Capitol Image

Print

Last edited December 2009

Resources on Minnesota Issues
Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota

This guide is compiled by staff at the Minnesota Legislative Reference Library on a topic of interest to Minnesota legislators. It is designed to provide an introduction to the topic, directing the user to a variety of sources, and is not intended to be exhaustive. In particular, it is focused on items available in the Legislative Reference Library.

The debate related to the issue of same-sex marriage became more prominent in Minnesota and throughout the United States in the 1990s. Minnesota has dealt with this matter several times over the years. In fact, the Minnesota Supreme Court was one of the first in the nation to rule on the issue of same-sex marriage. The Baker v. Nelson decision (191 N.W.2d 185) in 1971 held that Minnesota Statutes prohibited marriages between same-sex partners.

Twenty-five years later the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was signed into law on September 21, 1996 (U.S. Code Title 1, Chapter 1, Section 7 and U.S. Code Title 28, Chapter 115, Section 1738C). Shortly thereafter, the Minnesota Legislature passed its own version of what has been referred to as the Defense of Marriage Act (Laws of Minnesota 1997, Chapter 203, Article 10). The governor approved it on June 2, 1997. This act clarified that "lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex" and went on to specifically prohibit "marriage between persons of the same sex" (Minnesota Statutes chapter 517.01 and 517.03).

In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the denial of civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians was unconstitutional in that state. Due in large part to this court decision, efforts were made to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and, in some bills, its legal equivalent in Minnesota with the introduction of HF 2798/ SF 2715, and SF 3003 in 2004. These attempts to get the same-sex measures on the ballot failed. In Minnesota the debate continues and bills have been introduced by both opponents and proponents of this issue, see the Legislative History section below for detailed information on them.

The issue of extending marriage rights to homosexuals continues to be debated throughout the United States as well. The Human Rights Campaign follows this issue closely and has compiled a Relationship Recognition in the U.S. map.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and New Hampshire currently allow same-sex marriage.

  • Massachusetts was the first state in the United States to allow same-sex marriage with the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health court ruling in 2003. They began issuing same-sex marriage licenses on May 17, 2004.
  • Connecticut had passed civil union laws in 2005 but on October 10, 2008 the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health that same-sex couples have the right to marry. Connecticut's first legal same-sex marriage occurred on November 12, 2008.
  • Iowa began allowing same-sex couples to wed on April 27, 2009 due to the Iowa Supreme Court's ruling in Varnum v. Brien filed on April 3, 2009.
  • Vermont became the first state to adopt civil unions for gay couples in 2000. They then became the first state to allow gay marriage by legislative action rather than court ruling when, on April 7, 2009, the Vermont Legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto of a bill allowing gays to marry. The law became effective on September 1, 2009.
  • New Hampshire passed legislation making same-sex marriage legal which the Governor signed on June 3, 2009. The law took effect on January 1, 2010. They began allowing civil unions for same-sex couples in 2008.

Other states have enacted state marriage equivalent measures.

  • California created encompassing domestic partnership laws in 1999 which were expanded in 2005. (Between June and November 2008, nearly 18,000 same-sex marriages occurred due to a court ruling. Then a November 2008 ballot measure, Proposition 8, ended same-sex marriage in California; however, on May 26, 2009 the California Supreme Court upheld the legitimacy of the previous marriages.)
  • Washington D.C. implemented domestic partnership laws in 2002. On December 15, 2009, the City Council voted to legalized same-sex marriages with the passage of the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. The mayor signed it on December 18. Before the law becomes effective it needs to undergo a Congressional review period. The projected effective date is March 2, 2010.
  • New Jersey began allowing civil unions for same-sex couples in 2007.
  • Washington implemented limited domestic partners laws in 2007. An "everything but marriage" expansion passed in 2009. Enough signatures were gathered to put the issue on the state ballot in November 2009 as Referendum 71. The expansion was upheld by the voters.
  • Oregon began offering domestic partners benefits in 2008.
  • Nevada began offering domestic partnerships on October 1, 2009.

Still other states provide partial state spousal rights.

  • Hawaii created reciprocal beneficiary relationship laws in 1997.
  • Maine Maine implemented limited domestic partners laws in 2004. Legislation allowing marriage between any two people passed on May 6, 2009. However it was never implemented due to the passage of a citizen's veto on November 3, 2009.
  • Maryland began offering limited domestic partner benefits on July 1, 2008.
  • Colorado passed a designated beneficiaries law that took effect on July 1, 2009.
  • Wisconsin began recognizing domestic partnerships on August 3, 2009.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:

Here are some of the efforts that have occurred in the Minnesota Legislature to address this issue since 1969:

1971:

    SF 178/HF 61 were introduced to define marriage as a civil contract between male and female persons.

1977-78:

    SF 977, and HF 2027/SF 1826 were introduced to prohibit homosexual marriage.

