MN Marriage Amendment Fails: 'Vote No' Wins

While proponents were saying the race was still too early to call, the Associated Press called the race shortly before 2 a.m. The vote means the state constitution will not define marriage as only between a man and a woman.

The Minnesota Marriage Amendment has been rejected.

The campaign to amend the Minnesota state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to strictly between heterosexual couples was defeated Tuesday by more than 51 percent of a statewide vote.

With 92 percent of state precincts reporting, the Associated Press reported shortly before 2 a.m. Wednesday that Amendment 1—informally known as the Minnesota Marriage Amendment—had failed: "Vote No" won.

Speaking to a cheering crowd of hundreds at St Paul's River Centre, Richard Carlbom, the campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families, told audiences that Minnesota was the first state in the nation to reject a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

"Tonight, Minnesota proved love is bigger than government," Carlbom said.

Carlbom continued: "The strength of this campaign was our thousands of volunteers, and our broad and diverse coalition of partners. This campaign did something that has never been done before: it brought together people of all faiths, in all communities, and of all political affiliations on the principle that freedom means freedom for everybody."

A full copy of his statement is attached to this article.

"No" votes outnumbered "Yes" votes in every provisional vote tally posted Tuesday night, but Carlbom's speech still brought Southwest Minneapolis resident Florence Brammer to tears, which she rubbed away from beneath her glasses.

"I've been married to a man for 35 years," she said. "It really defined my life. I raised three children in a marriage that was recognized by society."

Thinking of LGBT friends in 25-year, legally-unrecognized relationships, she said she was personally offended by an amendment that seemed to target them "with such vengeance."

"I'm very proud, very moved to be a Minnesotan right now," she said.

As Carlbom concluded his speech and left the stage, the Queen song "We are the Champions" began to blare over the loudspeakers, but amendment supporters weren't initially ready to concede quite yet. By 2:30 a.m., though, Minnesota for Marriage's Deputy Campaign Manager threw in the towel via Twitter.

"We gave our best and came up short. The fight to preserve God’s definition of marriage is not over just b/c we lost tonight," Andy Parrish wrote. "I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers. The fight for marriage is not over just b/c we lost tonight."

The National Organization for Marriage, who helped bankroll Minnesota's amendment supporters and those in three other states, echoed Parish in a statement issued Wednesday morning.

"Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it," the statement read. "Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now.”

