The Minnesota House of Representatives approved a bill legalizing marriage equality Wednesday afternoon by a vote of 75-59, including "aye" votes from four Republicans. The bill will likely be heard by the full state Senate next week.
The legislation, House File 1054, provides for marriage between any two adults but would not require religious institutions or individuals to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
The House spent a good deal of time debating an amendment proposed by Republican representative Tim Kelly, which would have created civil unions for same-sex couples rather than equal marriage rights. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 22-111.
"In Minnesota, we don't turn our backs on family," said out lesbian representative and bill sponsor Karen Clark during the three-hour debate, during which supporters and opponents could be heard chanting outside the closed chamber doors.
Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill if it reaches his desk. In November, Minnesota voters rejected a proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned marriage for same-sex couples.
"Today's historic vote by the Minnesota House of Representatives is a very large step toward the freedom to marry for Minnesotans," said Democratic Senator Scott Dibble in a statement. "We have cleared one of the final obstacles on our journey toward greater equality...But even after today's victory and after my colleagues and I in the Senate vote to put this bill on Governor Dayton's desk to be signed into law, this vital conversation will continue across Minnesota. Our finish line is crossed only after Minnesota is a state where all Minnesotans have the freedom to marry the person they love, and where every family, in every neighborhood, in every community is valued."
A Senate committee approved the legislation in March. If the legislation passes the Democrat-controlled Senate, as it is expected to do next week, and the governor signs the bill, Minnesota would become the 12th state to enact marriage equality and the first Midwestern state to do so legislatively. Same-sex couples could begin marrying August 1, reports Pam's House Blend. The Iowa Supreme Court mandated marriage equality in that state in a unanimous decision in 2009.
This should pass and will be signed by Dayton. Quite a turn around considering there was an amendment to define marriage as man and woman on the ballot last Nov. Which me and my fiancee voted against.
The legislation, House File 1054, provides for marriage between any two adults but would not require religious institutions or individuals to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
Glad to see it! MN is generally a pretty okay place.
Any two adults? Not trying to be a smartass, but surely they didn't rescind incest laws?
Isn't michelle 'batshit crazy' bachmann from MN?
This is gonna make her head splode, although her 'husband' can finally marry the man of his dreams.
Brain vapor, like gasoline vapor, is the most explosive state of brain matter, so the less in your head, the more danger of it exploding. I have actually read that.Yes.
Is there anything in her head to explode or is it just an empty shell?
My wife and I voted against the amendment also. The funny and awesome thing is the whole amendment sped up passing this and got some of the social conservatives the boot in November. Complete backfire on those social conservatives and I love it.
Any two adults? Not trying to be a smartass, but surely they didn't rescind incest laws?
The legislation, House File 1054, provides for marriage between any two adults but would not require religious institutions or individuals to perform or recognize same-sex marriages.
How did that work out in Washington?
It's worked out perfectly well, thanks for asking!
Don't play dumb.
You know very well that the Washington AG is trying to bully individuals into recognize SSM.
Linkage?
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020803087_weddingflowersxml.html
Cliffs:
Gay couple go to a florist for their wedding
Florist refuses to provide service for religious reasons
State attorney general sues florist for violating the state's anti-discrimination law
Raises serious questions about how far-reaching the exemptions are or should be. Churches don't have to agree to marry gay couples, but businesses who provide service are technically required by law to provide those products and services to gay couples who are or may be getting married.
Actually from the story the gay couple were previous customers. She was fine with servicing them with the exception of the wedding.
The presence or absence of legally recognized gay marriage in that state had nothing to do with whether or not the florist was guilty of violating anti-discrimination laws. In any case, the florist was not required to perform or recognize a same-sex marriage, therefore the part you bolded was irrelevant.
I would ask you to not play dumb, but that might be too much.
That's good, Government should have no say in marriage. That's for religion. A civil union or civil marriage as recognized by the justice of the peace is all that should matter to government and that one should have no discrimination between two consenting adults.