1993-94:

    HF 3016/SF 1674 were introduced and stated that Minnesota would not recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states.

1997-98:

    HF 3773 was introduced authorizing same-sex marriage.

    HF 16 /SF 11, HF 41, HF 69, HF 395, HF 585, HF 1065, HF 1268, and HF 1725 were introduced to create specific statutory prohibitions on same-sex marriage in Minnesota. Other than an unsuccessful effort to recall SF 11 from committee on the Senate Floor on March 26, 1997, none of these bills had hearings. However, language from these bills was amended into HF 925 with the acceptance of the A-25 amendment that was offered in the House Judiciary Committee on March 19, 1997. Attempts to get this language into SF 830 in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 7, 1997 with the A-17 amendment failed. Another attempt to add the same-sex marriage prohibition language occurred in relation to SF 1908 on the Senate Floor on April 17, 1997. The amendment was ruled not germane. The language appears to have been added to SF 1908 in the House Health and Human Services Committee on April 18, 1997 with the adoption of the MB34 amendment. The language was then brought into the Conference Committee on SF 1908 in the House version of the bill. This was the bill that eventually passed (Laws of Minnesota 1997, Chapter 203, Article 10). This issue may have been discussed in other meetings as well. The dates listed above are simply a few places to start your research and are by no means an exhaustive list. A complete legislative history research of all of the bills involved is the main way to determine when the issue was discussed elsewhere.

2004:

    HF 2798/ SF 2715 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman. These bills were heard in committee.

    SF 3003 was introduced to create a constitutional amendment restricting marriage definitions to the judicial branch. This bill had committee hearings.

2005-06:

    HF 6/SF 1691 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage would be the union of one man and one woman only. Hearings were held by both the House and Senate.


    SF 1958 was introduced to create a constitutional amendment restricting marriage definitions to the judicial branch.

2007-08:



2009:


    HF 999 was introduced to create civil union contracts.

    HF 1655/SF 1988 were introduced to create a marriage evaluation study group.

    HF 1740/SF 1732 were introduced to allow recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states.


SIGNIFICANT BOOKS AND REPORTS:

Bennett, Lisa, and Gary Gates. The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Children and Their Same-Sex Parents. Washington D.C.: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2004. (HQ 75.28 .U6 B46 2004)

Bennett, Lisa, and Gary Gates. The Cost of Marriage Inequality to Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Seniors. Washington D.C.: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2004. (HQ 76.27 .O44 B46 2004)

Categories of Laws Involving Marital Status, and 2004 Updated Appendices. Washington D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1997, 2004. (These reports estimate the number of federal benefits provided to married people and denied to homosexuals due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act.) (Vertical File, M22)

Cere, Daniel. The Future of Family Law: Law and the Marriage Crisis in North America. New York: Institute for American Values; Washington, D.C.: Institute for Marriage and Public Policy; Montreal: Institute for the Study of Marriage, Law and Culture, 2005. (KF 510 .C47 2005)

Equality from State to State: Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Americans and State Legislation. Washington D.C.: Human Rights Campaign Foundation, 2004-2009. (HQ 73.3 .U6 E68)

Features of State Same-Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendments. St. Paul, MN: Research Dept., Minnesota House of Representatives, 2005. (HN 79 .M6 S56 2005)

Gates, Gary J., M.V. Lee Badgett, and Deborah Ho. Marriage, Registration and Dissolution by Same-Sex Couples in the U.S. California: The Williams Institute, UCLA, July 2008.

Haltzel, Laura and Patrick Purcell. The Effect of State-Legalized Same-Sex Marriage on Social Security Benefits and Pensions. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2008. (HQ1034 .U5 H38 2008)

Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000. Washington D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2003. (Vertical File, M22)

Minnesota State Bar Association Unmarried Couples Task Force Report. Minnesota, The Association, 2009. (KFM5502.A3 M56 2009)

Sullivan, Andrew. Same-Sex Marriage, Pro and Con: a Reader. New York: Vintage Books, 2004. (HQ 1033 .S26 2004)

Unequal Under the Law: 515 Ways Minnesota Laws Discriminate Against Couples and Families. Minneapolis, MN: Project 515, 2007. (KFM5502.A3 U54 2007)

SIGNIFICANT ARTICLES:

Carlson-Wallrath, Sarah. "Why the Civil Institution of Marriage Must Be Extended to Same Sex Couples." Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, Fall 2004, p. 73-110.

Carpenter, Dale. "The Federal Marriage Amendment Unnecessary, Anti-federalist, and Anti-democratic." Policy Analysis (Cato Institute), June 1, 2006, p. 1-19.

Case, Mary Anne. "Marriage Licenses." Minnesota Law Review, June 2005, p. 1758-1797.

Collett, Teresa Stanton. "Constitutional Confusion: The Case for the Minnesota Marriage Amendment." William Mitchell Law Review, Number 3, 2007, p. 1029-1057.