Susan February 09, 2013 at 02:10 AM
Donald, the law says that I cannot run a help wanted ad that says "Christians need not apply". How is this not a law to prevent me from discriminating against your choice/behavior?
Donald Lee February 09, 2013 at 02:48 AM
That's not actually true. The Boy scouts, and a Lutheran school have recently been told by the SCOTUS that private associations are voluntary, and they have a right to exclude who they choose. In the case of the scouts, homosexual scoutmasters, and in the case of Lutherans, those who do not share their faith.
Susan February 09, 2013 at 03:42 AM
Employment law and laws for "private" establishments and/or groups are quite different.
Dan Johnson February 09, 2013 at 04:01 AM
Equal legal treatment does not impose a view on you. There is no imposition on your rights, and you can still think and feel whatever you choose, and discriminate in your church, home, and private clubs. Only your position imposes a restriction on the rights of others.
mike savick February 09, 2013 at 05:52 AM
Time for one of those big adult decisions. You can be really unhappy or accept that the world is changing and you hold a minority view. Fortunately the change will not impose any changes on your beliefs or religious institution. The younger generations overwhelmingly poll in favor of ending legal obstacles to gay marriage. You can fight for a holding action at best but sand will only hold the tide temporarily. Some gay people will be able to get married in their home state, the sun will continue to rise, the Twins and Vikings will continue to disappoint fans, budget debates will go on, and all will be mostly well in Minnesota.
Susan February 09, 2013 at 05:20 PM
Sad but true, Mike. As the history in this country shows us, it often takes time (for a generation to die off) for an overall shift in the discussion and for change to happen. Those who hold old prejudices, bigotry, and/or hatred are eventually proven wrong over time. As has been pointed out so often in this discussion, racism was not only accepted but expected in the past and the same can be said about sexism and other issues regarding discrimination. The religious movement has made this particular issue hard to overcome, but it will happen. Sadly for our homosexual friends and family, they must wait to be considered equal under the eyes of the law, but the tide is coming and it will be done.
Liberaltarian February 09, 2013 at 06:42 PM
The "equal under the eyes of the law" is one part of it. The harder part will be ending the prejudice and de facto discrimination. Many people of my generation (middle aged) tend to think of homosexuals like they do politicians - they like and respect the ones that they know, but have negative opinions about them in aggregate. As more same-sex couples come "out", I think this will change. But it'll take some time.
Susan February 09, 2013 at 06:48 PM
Chris wrote: "The harder part will be ending the prejudice and de facto discrimination." This is so very true. As with my examples of racism and sexism, they still exist but the law makes it harder and harder to act on those feelings. I know many young adults my son's age (18-22) who voted for the first time in November. Many of them voted BECAUSE of the "one man, one woman" item on the ballot. They feel strongly about this issue, most often because more and more in our generation are not bringing them up with those old prejudices and when they do see it they want to fight it. I am proud of them and proud that our generation is helping to make that shift in how we are raising our kids.
Dan Johnson February 09, 2013 at 11:20 PM
Removing the official support and teaching of prejudice and discrimination from the law will not end it. But this is an absolutely necessary step in the process. In science, this is known as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
Donald Lee February 09, 2013 at 11:23 PM
The smug self-righteousness of those on this issue who appear to believe that they hold a monopoly on the moral high ground is ugly. Their rhetorical sneers at others are not helpful to civil discussion. This is not a technique for finding common ground and moving forward. Calling people bigots and haters is not helpful. It is a way to bully and badger - and bludgeon - your way to the desired outcome. ... and don't tell me that the labels are unused. See the post immediately above. It is particularly ironic when those same people reject any sort of transcendent morality, yet insist on their own definition of "right" and "wrong". Those who do hold to a transcendent morality are excluded from the public square because their opinions and agendas are based on something unacceptable.(religion!) Those who subscribe to a self-selected, non-transcendent morality are somehow acceptable, and somehow superior. The irony and illogic is thick.
Dan Johnson February 09, 2013 at 11:26 PM
(From "South Pacific". Lead in line to the song is: it's not something you're born with...) You've Got To Be Taught to Hate And Fear, you've Got To Be Taught from Year To Year, it's Got To Be Drummed in Your Dear Little Ear you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. you've Got To Be Taught To Be Afraid of People Whose Eyes Are Oddly Made, and People Whose Skin Is A Diff'rent Shade, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. you've Got To Be Taught Before It's Too Late, before You Are Six Or Seven Or Eight, to Hate All The People Your Relatives Hate, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught (Rogers and Hammerstein)
Dan Johnson February 09, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Julian Bond: "Black people, of all people, should not oppose equality. And that is what gay marriage represents. ... No people of good will should oppose marriage equality. And they should not think that civil unions are a substitute. At best, civil unions are separate but equal. And we all know separate is never equal." John Lewis, testifying before the Senate: "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love." Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman: "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is." The Rev. Al Sharpton, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South African President Nelson Mandela, the Rev. Dr. James Lawson, National NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous - a veritable Who's Who of civil rights - all support marriage equality. Julian Bond, testified, "When I'm asked if gay rights are civil rights, my answer is always: 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives, the right to equal treatment before the law. ... There's no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in enjoying these rights."
Dan Johnson February 09, 2013 at 11:39 PM
Coretta Scott King: "I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy." "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
Susan February 09, 2013 at 11:53 PM
If it makes me smug that I am proud of my son, his friends, and even myself for having voted "no" then so be it. Where did I call anyone a bigot or hater, Donald? Once again you are re-writing my comment, and THIS is not helpful. If someone is a bigot, they are a bigot, if someone hates, they spread hatred. Using the words is an accurate description of some people. Just because they are ugly words does not make the description any less true. And BTW, I was writing to Mike. Of-course you have the right to jump in but wasn't it you who pointed out recently that another commenter was leaving a "scolding" comment and that it was "unhelpful" to the conversation? Yet here you are, doing the same thing yet again. Let's talk about pointing fingers and badgering. How many times have you asked, implied, or inferred that those of us who don't consider ourselves Christians do not have the proper or right morals? Yet I'm not in jail, I don't steal, kill, or intentionally break laws or hurt anyone....these are some terrible, terrible morals to live by... Your hypocrisy is even thicker than your offended ego.
Donald Lee February 09, 2013 at 11:59 PM
