Delaware 11th state to support marriage equality

[Dalton]

This just in. Minnesota may be next.

NBC News

DOVER, Del. -- A divided Delaware state Senate voted Tuesday to make its state the 11th in the nation to allow same-sex marriage, after hearing hours of passionate testimony from supporters and opponents.
The Senate's 12-9 vote sends the bill to Democratic Gov. Jack Markell, who supports the measure and planned to sign it later in the day. It would go into effect July 1.


"I think this is the right thing for Delaware," the governor said after the vote, while posing for pictures with supporters outside his legislative office. "It took an incredible team effort."
Gay rights activists and their supporters in the chamber erupted in cheers and applause following the Senate vote.
Delaware's same-sex marriage bill was introduced in the Democrat-controlled legislature last month, barely a year after the state began recognizing same-sex civil unions. The bill won passage two weeks ago in the state House on a 23-18 vote.
While it doesn't give same-sex couples any more rights or benefits under Delaware law than those they have in civil unions, supporters argued same-sex couples deserve the dignity and respect of married couples. They also noted that if the U.S. Supreme Court strikes down the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars married gay couples from receiving federal benefits, civil unions would not provide protections or tax benefits under federal law to same-sex couples in Delaware.
Opponents, including scores of conservative religious leaders from across the state, argued same-sex marriage redefines and destroys a centuries-old institution that is a building block of society.
Under the bill, no new civil unions will be performed in Delaware after July 1, and existing civil unions will be converted to marriages over the next year. The legislation also states that same-sex unions established in other states will be treated the same as marriages under Delaware law.
The bill does not force clerics to perform same-sex marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs. But under an existing Delaware law banning discrimination based on sexual orientation, business owners who refuse to provide marriage-related services to same-sex couples for reasons of conscience could be subject to discrimination claims.
Delaware joins neighboring Maryland and the nearby District of Columbia as jurisdictions that have approved gay marriage. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to allow gay and lesbian couples to wed, with independent Gov. Lincoln Chafee signing the bill an hour after its final passage.
Minnesota appeared poised to legalize gay marriage after the Democratic speaker of the state House said Tuesday that a gay marriage bill endorsed by the governor and likely to pass in the state Senate also now has enough backing in his chamber. The House will vote on the measure Thursday, and if it passes, the Democratic-led Senate could vote on it as soon as Saturday.

[FaxModem1]

Gah, beat me to it, Dalton.

Two states in two weeks. I'm hoping Minnesota does the same and makes it a turkey.

[Crossroads Inc.]

At this point I wonder if we should start merging these into an "X state approves gay marriage" thread

As for the approval itself, it is starting to more and more seem that America has finally hit a sort of "Critical Mass" in terms of approval for gay marriage. We shall most likely see all the more Liberal states approve it within the next four or five years, and then more slowly among the more "purple" states. The deep south will most likely remain a hold out until such time that the Supreme Court (if ever) rules to make it legal nation wide.

Personally I will spend my time enjoying the melt down on the far right as they grow increasingly rapid about the "Decay of America" and evil Liberals "making a Mockery of our Sacred traditions!"

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Speaking of which, things look optimistic in Minnesota.

Minnesota appears poised to legalize gay marriage

ST. PAUL, Minn. -- Minnesota appears poised to legalize gay marriage, as the Democratic speaker of the state House said Tuesday that a gay marriage bill endorsed by the governor and likely to pass in the state Senate also now has enough backing in his chamber.

The House will vote on the measure Thursday, and if it passes, the Democratic-led Senate could vote on it as soon as Saturday.

House Speaker Paul Thissen, of Minneapolis, said that the 73-member Democratic majority he leads will produce at least the 68 votes needed to pass the bill. Senate leaders are also confident of passage, and Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill, which would allow gay couples to marry as of Aug. 1.

"I think it's in line with the tradition we've had in Minnesota about respecting people, making sure everybody is included in our community and the fullness of participation in that," Thissen said.

If the bill passes, it would mark a stunning about-face on the issue in Minnesota, where only six months ago voters were asked whether they wanted to enshrine the current gay marriage ban in the state constitution. They didn't.

No House Republicans have committed to vote for the bill. Thissen said while their votes are not needed, they would be appreciated. "It's not a partisan issue. You've seen many prominent Republicans speak out on this issue," Thissen said. One Senate Republican, Branden Petersen of Andover, publicly supports the bill.

