Last edited December 2013
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.
The state of Minnesota legalized same-sex marriage on August 1, 2013, less than a year after a proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman was defeated during the November 2012 election. The issue of same-sex marriage has a long history in Minnesota, including one of the first state Supreme Court cases on the subject.
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 which included the phrase,
"Marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract." To the end of this sentence they added the words,
"between a man and a woman."
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).
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 DOMA were unconstitutional. The federal government filed an
in January 2011. On February 23, 2011, the White House directed the U.S. Department of Justice to stop defending DOMA in court.
In 1997, 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, chapters 517.01
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 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 efforts were unsuccessful.
In May 2010, three same-sex couples from Minnesota
filed a lawsuit,
Benson v. Alverson, 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.
was passed by the Minnesota Legislature in May 2011. The bill proposed an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution stating that marriage is the union of one
man and one woman. 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). The amendment was rejected by Minnesota voters in the 2012 election.
On July 11, 2011 the couples involved in the Benson v. Alverson lawsuit 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 does no+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 more thorough review
of the claims related to citizens' constitutional rights to due process, freedom of association, and equal protection. A
Petition for Review related to the dismissal of
the case against the state was filed with the Minnesota Supreme Court. On April 17, 2012, the Minnesota Supreme
Court declined to review the case, allowing it to proceed to trial in Hennepin County. On September 14, 2012, Judge Mary Steenson Dufresne began hearing motions in the case. In late January, 2013, an agreement was reached between the county and the attorney for the plaintiffs to put off all action until June 1, after the end of the 2013 Minnesota Legislative session.
Several bills were introduced in the 2013 legislative session to address marriage law as the same-sex marriage debate continued in Minnesota. A bill to establish civil unions was introduced in the Minnesota House of Representatives on April 04, 2013. A House bill that would eliminate the word "marriage" altogether from state law and enshrine "civil unions" in its place was introduced on April 25, 2013. HF 1054, with the description, "Marriage between two persons provided for, and exemptions and protections based in religious association provided for," is the bill that ultimately passed in the Legislature.
On May 14, 2013, Governor Mark Dayton signed HF 1054 into law, making Minnesota's marriage law gender neutral. The bill was passed by the Minnesota House of Representatives on May 9, 2013, and the Senate on May 13, 2013. The law went into effect August 1, 2013.
The Supreme Court ruled in Windsor v. United States that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was unconstitutional on June 26, 2013. The court struck down the federal law, which barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized by the states, by a 5-4 vote. because it denies same-sex couples the "equal liberty" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented. The ruling means gay and lesbian couples who are legally married will be able to take advantage of federal tax breaks, pension rights and other benefits that are available to other married couples.
U.S. Same-Sex Marriage Laws
The issue of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples continues to be debated throughout the United States. Some states have allowed same-sex marriage or same sex-civil unions, while a number of others have banned them. States have taken different legal approaches; the issue has been addressed through both state laws and through constitutional amendments. The scope of these laws and constitutional amendments vary. In states that have defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, some ban same-sex marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships while others ban only same-sex marriage. In states that have legally recognized same-sex unions, some allow same-sex marriage, while others may allow civil unions or domestic partnerships.
Sixteen states and the District of Columbia allow same-sex couples to marry:
California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia.
The National Conference of State Legislature's guide, Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws, provides a helpful summary of states' actions on this issue.
Here are some of the efforts that have occurred in the Minnesota Legislature to address this issue since 1969:
- SF 178/HF 61 were introduced to define marriage as a civil contract between male and
- HF 3016/SF 1674 were introduced and stated that Minnesota would not recognize
homosexual marriages performed in other states.
- HF 3773
was introduced authorizing same-sex marriage.
- HF 16
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
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
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.
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.
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 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
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,
HF 1871/SF 1974
were introduced to create a constitutional amendment stating that marriage
would be the union of a man and a woman.
HF 1054/SF 925 and
were introduced to make marriage laws gender neutral. HF 1054 passed as Laws of Minnesota 2013, chapter 74.
- HF 1687 was introduced to establish civil union contracts.
- HF 1805 was introduced to eliminate the word "marriage" altogether from Minnesota law and enshrine "civil unions" in its place.
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)
Corvino, John. Debating Same-Sex Marriage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. (HQ1033 .C675 2012)
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)
Stone, Amy L. Gay Rights at the Ballot Box. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2012. (HQ78.U5 S76 2012).
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)
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." CQ Researcher, March 15, 2013, entire issue.
"Gay Marriage Showdowns." CQ Researcher, September 26, 2008, entire issue.
"Gay Marriage: The Defense of Marriage Act on Trial." Supreme Court Debates, May 2013, entire issue.
Goldstein, Charles M. and Micaela Magsamen. "Constitutional Concerns in Defining Marriage in Minnesota." Hennepin Lawyer,
March 2012, p. 8-14.
"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.
Mannix, Andy. "When will gay marriage be legal in Minnesota?" City Pages. January 2, 2013.
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.
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,
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'
Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws
Same-Sex Marriage Guide - Guide created by the
Minnesota State Law Library.
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.
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 based on sexual orientation.
Groups That Support Same-Sex Marriage
Groups That Oppose Same-Sex Marriage
Additional Library Resources
For historical information, check the following codes in the Newspaper Clipping File and the Vertical File:
C92.2 (Constitution-MN Amendments and Revision), H40 (Homosexuality), M22 (Marriage)