Dramatic images of gay marriage ban

As a final House committee narrowly approved a constitutional question to ban gay marriage, security dragged a protester out of the room. The vote was 13-12, the bill now moves to the House floor to be taken up any time before the regular session ends on Monday.  One Republican Rep. Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing) voted against it.  One man burst in tears with the vote.  We’ll have much more tonight on Almanac: At the Capitol 7 p.m. MN CH and 10 p.m. TPT.

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Frankie Barbella on 05/18/2011 - 03:10 pm.

    The folly of this constitutional issue aside, why not let Minnesotan’s vote on such an issue? Do we not believe in democracy? Is that not what we are taught? Or, is the tyranny of the majority only adverse when the outcomes do not coincidence with your particular values? Lets have this vote in public for all to see, hopefully it fails miserably. If it does, then the issue is closed. If it passes, then the will of the people have spoken. I personally think the State of Minnesota should not be in the “marriage” business. But, if the state wants to inject itself into the debate, then it should be the right of the citizens to have a direct voice.

  2. Submitted by Paul Landskroener on 05/18/2011 - 11:33 pm.

    The reason the amendment is unworthy of being presented to the voters is because it, in essence, repeals or rewrites the Equal Protection provisions of the state constitution.

    This is the ONLY reason Sen Limmer gives for proposing it: because the state supreme court may interpret the constitution’s equal protection provisions to require gays and straights to be treated the same way in regard to marriage, we have to amend the equal protection provisions to say “equal protection except for gays.”

    It is like saying we should let the voters decide on an amendment to make property ownership a qualification for voting, or to prohibit the state courts from declaring state laws unconstitutional. Universal sufferage and judicial review are, and ought to be, so deeply ingrained in the political DNA of the People that permitting them to vote on changing them is unthinkable. It should be the same for equal protection. That’s why it not be subject to a popular vote.

  3. Submitted by Paul Landskroener on 05/18/2011 - 11:34 pm.

    The reason the amendment is unworthy of being presented to the voters is because it, in essence, repeals or rewrites the Equal Protection provisions of the state constitution.

    This is the ONLY reason Sen Limmer gives for proposing it: because the state supreme court may interpret the constitution’s equal protection provisions to require gays and straights to be treated the same way in regard to marriage, we have to amend the equal protection provisions to say “equal protection except for gays.”

    It is like saying we should let the voters decide on an amendment to make property ownership a qualification for voting, or to prohibit the state courts from declaring state laws unconstitutional. Universal sufferage and judicial review are, and ought to be, so deeply ingrained in the political DNA of the People that permitting them to vote on changing them is unthinkable. It should be the same for equal protection. That’s why it not be subject to a popular vote.

  4. Submitted by David Greene on 05/19/2011 - 10:21 am.

    @Frankie

    The reason it’s not acceptable to let Minnesotans vote on this is that it’s never acceptable to let people vote on whether other people should have rights. It’s fundamentally wrong.

    And we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. We elect legislators to make these decisions. Policy by referendum is a very bad idea as California demonstrates over and over.

    Finally, the issue is NOT settled with a vote that rejects the amendment. The law against same-sex marriage is still on the books. Voters are not being asked whether or not they support same-sex marriage. They’re being asked, “‘No’, or ‘hell no?'”

  5. Submitted by Eric T on 05/19/2011 - 01:25 pm.

    “The folly of this constitutional issue aside…”

    Actually, we can’t side step that part…that’s kind of the point.

Leave a Reply