Fifth-term Rep. Pat Garofalo, a Republican from Farmington, told The Associated Press he decided Monday night he would oppose the bill, saying he had concerns about the adequacy of religious protections. He said he preferred an alternate civil union proposal that would extend gay couples more legal rights, but wouldn't allow them to marry.

"We would be much better off unifying the state behind civil unions," Garofalo said. Another Republican, Rep. Tim Kelly planned to push an amendment Thursday to swap gay marriage for civil unions.

Unable to count on any Republican support, House Democrats have had to rely on support from several party members from rural, more socially conservative areas where voters strongly backed last fall's failed proposed gay marriage ban. But in recent days, a number of those members have come out in support of the bill.

"My brother is gay," said Rep. Shannon Savick, DFL-Albert Lea, who said she'd vote for the bill. "I watched my brother being discriminated against when we were younger. I just don't see why he shouldn't be able to marry the person he loves. I did."

Savick acknowledged the decision could cost her votes in 2014, when all House members are back on the ballot. A handful of House Democrats are still publicly undecided, and the House leaders wouldn't say exactly how many votes they had.

"It could cost me the election. I represent a very conservative area," Savick said. "I hope I do enough good in other areas that they'll overlook that."

Thissen and Majority Leader Erin Murphy said they met privately with undecided members but that Democrats weren't pressured.

"This is not an issue that is subject to arm-twisting," said Murphy, of St. Paul. "This is an issue where members really have to reach their own conclusion and vote what they think is right for Minnesota."

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee approved the bill on a split voice vote as Republicans raised concerns that legalizing gay marriage could cause unanticipated costs to Minnesota's courts.

Last year's general election results reflected an apparent shift in the public's attitude toward gay marriage. In addition to Minnesota's defeat of the proposed gay marriage ban, voters legalized gay marriage in three other states - Maine, Maryland and Washington.

Six months later, gay marriage legislation is being considered in several other Democratic-led states. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to legalize gay marriage. Delaware could become the 11th this week. In the Midwest, Iowa has had legal gay marriage since a 2009 judicial ruling. The Minnesota bill would make it the first Midwestern state to take the step by legislative vote, although the Illinois Legislature is also considering a bill to legalize gay marriage.

Richard Carlbom, who heads Minnesotans United, a group that campaigned against last fall's amendment and has subsequently pushed the gay marriage bill through the legislative process, said the group has been conservative in its vote counting, and that commitments from legislators have been double- and triple-checked.

Carlbom said he hoped those inclined to vote 'no' would consider the long view.

"The vote that will be taken in the House on Thursday will be remembered for the next 100 years," he said.

---

Associated Press writer Brian Bakst contributed to this report.

[Highlord Laan]

Ah, the beautiful screams of massed conservotards, raging and gnashing their teeth in a froth of bigoted stupidity. Music to my ears.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ah, the beautiful screams of massed conservotards, raging and gnashing their teeth in a froth of bigoted stupidity. Music to my ears.

Not as much as you would think actually...

The far right seems to be ignoring the most recent rounds of Marriage equality. The only places I have heard 'noise' from recently are the far FAR right websites. Even fauxNews hasn't been making much hay of it, instead focusing on Benghazi almost 24/7.
In truth I think that bulk of the right knows this is a loosing issue to them. They can cling to to having gay marriage banned in the deep south and deep conservative states, but you can just see the GOP leadership becoming resigned to the shift in America.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, the Minnesota House just passed their marriage equality bill 75-59. Onwards to the Senate! (They're scheduled to vote on it this Monday)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island state Senate voted in favour of gay marriage.

[Crossroads Inc.]

For those seeking something more 'satisfying' in terms of Republicans freaking out...
I can offering the following from a Conservative Website

What is happening to our country? Gays, who represent less than 3% of our population, are trying to dominate our culture and society. Love whom you want. Love the one you’re with. People don’t really care. This is the message most people want to say but are afraid to because the LBGT (lesbian, bi-sexual, gay and transgender) community will verbally flog anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Between gay marriage, gay adoptions, forcing the Boy Scouts to admit gay scouts and scout masters, and lauding a rich NBA player for announcing he’s gay, the message is clear from gay America to the 97% of the rest of us. You will accept our lifestyle as mainstream. My response: “No I won’t.”

Notice when anyone rejects this gay agenda based on religious beliefs or personal views, they are called bigots or mocked. Appearing on Meet the Press May 5, 2013, Republican Newt Gingrich noted the Catholic Church is prohibited from performing adoption services in states like Massachusetts and the District of Columbia because the Church will only allow a married couple (by definition a man and woman) to adopt a baby. This is a perversion of societal norms all in the name of liberals forcing their political correctness down America’s throat whether her people have an opinion about it or not.

