The same-sex marriage roll call

Posted at 2:35 PM on May 11, 2011 by Bob Collins (15 Comments)
Filed under: Politics

Here is the Senate roll call vote approving the bill that places a constitutional question on the 2012 ballot banning same-sex marriage. For audio highlights of the debate, see this earlier News Cut post.

Legislator	Party	District	Vote
Thomas M. Bakk	DFL	06	AGAINST
Michelle Benson	Republican	49	FOR
Linda Berglin	DFL	61	AGAINST
Terri Bonoff	DFL	43	AGAINST
David Brown	Republican	16	FOR
John Carlson	Republican	04	FOR
Roger Chamberlain	Republican	53	FOR
Gary Dahms	Republican	21	FOR
Ted Daley	Republican	38	FOR
Al DeKruif	Republican	25	FOR
D. Scott Dibble	DFL	60	AGAINST
Michelle L. Fischbach	Republican	14	FOR
Paul Gazelka	Republican	12	FOR
Chris Gerlach	Republican	37	FOR
Joe Gimse	Republican	13	FOR
Barbara Goodwin	DFL	50	AGAINST
Dan Hall	Republican	40	FOR
David Hann	Republican	42	FOR
John Harrington	DFL	67	AGAINST
Linda Higgins	DFL	58	AGAINST
Gretchen Hoffman	Republican	10	FOR
John Sterling Howe	Republican	28	FOR
Bill Ingebrigtsen	Republican	11	FOR
Michael J. Jungbauer	Republican	48	FOR
Kenneth Kelash	DFL	63	AGAINST
Amy Koch	Republican	19	FOR
Benjamin Kruse	Republican	47	FOR
Gary W. Kubly	DFL	20	AGAINST
Keith Langseth	DFL	09	AGAINST
Ron Latz	DFL	44	AGAINST
Ted Lillie	Republican	56	FOR
Warren Limmer	Republican	32	FOR
Tony Lourey	DFL	08	AGAINST
Doug Magnus	Republican	22	FOR
John Marty	DFL	54	AGAINST
Mary Jo McGuire	DFL	66	AGAINST
James P. Metzen	DFL	39	AGAINST
Geoff Michel	Republican	41	FOR
Jeremy Miller	Republican	31	FOR
Carla Nelson	Republican	30	FOR
Scott Newman	Republican	18	FOR
Sean R. Nienow	Republican	17	FOR
Gen Olson	Republican	33	FOR
Julianne E. Ortman	Republican	34	FOR
Sandra L. Pappas	DFL	65	AGAINST
Mike Parry	Republican	26	FOR
John Pederson	Republican	15	FOR
Lawrence J. Pogemiller	DFL	59	AGAINST
Roger Reinert	DFL	07	AGAINST
Ann H. Rest	DFL	45	AGAINST
Claire A. Robling	Republican	35	FOR
Julie A. Rosen	Republican	24	FOR
Tom Saxhaug	DFL	03	AGAINST
David H. Senjem	Republican	29	FOR
Kathy Sheran	DFL	23	AGAINST
Katie Sieben	DFL	57	AGAINST
Rod Skoe	DFL	02	AGAINST
Dan Sparks	DFL	27	AGAINST
LeRoy A. Stumpf	DFL	01	FOR
Dave Thompson	Republican	36	FOR
David J. Tomassoni	DFL	05	AGAINST
Patricia Torres Ray	DFL	62	AGAINST
Ray Vandeveer	Republican	52	FOR
Charles W. Wiger	DFL	55	AGAINST
Pam Wolf	Republican	51	FOR

---

Comments (15)

So all Republicans voted FOR and all DFLers (except LeRoy Stumpf) voted AGAINST. Not very surprising...

Posted by Ben Chorn | May 11, 2011 3:08 PM

---

TWITS~! All those Republicans are TWITS! And LeRoy Stumpf is also a twit.

Posted by MommyLisa | May 11, 2011 3:21 PM

---

Every Republican in the MN Senate voted for this?!?

Posted by Paul (@princejvstin) | May 11, 2011 3:35 PM

---

Woah. What happened with Julianne Ortman? She voted Friday to table the Amendment, and had spoken out against enshrining anti-gay discrimination in the MN Constitution. Seems there's a story there.

Posted by Fred Beukema | May 11, 2011 3:37 PM

---

Well, at least no one can drag out that old saw about it not mattering who you vote for any more.