I quote Susan: "Those who hold old prejudices, bigotry, and/or hatred are eventually proven wrong over time." Consider the clear context honestly. If this is not calling people names, please explain.
Susan February 10, 2013 at 12:06 AM
Donald, when have you ever found "common ground" with someone who does not hold your particular beliefs? What I have found from our many, many exchanges, and even other discussions that I have not participated in, is that you never move the slightest bit away from what you deem "right" for all. I will admit that I have not read everything you've written but what I have shows me that your notation of "common ground" is nothing but a fallacy.
Susan February 10, 2013 at 12:14 AM
Donald, I was speaking of racism, sexism and the like. The people who held out that African Americans and women were inferior because of what/who they are, were eventually proven wrong. Yes, I personally believe the same will be true with homosexuality but I did not say that YOU were a bigot or hater. If you want me to label you, I'm sure I could, just as you like to label others....even though your not-so-clever way of writing to the masses vs. to a specific person is a good attempt at not doing so, it still is what it is. And again I will say " If someone is a bigot, they are a bigot, if someone hates, they spread hatred. Using the words is an accurate description of some people. Just because they are ugly words does not make the description any less true."
Dan Johnson February 10, 2013 at 12:16 AM
Donald. Most of your words often apply to your own posts. You rely on pejorative terminology to demean, but don't provide rational, logically supportable reasons for refusing to treat others as you would yourself. Many religious leaders and believers support full legal equality for gay people. Many already perform same gender marriages. It is not religion that is the problem, but the desire of some religious groups to use the law to stigmatize and dehumanize others by refusing to treat them as they would themselves under the law. No matter what your motivation, when you refuse legal equality, you harm others needlessly. Most religions as well as non-religious ethical belief systems agree: you should treat others as you would yourself, under the law. And again, you offer no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right of the individual.
Susan February 10, 2013 at 01:16 AM
Dan, for your consideration, a blog post by Donald: http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-whats-the-harm-in-same-sex-marriage It's interesting that "harm" can be defined and acknowledged by one side of this debate but no consideration is given to the "harm" suffered by homosexuals. The hypocrisy and willful blindness continues...and/or apparently "harm" can only be measured in dollars.
Susan February 10, 2013 at 01:20 AM
One other item to note; this "harm" was brought on by the innkeepers desire to discriminate in a business open to the public. The harm was because of their discrimination, not because the couple was homosexual. "The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville acknowledged it had broken the law and agreed to pay $30,000 in fines and damages."
Donald Lee February 10, 2013 at 03:06 AM
Read the link.
Susan February 10, 2013 at 03:11 AM
I did read both links. The second link with the timeline does explain things further but the employee obviously took her cues from the owners of the establishment. Certainly she was at fault for what happened, but as her employers and trainers (planting the seed), they were ultimately responsible.
Dan Johnson February 10, 2013 at 04:21 PM
Susan. I read it when Donald posted it earlier, but didn't comment there, as it was posted before the election and Donald's assertions had been fairly well refuted there, so I addressed them on this thread instead. As you point out, this is another public accommodations law issue. The fine the Innkeepers received was not a result of marriage equality laws, but a result of the refusal of public accommodations by the Inn. Had the Inn treated them like everyone else, there would have been no measurable harm to the Inn. While I have seen a couple of other similar violations involving refusal of equal public accommodations, this does not seem to be a widespread problem and again, only occurs when equal access is restricted or burdened. And still we see no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights.
Joyce February 10, 2013 at 05:16 PM
Donald Lee wrote, 'Those who do hold to a transcendent morality are excluded from the public square because their opinions and agendas are based on something unacceptable.(religion!) Those who subscribe to a self-selected, non-transcendent morality are somehow acceptable, and somehow superior. The irony and illogic is thick.' That totally ignores the fact that MANY religious groups support same sex marriage with their own 'transcendent morality'; different religious sects interpret the Bible differently, Donald, so please explain why YOUR particular interpretation should be codified in our civil law.
Joyce February 10, 2013 at 05:22 PM
Donald Lee wrote: 'I quote Susan: "Those who hold old prejudices, bigotry, and/or hatred are eventually proven wrong over time." Consider the clear context honestly. If this is not calling people names, please explain.' Donald, bigotry is as bigotry does.
Susan March 15, 2013 at 03:18 PM
Dan, are you still getting email alerts for this thread? If so... http://edenprairie.patch.com/articles/should-gay-marriage-be-part-of-a-district-s-curriculum?1363294463#
Mike B. March 15, 2013 at 03:49 PM
This country and state has lost its bearings. We need to go back to the time when there were laws against deviant behavior such as homosexuality and interracial marriage. The 1950s were a good time in this country. The '60s liberalism and permissiveness wrecked normal behavioral standards in this country
Joyce March 15, 2013 at 04:01 PM
Absolutely, Mike. There are a few other social policies from the '50s we should return to as well, such as segregation - mixing the races in public places makes absolutely no sense! Also, women should not be allowed to work in traditional male professions such as law and medicine, nor should women be allowed to have credit in their own names, and married women should not be allowed to work at all. Let's return to Jewish quotas in colleges and universities, too, and advertisements for jobs should be able to state, "Jews and Negroes need not apply". Yes, the '50s were wonderful!
Michael Hindin March 17, 2013 at 11:13 PM
Good times on the surface for white middle class Protestants and wealthier folks, with male wage earners that could support and entire family. The TV programs of tht era left a lot out. Not so good for Blacks, Jews, Catholics, many women and other minority groups. Women were assumed to not be supporting a family so women's wages were deemed not important or worthy of a man. A family supported by a women's wages faired poorly. Racism, anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism were rampant. I lived through that era and it wasn't pretty below the surface. Employers were allowed. to steal promised pensions by fireng people shortly before the 10 to 20 year vesting periods. The Korean war killed many. You probably weren't eligible for the Vietnam draft. You probably never withness a chemical filled drainage pipe flowing into a river or lake. 1960's liberalism helped found the environmental movement that eventually pushed even Richard Nixon to sigh laws to clean up our air and water. I helped enforce soem of those laws with low paying government job. Work places were far less safe and factory air and water pollution were unchecked. Ozzie and Harriet, Leave it to Beaver, etc were the 1950's American mythology. Go more deeply into history before you steriotype '60s liberals.
Donald Lee March 17, 2013 at 11:31 PM
The left has its own stereotypes that it uses to justify its agenda, equally untrue.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something