Liberals are eager to help the “gay lobby” with its takeover of America. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced March 29, 2013 plans to consider allowing Medicare to pay for sex change surgeries and invited public comments on the topic. Later that day, HHS abruptly pulled the proposal. While the agency said it was due to “an administrative challenge” of Medicare’s 1981 decision not to cover such operations, it seems news coverage of HHS’ proposal had something to do with its about face. I doubt Republicans in Congress would think sex change operations were a good use of taxpayer money.

There’s more. Democratic Senators are pushing to include a "gay couple's" provision in the comprehensive immigration reform legislation. Bowing to the gay strong-arming, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy will offer up the amendment, Uniting Americans Family Act, when the committee votes on the bill. The amendment allows “foreign same sex partners” of legal US residents or citizens to come to America and get a green card. Talk about a target for fraud. What test will the government use to certify people are gay and “permanent partners” and NOT people posing as gay to game the system?

As if the bill didn’t have enough problems with its amnesty push for over 11 million criminals and 301 amendments, Senators thought let’s make it even more outrageous. Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy said he didn’t believe the gay partner provision will kill the bill. No, the immigration bill will die a slow death like the Senate’s gun bill did because it’s mired in mud.

Even though the jobless rate has stayed above 7.5% for the past five years and remains on track to be the longest period of persistent unemployment in 70 years, Democrats want to extend amnesty to as many people possible who aren’t even in the US yet. What’s next? Allowing relatives of foreign gay partners to come here too? The liberal logic is beyond nonsensical it’s downright comical.

No matter how many TV shows are produced about gay couples being married and raising children, or phones calls made by president Obama to gay athletes, homosexuality will never be the majority in our culture. I think it’s high time the 97% of the rest of heterosexual America stand up for the preservation of American society not the distortion of it.

Anyone want to try counting up the number of bold faced lies in that?

[Col. Crackpot]

So once we get 34 states on board, can't we just ammend the constitution with congressional super majority and Presidential approval?

[Civil War Man]

The entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island state Senate voted in favour of gay marriage.

All five of them.

Still, you'd probably be pretty hard pressed to find five total Republicans supporting same sex marriage in many other states, much less ones holding elected office.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

The entire Republican caucus in the Rhode Island state Senate voted in favour of gay marriage.

All five of them.

Still, you'd probably be pretty hard pressed to find five total Republicans supporting same sex marriage in many other states, much less ones holding elected office.

It's simply just work in progress; there were four Republicans who voted for the marriage equality bill in Minnesota yesterday after all (Apparently, all that was needed to placate them was the superficial change of altering the word "marriage" to "civil marriage").

[Lord Revan]

I wonder if the "religious nutcase brigade" has alot less actual power then we (or they for that matter) think and the majority of GOP is actually people who are willing to support things like gay marriage as long as it can be done so that they can still say they support "traditional marriage".

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I wonder if the "religious nutcase brigade" has alot less actual power then we (or they for that matter) think and the majority of GOP is actually people who are willing to support things like gay marriage as long as it can be done so that they can still say they support "traditional marriage".

I doubt it. If the latest polls are to be believed, Republican voters are still staunchly anti-gay. That, of course, could also be the result of moderate Republicans leaving the party or failing to identify themselves with the party.

[Civil War Man]

I wonder if the "religious nutcase brigade" has alot less actual power then we (or they for that matter) think and the majority of GOP is actually people who are willing to support things like gay marriage as long as it can be done so that they can still say they support "traditional marriage".

It's a pretty open secret that fundamentalists are more loud than numerous in many parts of the US, and that their political influence is largely due to the Faustian bargain the Republican party made with them sometime post-Kennedy, where the GOP would get a reliable voting bloc to keep them in power in exchange for backing the religious right's agenda. The Religious Right used it as an opportunity to take over the asylum, but now the balance has shifted enough where the fundamentalists cannot carry the election on their own, and they've alienated enough demographics to make them a liability to anyone who isn't a True Believer.

[Rogue 9]

So once we get 34 states on board, can't we just ammend the constitution with congressional super majority and Presidential approval?

The amendment process actually doesn't involve the President in any way. Abraham Lincoln made a point of signing the 13th Amendment when it passed Congress (something Spielberg's recent movie went out of its way to point out), but he didn't have to (which it didn't). Amendment works by either both houses of Congress proposing by two-thirds majority or upon the application of two thirds of the state legislatures for a constitutional convention; either method is valid. After that, three quarters of the states must ratify the amendment by either state convention or the state legislature (the method to be used is decided case by case by the federal Congress).

