Roll call vote: Same-sex marriage ban amendment

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
  • Nancy Gertner

    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.

  • Nanci

    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!

  • Hopo

    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.

  • Joe Busch

    “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.

  • Brad

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

  • Lucy

    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.

  • George Hayduke

    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.

  • 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.

  • Michele

    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.

  • T

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

    We must vote this down and mobilize to do so!

  • rich

    Let Love Rule!

  • Alison

    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.

  • Jeff

    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.

  • T

    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.

  • Chad

    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.

  • Jim Hartmann

    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.

  • Professor Jeff

    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”.

    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.

    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!

    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). 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.

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

  • T

    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.

  • margaret

    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?

  • Chad

    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?

  • Tim Bonham

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

  • Alison

    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.

  • Joe Busch

    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.

  • Nancy

    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…

  • T

    Nancy,

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

  • T

    Oh and being gay is not a choice.

  • Joy

    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.

  • Jim Hartmann

    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

  • Steve Ride

    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?

  • Annie Murray

    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?

  • Candi

    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???