner. The legal rights of any gay partner are never protected even if legal or living wills have been drawn or established. Genetic family members can (and usually do) trump any legal rights of a partner, even if the sick or dead person has forbidden it in a legal document. And of course any insurance benefits are out of the question. They are not denied to gays. They are privledges given to a man/women marriage by a society that values a man and a women coming together in a life-long relationship to procreate and raise children. Something gay couples are physically incapable of doing.Life long? Do I really need to bring up the topic of the devorce rate as we know it today? Heterosexual couples, statisticly, have lost the "value" you speak of for marriage. It's a club that you can join or easily jump out of whenever you feel like it...as many times as you like. And biologicaly I'm sure you're aware that you don't have to be married in order to create a child. Nor do you "have to" produce a child if you get married. Also, with our modern advances you don't even have to have a man and a women in the same room to create life.

I respect your views. I understand your points. I just don't think that this is an issue that is worth all the push back. What harm does letting two men or two women enter into these legal relationships do to anyone else? No one is asking for a change to the religious belief system for anyone here. Just the right to make life choices for themselves. If you and your faith base choose not to agree with this, fine. That's not a problem. But why should countless people accross the state and several affirming churches as well, be forced to follow what you and your faith base think is best for someone else? Especially when it has no adverse effect on anyone at all. How will the presence of gay marriage change your personal life?

(I find it amazing that I have to teach history and biology to the educated.)History is constantly being viewed from new perspectives. How will history tell this story? What will the next few generations see of us?

Posted by Chad | May 22, 2011 10:53 PM

There are only 132 Legislators listed. Where are the missing 2?

Posted by Tim Bonham | May 23, 2011 4:59 AM

Tim - This is from the Capitol View blog during the floor debate:

8:17 PMDFL caucus spokeswoman says Rep. Bobby Joe Champion, DFL-MInneapolis had to leave state for family emergency. Says he and David Dill, DFL-Crane Lake, are both officially excused.

Posted by Alison | May 23, 2011 5:20 AM

Jeff said:

"The "benefits" T. mentions in the previous post can be entered into by any 2 people contractually if desired (except for joint tax returns). They are not denied to gays. They are privledges given to a man/women marriage by a society that values a man and a women coming together in a life-long relationship to procreate and raise children."

The values of society evolve over time. Indeed, if modern society did not place value on long-term homosexual relationships, this issue would not even have come up.

Posted by Joe Busch | May 23, 2011 6:49 AM

If you like blue and I like red, do I hate you?

If you think homosexual relationships are good and healthy, and I don't, do you hate me?

I think that ascribing hatred on the basis of opinion or choice involves some faulty logic.

Just saying...

Posted by Nancy | May 23, 2011 9:05 AM

Nancy,

It feels hated-filled because it is an outfront assault to my family. My experience dictates my response, logic aside.

Posted by T | May 23, 2011 9:32 AM

Oh and being gay is not a choice.

Posted by T | May 23, 2011 9:33 AM

I find it very interesting how the privileged (the groups who already enjoy the rights and beifits of our society) can so easily say this is not hateful. If there was an once of empathy, you would see how hateful this amendment and these opinions are.

Posted by Joy | May 23, 2011 11:27 AM

To answer my own question, in 2009 there were 374,000 in the ages of 15 to 19. Guessing roughly 1/5 at each age, thats about 75,000 new voters per year. In a year and a half, we'll have about 112,500 new youthful voters.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=n&_lang=en&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U_DP1&ds_name=DEC_2000_SF1_U&geo_id=04000US27

Posted by Jim Hartmann | May 23, 2011 1:09 PM

If we are to go by the biblical definition of marriage then a man is entitled to several wives, a number of concubines and to have sex with the servants.

That about it?

Posted by Steve Ride | May 24, 2011 2:58 AM

So, if marriage is for procreation, and I'm married, and we've not had kids, should I have my dual-filing revoked? I mean if we're going to follow the "rules" of the bible and all, I guess the bible is synonymous with the IRS? .. was there an IRS in the bible.

And on that note, the bible also says it's OK to beat your wife, so my husband just grabbed the stick (no bigger than your thumb of course)... If I'm available, I'll be able to quote other misdeeds done unto women. Read the bible, and realize how little women are valued (as little more than an animal who serves)... why SHOULDN'T a man marry a man! Clearly it's beneficial!

Let's face it, Jesus was followed around by a chosen gang of 12 men... and NOT married? huh? What would the state be doing about that one? He can walk on water... but you'd still vote him down... right?

Posted by Annie Murray | May 24, 2011 9:25 PM

To all of those who keep insisting that this amendment is to "protect the children" and the "sanctity of the family", I expect you to put your money where your mouth is. I expect you to propose amendments stating that children born to single parents, children in families where a parent has passed away and children in divorced families be immediately placed in protective custody because they no longer have both a mother and father and are obviously not being raised in a proper home. To the righteous ones who are honest enough to say they support it because they are Christian and that's what the Bible says, I expect you to propose legislation outlawing sex for pleasure, childless marriages and an end to judges presiding over marriages that take place outside the church (and a bill that dissolves all existing ones).

What was that? You say that's absurd? Then just be honest and stop making excuses for your bigotry. Stop and think about how this does absolutely nothing to protect children, unless your real intention is to protect them from "those gays". I feel bad for the kids who are discovering that they are attracted to the same sex and will live in fear of reprisal from others kids who were taught by this batch of lawmakers that it's ok to discriminate and bully those who are different phyically, emotionally or sexually. Or the ones who were adopted by a same-sex couple and are on the verge of legally being told that their parents aren't fit to raise a child.

And to those of you who are all for this amendment and were shocked and distrubed by the level of emotion shown by the pro-gay marriage activists at the Capital...really? How dare all of those tax-paying gay and lesbian citizens, their families and friends be upset when the governing body of their state wants to legally classify them as second-class citizens and deny them the right to hold their partner's hand while they are dying in a hospital! How dare they be angry with your method of enacting your bigotry in a way that will prevent those darn "activist" judges from overturning the existing law.

Again, really???

Posted by Candi | May 25, 2011 2:57 PM

May 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Master Archive

Roll call vote: Same-sex marriage ban amendment

Comments (31)

Recent Entries

Categories

MPR News
Radio

On Air

Schedule

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Services

May 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

May 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

Roll call vote: Same-sex marriage ban amendment

Comments (31)

Recent Entries

Categories

MPR NewsRadio

On Air

Schedule

Other Radio Streams from MPR

Services

MPR News
Radio

May 2011
S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31