So 34 states could call a convention, but you'd need 38 to pass whatever it decided.

And just to say something about the original topic, good on them.

[amigocabal]

At this point I wonder if we should start merging these into an "X state approves gay marriage" thread

As for the approval itself, it is starting to more and more seem that America has finally hit a sort of "Critical Mass" in terms of approval for gay marriage. We shall most likely see all the more Liberal states approve it within the next four or five years, and then more slowly among the more "purple" states. The deep south will most likely remain a hold out until such time that the Supreme Court (if ever) rules to make it legal nation wide.

Personally I will spend my time enjoying the melt down on the far right as they grow increasingly rapid about the "Decay of America" and evil Liberals "making a Mockery of our Sacred traditions!"

One of the major turning points was back in 2004, when Vice President Dick Cheney came out in support of recognizing same-sex marriage. After that, supporting same-sex marriage became politically acceptable.

The amendment process actually doesn't involve the President in any way. Abraham Lincoln made a point of signing the 13th Amendment when it passed Congress (something Spielberg's recent movie went out of its way to point out), but he didn't have to (which it didn't). Amendment works by either both houses of Congress proposing by two-thirds majority or upon the application of two thirds of the state legislatures for a constitutional convention; either method is valid. After that, three quarters of the states must ratify the amendment by either state convention or the state legislature (the method to be used is decided case by case by the federal Congress).

I should note that it was forty-six years between the United States Supreme Court's decision in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), which held that states may ban women from voting on the basis of their sex, and the ratification of the 19th Amendment.

The forty-sixth anniversary of Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972), is only five years from now.

[FaxModem1]

Star Tribune

In historic vote, Minnesota Senate approves same-sex marriage bill
Posted by: Rachel E. Stassen-Berger under Minnesota campaigns, Minnesota governor, Gov. Mark Dayton, Minnesota legislature, Minnesota state senators, Democrats, Republicans Updated: May 13, 2013 - 5:04 PM

17
comments
print

Share

With deafening cheers and overwhelming emotion, the Minnesota Senate voted 37-30 to legalize same-sex marriage.

“Today, love wins,” said Sen. Tony Lourey, DFL-Kerrick.

The vote, on the heels of a vote last week in the House, brings to a close a decade of debate over marriage that has echoed through the Capitol, bringing thousands of friends and foes of gay marriage to its marbled dome to express their deeply held feelings.

The measure next moves to Gov. Mark Dayton, who will welcome it with his signature in a celebratory ceremony at 5 p.m. Tuesday on the south steps of the Capitol.

Once it is signed, Minnesota will become the twelfth state to legalize same sex-marriage.
"It's historic and I can never be so proud of this body and of Minnesotans," said Sen. Jeff Hayden, DFL-Minneapolis. On the Senate floor, Hayden said that his wife is white and noted that just 50 years ago, his loving relationship would have been barred.

Three Democrats – Sens. LeRoy Stumpf, Dan Sparks and Lyle Koenen – voted against the bill. One Republican, Sen. Branden Petersen, voted yes.

Up until the last moments, some opponents had hoped the bill would fail despite clear indications that it would head to the Dayton’s desk.

Sen. Dan Hall, R-Burnsville, said up until the last he was praying for a miracle and the Senate to reject the bill.

“Some people have said that they are concerned about being on the right side of history. I am more concerned about being on the right side of eternity,” said Hall.

A few opponents of the bill dotted the Capitol holding signs that read 'Don't Erase Moms and Dads’ or gathered in a quiet spot to watch the debate unfold.

"In my heart, I grieve on both sides. Because I know what it's like to be alone and I know what it is like to have somebody close to you and love you. But I grieve inside because I feel we are opening the doors to Sodom and Gomorra. And in the end, God is going to be the judge," said Nelson, of Blaine, tears running down her cheeks.

On the Senate floor, Senators began with a discussion of what kinds of organizations would be protected from punishment if they refuse to involve themselves with same-sex marriage.

The measure being voted upon gives religious organizations protections, but Sen. Warren Limmer said those protections are limited.

“It doesn’t go far enough,” said Limmer, R-Maple Grove.

He said students, teachers, private business and colleges could be punished.

But backers of the legalization measure countered that Minnesota already has a human rights law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and that does not change if the marriage law changes.