"Future of Marriage: Is Traditional Marriage Going Out of Style?" CQ Researcher, May 7, 2004, entire issue.

"Gay Marriage: Should Same-Sex Unions be Legally Recognized?" CQ Researcher, September 5, 2003, entire issue.

"Gay Marriage Showdowns." CQ Researcher, September 26, 2008, entire issue.

"Justice Delayed: The Case Against California's Gay Marriage Decision/Justice Delivered: Why California Got It Right." The New Republic, June 11, 2008, p. 9, 12-13.

Kyl, Jon. "The Threat to Marriage from the Courts." United States Senate, Republican Policy Committee, July 29, 2003.

Lewis, George B. and Seong Soo Oh. "Public Opinion and State Action on Same-Sex Marriage." State and Local Government Review, Volume 40, Number 1, 2008, p. 42-53.

Miller, Lisa. "Our Mutual Joy. Opponents of Gay Marriage Often Cite Scripture. But What the Bible Teaches About Love Argues for the Other Side." Newsweek, December 15, 2008, p. 28-31.

Olson, Theodore B. "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage. Why Same-Sex Marriage is an American Value." Newsweek, January 18, 2010, p. 48-54.

Roback Morse, Jennifer. "Marriage and the Limits of Contract." Policy Review, April/May 2005, p. 59-70.

Schlichting, JoLynn M. "Note: Minnesota's Proposed Same-Sex Marriage Amendment: a Flamingly Unconstitutional Violation of Full Faith and Credit, Due Process, and Equal Protection." William Mitchell Law Review, Number 4, 2005, p. 1649-1676.

Schubert, Frank and Jeff Flint. "Passing Prop 8. Smart Timing and Messaging Convinced California Voters to Support Traditional Marriage." Politics, February 2009, p. 44-47.

Shell, Susan M., et.al. "Considerations on Gay Marriage: The Liberal Case Against Gay Marriage/Conservative Policy Dilemmas." The Public Interest, Summer 2004, p. 3-36.

Stewart, Monte Neil. "Judicial Redefinition of Marriage." Canadian Journal of Family Law, Vol. 21, 2004, p. 11-132.

Strasser, Mark. "Marriage, Free Exercise, and the Constitution". Law and Inequality, Winter 2008, p. 59-108.

Strasser, Mark. "State Marriage Amendments and Overreaching: On Plain Meaning, Good Public Policy, and Constitutional Limitations". Law and Inequality, Winter 2007, p. 59-113.

"Symposium on Marriage and the Law." Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, No. 1, 2004, entire issue. (See specifically "Debunking Conservative Arguments against the Federal Marriage Amendment" on p. 219.)

"Symposium: The Federal Marriage Amendment: Yes or No?" St. Thomas Law Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, Fall 2005.

Talbot, Margaret. "A Risky Proposal: Is It too Soon to Petition the Supreme Court on Gay Marriage?" New Yorker, January 18, 2010, p. 40-51.

" What Next for the Marriage Movement?" American Experiment Quarterly, Winter 2005, p. 56-62.

Wilkins, Richard G. "The Constitutionality of Legal Preferences for Heterosexual Marriage." The Family in America, June 2001.

Winer, Anthony S. "How a Marriage Discrimination Amendment Would Disrespect Democracy in Minnesota." William Mitchell Law Review, Number 3, 2007, p. 1059-1080.

Wittes, Benjamin. "Marital Differences. The National Divide Over Gay Marriage is a Recipe for Legal Confusion." The Atlantic Monthly, May 2006, p. 46, 48.

Zaske, Amy. "Note: Love Knows No Borders-the Same-Sex Marriage Debate and Immigration Laws." William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2006, p. 625-653.

SIGNIFICANT INTERNET RESOURCES:

National Conference of State Legislatures' Same Sex Marriage page. This page includes a Timeline - Same Sex Marriage from November 2003-Present.

Same-Sex Marriage Guide - Guide created by the Minnesota State Law Library.

Stateline.org's Same-Sex Marriage Backgrounder page. This site provides current information on the legislative and judicial status of this issue in the states.

Same-Sex Marriage in the United States - Data from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Provides a general overview of the subject including history, timeline, arguments for, arguments against, and current status worldwide.

Valid Vows? - An interactive map from CBS News that lists the current status of same-sex marriage by state.

Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law - Independent research on public policy and laws related to sexual orientation. Includes a number of publications on the economic impacts of extending or denying rights to homosexuals.

Supporters

Opponents

ADDITIONAL LIBRARY RESOURCES:

Check the following codes in the Newspaper Clipping File and the Vertical File:
C92.2 (Constitution-MN Amendments and Revision), H40 (Homosexuality), M22 (Marriage)

For additional articles, check the following Inside Issues headings:
Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual Issues