The Minnesota Senate voted to legalize gay marriage today after the House of Representatives passed the measure on Thursday May 9th, 2013. ?The measure passed 37 – 30 and now goes to Governor Mark Dayton who is expected to sign it. The law, once signed, will take effect on August 1, 2013.?
St. Paul Mayor, Chris Coleman renamed the Wabasha Bridge the Freedom to Marry Bridge for the week in honor of the vote in the Senate.
The Senate first substituted the language from the bill that passed the House of Representatives, a formality necessary to allow the measure to go to the Governor immediately. The House added the word civil to the word marriage in the bill and to apply to all instances of the word marriage in all of Minnesota’s laws. This was done to clarify that all laws relating to marriage are civil laws and no religious ceremony is required.
Some tweets from today’s debate:
There are some who disagree with this law because they do not think there are enough protections for those with religious convictions and private businesses. There was some debate about whether this law protects them adequately.
Senator Gazelka’s amendment A10, which was defeated 41 – 26,?would have allowed any private business to refuse to do business with someone based on their religious beliefs. It also would have made the amendment inseverable from the remaining act so that if any part of the act or amendment were found to be unconstitutional then the whole act would be void. This language would have made discrimination legal under the statute.
“No person may be required to provide services,?accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges that assist or promote the solemnization,?formation, or celebration of any marriage, or that facilitate the development or?preservation of any marriage, if that action would cause the person to violate the person’s?sincerely held religious beliefs.”
Some of these arguments have been used before when this country debated interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. Senator Hayden spoke about the Loving v. Virginia case in his remarks because he would not be married to his wife if those discriminatory laws had not been changed.
