This is a map of how the House voted on a measure that sends a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to the ballot in 2012. The measure passed 70-62. Green means a yes vote, red for no, and yellow if the representative didn't vote. Click on an icon to see who the representative is and how they voted. The map was made using Google Fusion Tables.
The plain text of the bill supports the Traditional definition of Marriage. It bans nothing. It recognizes the Institution. I would expect main-stream media to be interested in accuracy.
Duluth legislators, you're awesome.
Does anyone else find it interesting, if not obvious, that if you zoom in on the Twin Cities you see a huge shift as you get outside of the Minneapolis/St. Paul city limits and near (and usually more poor) suburbs?
Looks like the further away you are from the realities of the real world, the more conservative you get.
I'd love to see more maps like this on other votes and big issues.
So JC, are you saying this amendment wouldn't ban same-sex marriage?
JC, the plain text of the Consitution of the United States said nothing that banned women or people of color from voting or having legal rights, yet it was interpreted that way for a long period of time.
A bill doesn't need to explicitly state something in writing to be interpreted for what it really means. There is nothing inaccurate in this, or any other article about this amendment. Its text only allows one type of marriage, and no others. Thusly, it can be interpreted to ban gay marriage.
I greatly appreciate that MPR and other news organizations allow individuals to assert their opinions through comments and questions, but please don't criticize the means in which you stay informed because your own bias clouds your civility.
I also share Travis's desire to see more maps like this for other votes and big issues.
We would all be better off if the state recognizes no marriages of any form, and all individuals in Minnesota are fully recognized as themselves, without placating to either the social left or the social right!
When people decide on legislation that does not affect them that is dangerous. It is very easy to say no to a group when it has no affect on you at all.
All the cases that have gone before courts have been struck down because the arguments were ludicrous and the so called experts in favor of a ban were nothing of the sort.
So please explain how your actual marriage is affected or your plans to get married are affected if two dudes get married?
Its been happening for years in other states and the only affect has been an increase in revenue for the state from marriage licenses, ceremonies and, of course, divorce lawyers.
The only sensible argument for NOT allowing gays to marry was espoused by Garrison Kellior; "Haven't they suffered enough"
If your only argument is a religious one then why dont you cool it and let your higher power do the judging. If you are right, surely they will take care of it?