Minnesota, Part I

Minnesota's marriage equality bill passed the House yesterday by a wide margin, 75-59. Some interesting details:

It was two years ago that a then Republican-led Legislature voted to put a question on the November 2012 ballot asking voters to limit marriage to heterosexuals in the Minnesota Constitution.

Voters rejected the amendment 52 percent to 47 percent. They also elected a slew of Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party legislators that switched control of the Legislature to the DFL and eased the way for the gay marriage campaign.

In the days leading up to the House vote, no Republicans signaled they would vote for the bill. But Thursday, 71 House DFLers were joined by four Republicans: David FitzSimmons of Albertville, Pat Garofalo of Farmington, Andrea Kieffer of Woodbury and Jenifer Loon of Eden Prairie.

FitzSimmons successfully offered an amendment that added religious-freedom protections to Clark's bill and inserted the word "civil" in front of "marriage" to underscore state law deals with a civil, not a religious, status. It affects all marriages.

He, Garofalo and Loon said the beefed-up religious protections were key in gaining their support.

Loon said she decided Thursday on the floor to vote "yes." She said she was swayed by her colleagues' speeches and feedback from her constituents and family. Roughly 60 percent of residents in her district voted against last fall's marriage amendment.

That last bit struck me, particularly in light of this story:

A freshman Democratic state representative from a socially conservative district said Friday that he’d support the bill to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota, a key pickup for supporters as votes on the issue get closer at the Capitol.

Rep. Joe Radinovich, of Crosby, had been undecided. He said he decided more than a decade ago that he personally supports letting same-sex couples legally marry, but was conflicted knowing that many residents of his Brainerd-area district are more skeptical.

“This was not an easy decision, but at the end of the day I’d rather protect my integrity than my job,” Radinovich told The Associated Press. The 27-year-old lawmaker won his seat by just 323 votes last fall.

It's nice to know there are people in politics with consciences.

This could all be a done deal by Tuesday.

Of course, the anti-marriage crowd had to make a statement:

Minnesota for Marriage, the main group opposing gay marriage, issued a statement afterward urging the Senate to block the bill.

"The Senate must ask themselves whether or not they will choose to classify half of Minnesotans who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman as bigots under the law," the group said.

"They must decide whether it is important in Minnesota to encourage connecting children with their parents. They must decide whether or not mothers and fathers have a place in their law. We hope they make the right decision."

It must be frustrating to have to rely on irrelevancies to make your point. Let's see. . . .

I've not heard of a provision that classifies anyone as a "bigot." As far as I know, that word doesn't appear in the bill at all. And no one's going to call you a bigot for believing something -- it's when you try to ram it down everyone else's throat that it becomes a problem.

And of course, it's about children -- except it's not. If anyone knows of a provision in this bill that requires straight couples to give up their children, leave a comment. And as for mothers and fathers -- huh? Again, if anyone knows of a provision that eliminates mothers and fathers, comments are open.

And now -- Illinois? What's the hold-up?