“That’s true today, that will be true tomorrow,” said Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis and the sponsor of the marriage bill.

After long debate, the Senate voted down adding a measure to the marriage bill that backers said would offer religious opponents greater protections and opponents said would “gut” the state’s Human Rights act. The Human Rights Act forbids discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation. That measure failed on a 26-41 vote.

Opponents of the bill have repeatedly said that Minnesotans were lied to last year during the campaign against the constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. They were told, they claimed, that nothing would change if the amendment didn’t pass.

“Do they feel betrayed today? Absolutely. Do they feel lied to? Yeah,” said Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, R-Big Lake.
Those who campaigned hard against the constitutional ban deny that they claimed they would never try to legalize same-sex marriage.

Opponents of legalization were vastly outnumbered by supporters in the Capitol on Monday, as they were in the Senate chambers.

In droves, they welcomed lawmakers to the Capitol with hearts pasted on the august building’s stone steps, sang songs, banged drums and created echoes in the marble halls as lawmakers on their side spoke.

“We have nothing to fear from love and commitment,” said Sen. John Hoffman, DFL-Champlin, setting off an echo of praise.

But some Senate members may have something to fear.

Last year, although Minnesota as a state opposed the constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, many districts supported it. Although the vote on the amendment is not a perfect indicator of support, or lack thereof, for same same-sex marriage, those districts’ votes weighed heavy on the minds of lawmakers.

Those districts include the Andover district that Sen. Brenden Petersen represents. A Republican, his district voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the constitution.

He is a co-sponsor of the law to legalize same sex marriage and was the first legislative Republican to publicly declare his support.

In the final debate, he sent this message to his children: “Be bold and be courageous and you will never regret a day in your life."

He said that he is more uncertain of his future than he has been, but that he is confident that he was standing on the side of liberty.

Some Democrats faced similar conflicts. Sen. Vicki Jensen, DFL-Owatonna, comes from a district that voted for the marriage amendment and she voted yes.

Rep. Joe Radinovich, DFL-Crosby, has been there. Last Thursday, he voted for the bill. Sixty-two percent of his district voted to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage. He announced his vote publicly the week before he took it.

He said he has heard from passionate people on both sides.

“Criticism is a natural part of this,” Radinovich said afterward. But even in his outstate district, feelings are evolving.

“You can see public opinion changing on the ground up there,” he said.

By the time, he runs for re-election in 2014, he and all Minnesotans will have a chance to see how same-sex marriage has changed the state. After Dayton’s signature, it will be legal on August 1.

Click here for an interactive graphic of the House and Senate votes that sent the measure to the governor's desk.

Baird Helgeson contributed to this post.

Here's the final vote:


Here's the final vote

Here's the final vote

Minnesota is now number 12. Who is going to be number 13?

[Highlord Laan]

Well done Minnesota! Now if only my own state wasn't such a pathetic shithole.


And on a more personal note: Ha ha! Scream, you iron age primitives! Scream!

[Aasharu]

So, is there any indication or idea on which state will be number 13?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

One of the anti-gay email blasts I received last week seemed to indicate that they thought the Senate vote was more or less a done deal in our favor so I'm not too surprised at the outcome. But yet, it is really great news and congratulations are in order! Over here, I'm still waiting for the court ruling in June to see whether or not we go back to the ballot. It's such a shame that California was once potentially one of the first few states to legalize marriage equality in the country. Now, it will be relegated in history as just another state that followed in the wake of other states that lead the way. If anything, its history on this issue will be an infamous one ( in relation to Prop 8 ).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

So, is there any indication or idea on which state will be number 13?

Either California or Illinois. The former is dependent on a Supreme Court decision and the latter is dependent on their legislative body making it happen.

[Alyeska]

The SCOTUS rulings on Prop 8 and DOMA are getting near. I believe the estimates were for a June ruling on both.

[Aasharu]

I just find it somewhat embarrassing; I'm from Wisconsin, and despite the fact that we have both the first woman senator and the first openly gay senator in Tammy Baldwin, we're also stuck with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or civil unions. It's going to take forever to get rid of that.

[Alyeska]

I just find it somewhat embarrassing; I'm from Wisconsin, and despite the fact that we have both the first woman senator and the first openly gay senator in Tammy Baldwin, we're also stuck with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage or civil unions. It's going to take forever to get rid of that.

Cheer up. I live in Montana. Think how long it will be until we can overturn our own ban.

The only bright spot is Baucus is retiring and our former Governor Schweitzer seems the likely candidate to take the senate seat.