Posted by John P. | May 11, 2011 3:45 PM

---

Is it still libelous if I spell Stumpf's name wrong?

(It's questions like that that confirms my decision to have an attorney on retainer.)

:-)

Posted by Jim Shapiro | May 11, 2011 4:22 PM

---

I wonder how much the 'override 6' came into the thoughts of those GOP members when they voted.

http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/2008/03/08/breaking-news-erhardt-and-peterson-lose-republican-endorsements/

I think Neil W. Peterson is the only one left (all others lost or didn't run again. But I could be wrong.

Posted by BJ | May 11, 2011 5:00 PM

---

Is anyone else as disgusted as I am by the politicians in this state? I can't believe that all of these GOPers who ran on "let's rein in spending, create jobs, and limit government" are wasting their time on something that will either (a) not get passed when it does come to a vote; or (b) eventually get overturned as more and more people realize that it's not the place of politicians to decide whom can marry whom (who and who? not sure of the proper grammar).

This state has enough other problems that we needn't waste our time discriminating against people via legislation. Let's send a message to the GOP that they're not allowed to foist their religious views on us. When they can come up with a sacred institution that doesn't have such a high failure (read: divorce) rate, then we'll have a discussion. Until then, STOP TELLING US HOW TO LIVE.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not gay, but I fully support their right to have the same privileges I do when married.

Posted by Justin | May 11, 2011 5:10 PM

---

Dear Republicans,

May I be the first to welcome you to the Loving vs Virginia memorial lounge, also known as the "Wrong Side Of History."

I really thought that there would be at least a single Republican in our state senate that believed in liberty and justice for all. Guess not.

Posted by TJ | May 11, 2011 7:00 PM

---

So much for the separation of church & state.

Posted by Alison | May 11, 2011 7:24 PM

---

"...focus like a laser on jobs and the budget..."

or not.

Posted by Alison | May 11, 2011 9:23 PM

---

My favorite non-sensical argument against marriage equality yet, heard during a committee hearing in the past couple of weeks, went something like this:
Water is hydrogen and oxygen. If you have 2 hydrogens together or two oxygens together you don't have water. You have something different.
(I wish I could find out who made that argument. I heard it on Morning Edition.)

So, was he actually arguing for bigamy? Or did he forget that day in science class when we learned that water is 2 hydrogens and 1 oxygen? Because you know one hydrogen and one oxygen together just isn't stable by itself. The oxygen end of the pair will just go around looking to 'bond' with another hydrogen, if you know what I mean.

And there's something to be said for the covalent bonds between 2 hydrogens or 2 oxygens. They are very stable due to their equal sharing. The bond between a hydrogen and an oxygen isn't really equal sharing. The bigger, stronger oxygen takes more than it gives. And this is the point where the wives in heterosexual marriages are thinking, "Yep. Sounds about right." Well they would be thinking it if they were reading this, but they're probably still cleaning the kitchen and packing backpacks and lunches about now. :-)

Posted by Al | May 11, 2011 9:54 PM

---

@BJ

I live in 41B and Neil Peterson lost in 2008 to Paul Rosenthal, who narrowly lost to Pat Mazorol. Mazorol is all Party Line with no intelligence or spine when questioned on anything, and will vote for this amendment.

Needless to say, I'll be working hard to make sure Mazorol and Sen. Michel don't get re-elected. Neither one is a leader capable of making the decisions we elected them to do. Hiding behind poll numbers and saying "Let the people decide" is not leadership. Michel used to be a respectable fiscal conservative, social moderate, but the tiniest bit of power turned him into nothing more than a puppet of the far right. He's given up on his medical marijuana bills in favor of big government interfering in private lives with the voter disenfranchisement bill and now the codifying hate amendment.

Posted by Peter | May 11, 2011 10:02 PM

---

"'Speakin of fruitcakes, how bout the government?
Your tax dollars at work." - Jimmy Buffet. Some "people" are just fine with the way our government wastes away our money on these frivolous bills.

Posted by MikeK | May 12, 2011 6:48 AM

---

Unbelievable our politicians are wasting time on this question and not solving the long term budget problem. Gay marriage does not threaten me or my marriage. Get on with it folks. Times they are a changin'

Posted by Sue | May 12, 2011 9:07 AM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories