Last edited February 2012

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.

Minnesota has dealt with the issue of marriage between same-sex partners 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 marriage between same-sex couples. The Baker v. Nelson decision (291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185) in 1971 held that Minnesota Statutes prohibited marriages between same-sex partners. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. They issued a one sentence dismissal of the appeal (409 U.S. 810, 34 L Ed 2d 65, 93 S Ct 37; October 10, 1972) that stated "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." Another significant event was the passage of Laws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 441, sec. 1. It amended Minnesota Statutes chapter 517.01 by adding the phrase "between a man and a woman" after the phrase "Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract."

Twenty-five years after the Baker decision, 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 marriage between same-sex partners 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.

In May 2010, three same-sex couples from Minnesota, Douglas Benson, Duane Gajewski, Jessica Dykhuis, Lindzi Campbell, Thomas Trisko and John Rittman, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court. They argued that Minnesota's ban on marriage between same-sex partners violates due process, equal protection, and freedom of association rights. On March 7, 2011, Hennepin County District Judge Mary Dufresne rejected their argument and dismissed the lawsuit. On July 11, 2011 the couples filed an appeal with the Minnesota Court of Appeals. On January 23, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released their unpublished opinion. They affirmed that Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act doesn't violate the Single Subject or Freedom of Conscience Clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. However, they sent the case back to the district court for a fuller review of the claims related to citizens' constitutional rights to due process, freedom of association, and equal protection.

On July 8, 2010, a United States District Court Judge in Boston, Massachusetts ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were unconstitutional. The federal government filed an appeal in January 2011. On February 23, 2011, the White House directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in court.

On August 4, 2010 another United States District Court Judge ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California's Proposition 8, which bans marriage between people of the same sex, was unconstitutional. That ruling was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (see the February 7, 2012 entry for their ruling).

In May 2011, the Minnesota House and Senate passed SF 1308. The bill proposes an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that states that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The amendment will be voted on in the 2012 election. Although constitutional amendment legislation cannot be vetoed, on May 25, 2011, Governor Dayton issued a "symbolic veto" of Laws of Minnesota 2011, Chapter 88 (SF 1308).

On January 23, 2012, the Minnesota Court of Appeals released their unpublished opinion related to the May 2010 Minnesota Defense of Marriage Act lawsuit. They affirmed that the act doesn't violate the Single Subject or Freedom of Conscience Clauses of the Minnesota Constitution. However, they sent the case back to the district court for a fuller review of the claims related to citizens' constitutional rights to due process, freedom of association, and equal protection.

On February 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released their opinion in the Perry v. Brown case (formerly known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger. They upheld the lower court's ruling that California's Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in California, is unconstitutional.

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

State Same-Sex Relationship Recognition:

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, Washington D.C., and New York 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.
• Washington D.C. started accepting applications for same-sex marriage licenses on March 3, 2010. They had implemented domestic partnership laws in 2002. In December 2009, the City Council passed and the mayor signed the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009. On July 15, 2010, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals released their opinion which upheld the law.
• New York allowed same-sex couples to marry starting on July 24, 2011. The law was passed by the Assembly which was controlled by the Democrats and the Senate which was controlled by the Republicans and signed by the Governor.

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. On August 4, 2010 a United States District Court Judge ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California's Proposition 8 was unconstitutional. On February 7, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit released their opinion upholding the lower court's ruling.
• 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.
• Illinois began allowing civil unions on June 1, 2011.
• Rhode Island began allowing civil unions in July 2011.
• Hawaii began granting civil unions on January 1, 2012. They created reciprocal beneficiary relationship laws in 1997.
• Delaware began offering civil unions on January 1, 2012 with the enactment of the Civil Union and Equality Act of 2011.

Still other states provide partial state spousal rights.

• 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. SF 977 passed as Laws of Minnesota 1977, Chapter 441

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.

HF 3921/ SF 3504, HF 3922/ SF 3501, SF 2992, SF 3499, SF 3500, SF 3502, SF 3503, and SF 3563 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage would be the union of one man and one woman.

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

2007-08:

HF 1845/SF 2160, HF1846/SF 2158, and HF 1847/SF 2159 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage would be the union of one man and one woman.

HF 4248/SF 3880 were introduced to make marriage laws gender neutral.

2009-2010:

SF 120/HF 893 (hearings held), SF 1210/HF 1644 (Senate hearing) and SF 2145 were introduced to make marriage laws gender neutral.

HF 999 was introduced to create civil union contracts.

HF 1655/SF 1988 were introduced to create a marriage evaluation study group. A hearing was held in the House.

HF 1740/SF 1732 were introduced to allow recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states. Hearings were held by both the House and Senate.

HF 1824/SF 1976, HF 1870/SF 1975, and HF 1871/SF 1974 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage would be the union of a man and a woman.

2011:

SF 1307/HF 1614, SF 1308/HF 1615, and SF 1309/HF 1613 were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage would be the union of one man and one woman (Senate and House hearings). SF 1308 passed as Laws of Minnesota 2011, Chapter 88. It will be voted on in the 2012 election.

HF 1710/SF 1427 were introduced to make marriage laws gender neutral.

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, 2004-2010. (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:

Buffie, William C. "Public Health Implications of Same-Sex Marriage." American Journal of Public Health, June 2011, p. 986-990.

"The Case for Marriage (What Marriage is For)." National Review, September 20, 2010, p. 16-20.

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

Cook, Mike. "To Have and To Hold." Session Weekly, St. Paul: Minnesota House of Representatives Information Office, February 25, 2010, p. 19, 23.

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

"Here Comes the Brawl. Special Report: the Legal Fight over Same-Sex Marriage." National Law Journal, August 23, 2010, p. 1, 4-9.

"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.

Kuznicki, Jason. "Marriage Against the State. Toward a New View of Civil Marriage." Policy Analysis, January 12, 2011, entire issue.

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

Lau, Holning and Charles Q. Strohm. "The Effects of Legally Recognizing Same-Sex Unions on Health and Well-Being." Law and Inequality, Winter 2011, p. 107-148.

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.

Noble, Scott. "Marriage Wins, Legislature Passes Amendment Sending Issue to the Voters for the 2012 Ballot." Minnesota Christian Examiner, June 2011, p. 1, 10.

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

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.

Schmidtke, Eric. "Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Why the Federal Judiciary is the Right Course to Secure Marriage Equality, Remove Unnecessary Disparities, and Integrate Same-Sex Couples into Society." Hamline Journal of Public Law and Policy, Fall 2010, p. 215-260.

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: 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.

SIGNIFICANT INTERNET RESOURCES:

National Conference of State Legislatures' Same-Sex Marriage, Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships page.

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.

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

• American Foundation for Equal Rights - Group that filed a federal lawsuit to make same-sex marriage legal.
• Equality Matters - Group dedicated to full gay equality.
• Freedom to Marry - Group dedicated to nationwide marriage equality.
• Lesbian and Gay Rights: Relationships - Information from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
• Marriage - Information from Lambda Legal.
• Marriage and Relationship Recognition - Information from the Human Rights Campaign. Provides a variety of current information on same-sex marriage efforts such as Relationship Recognition in the U.S. map, and a Statewide Marriage Prohibitions map.
• Marriage Equality Minnesota - Group dedicated to equal marriage rights for Minnesota's same-sex couples.
• Marriage/Partner Recognition - Information from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
• Marry Me Minnesota - A Minnesota group formed to challenge Minnesota's laws against same-sex marriage.
• Minnesotans United for All Families - A Minnesota group formed to oppose the 2012 constitutional amendment.
• Project 515 - Group dedicated to ensuring that same-sex couples and families receive equal rights under Minnesota law. 515 refers to the number of Minnesota laws that discriminate against same-sex families.

Opponents

• DOMA Watch - Information from the Alliance Defense Fund. Provides an Issues by State page that summarizes the current status of same-sex marriage in each state, including state laws and court cases.
• Family and Marriage - Information from The Heritage Foundation.
• Homosexual Marriage - Information from Minnesota Majority.
• Marriage Amendment Resources - Information from the Minnesota Catholic Conference.
• Marriage and Family - Information from the Family Research Council.
• Marriage Unique for a Reason - Information from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
• Minnesota Family Council - Group opposed to same-sex marriage. They created the Minn Family Council Marriage Protection Fund to support the 2012 Minnesota constitutional amendment.
• Minnesota for Marriage - Supporters of the 2012 Minnesota constitutional amendment.
• National Organization for Marriage - Nonprofit group dedicated to protecting traditional marriage.
• ProtectMarriage.com - Group involved in challenging the overturn of California's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriages in that state.
• Same-Sex Marriage - Information from the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.
• Same-Sex "Marriage" - Information from the Alliance Defense Fund.

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