Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Minnesota delegation begins weighing in on DOMA decision

REUTERS/James Lawler Duggan
Michael Knaapen, left, and his husband John Becker, both of Wisconsin, react to the 5-4 ruling striking down as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — In statements and on Twitter, Minnesota Democrats cheered the U.S. Supreme Court’s Wednesday rulings on same-sex marriage.

In a statement, longtime Defense of Marriage Act opponent Sen. Al Franken said, “I’m very happy that the U.S. Supreme Court found DOMA unconstitutional, and that we’re now closer toward ensuring marriage equality for every American. Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.”

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who, like Franken, co-sponsored a bill repealing DOMA said it’s now up to states to “choose to stand on the side of equality and follow in the footsteps of Minnesota, where we successfully fought back a divisive constitutional amendment and enacted marriage equality with bipartisan support.”

Rep. Betty McCollum called the decision “a victory for love and equality over blatant discrimination.” Rep. Keith Ellison said he was “relieved and thrilled” by the decision, but said, “there are still thousands a of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender couples who live in states that treat them and their families as second-class citizens. And millions continue to see their right to vote under threat. We must continue to make sure our laws live up to the immortal words, ‘liberty and justice for all.'” 

Bachmann: Supreme Court ‘an effective oligarchy of five’

But Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann said the decision “will undermine the best interest of children and the best interests of the United States.”

“Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted,” she said in a statement. “For thousands of years of recorded human history, no society has defended the legal standard of marriage as anything other than between man and woman. Only since 2000 have we seen a redefinition of this foundational unit of society in various nations. Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to join the trend, despite the clear will of the people’s representatives through DOMA.”

In a press conference with other conservative Republicans, Bachmann slammed the court as “an effective oligarchy of five.” She said its ruling, on equal protection grounds, was hypocritical because it denied equal protection to Americans whose members voted for DOMA in the first place, and those in California who voted for the now-overturned Proposition 8. 

Bachmann implied she could support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, saying that the Supreme Court is “restrained by the Constitution.”

“I do believe that the people will have their sway,” she said. “The Supreme Court not only attacked the Constitution today … they attached something that they have no jurisdiction over whatsoever, the foundational unit of our society, which is marriage. That is something that God created. That is something that God defined.”

Other Minnesota lawmakers weighed in on Twitter. We’ll update this piece if they have any more to say.

Devin Henry can be reached at 

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (3)

  1. Submitted by Greg Kapphahn on 06/26/2013 - 12:09 pm.

    I Can’t Help But Wonder

    If Rep. Bachmann, who claims to have been a foster parent to 23 “children” (whether for a few hours or a few years each, we have no way of knowing)…

    has ever stopped to think that EACH AND EVERY ONE of those 23 children resulted in some type of failure in a “straight” marriage.

    Indeed, if Rep. Bachmann and her Republican colleagues are concerned for the state of “marriage” (by which they mean heterosexual marriage, only) I would think they would be researching and presenting legislation based on their research regarding how to help heterosexual men and women form healthy relationships and long-lasting marriages. None of the, of course, have done any such thing.

    But then, again, considering the heterosexual marriage track record of the most strident anti-gay marriage politicians and media stars (Rep. Bachmann, herself, excluded), I suspect that LAST thing most “straight” gay-marriage opponents want is to look in the mirror and figure out why their OWN relationships and marriages don’t seem to work out very well, nor why the highest heterosexual divorce rates are found in “conservative” areas.

  2. Submitted by Richard Steuland on 06/26/2013 - 01:08 pm.

    Bachman reveals her ignorance yet again

    Ms Bachman has once more revealed her ignorance. Claiming to understand the Constitution she reveals her shallow understanding of the document. All people are created equal with inalienable rights namely the right to freedom,life and liberty. Evidently she would not follow the spirit of this freedom giving document
    . Her purpose in running for Congress was to further her idea of an American theocratic state. Has she
    Not twisted the facts of history to suit her purposes? One of her biggest lies is the one where she claims that the founding fathers wishes for a Theocracy were thwarted. By her words and deeds she reveals her mean spirited insanity. Fifty years from now history will look upon her and wonder why the people of her district could have repeatedly returned her to congress.

  3. Submitted by Richard Steuland on 06/26/2013 - 02:12 pm.

    Bachman yet again reveals her ignorance

    Yet again, Ms. Bachman reveals her ignorance. I really question her grasp of the Constitution. How could one be for the unequal treatment of minorities if one were truly a student of the document. Her grasp of history is troubling as she repeatedly puts forth the idea that our Founding Fathers were in favor of a Christian theocracy. It’s obvious that Bachman has an agenda that is not representing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Rather than represent the people she spews forth her distorted ideology. Yes, many people in her Congressional district are just as misinformed and that is why they repeatedly reelect her.

Leave a Reply