shame on MN

UPDATED: Double-Ban on Marriage Cruises Through Minnesota Senate, Thanks in Part to Three Anti-Gay Democrats

As expected, the Minnesota Senate squirted out a ban on marriage this afternoon by a 38-27 vote. How do you like that, New Gays?

From here, it’s on to an easy passage in the Republican-controlled House, and then voters in 2012. Minnesota already has a ban on marriage, but anti-gay legislators aren’t content to stop there — why slap your gay constituents in the face once when you can do it twice?

We’re trying to track down who voted yes and who voted no on the bill, known as SF1307 in the Senate and HF1614 in the House. We’ll let you know when we have more details.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Xavier, we have a list of how everybody voted. All the Republicans voted yes, and were joined by Democratic Senator LeRoy Stumpf. And two Democrats didn’t vote at all: Richard Cohen and Linda Scheid. So, Minnesotans, now you know who to vote out the next time they’re up for election.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #leroystumpf #lindascheid #marriage stories and more


  • I hate everybody here

    except for Matt Baume! He’s a dwarf among midgets in this tragic little website I can’t stop visiting. *giggles*

  • the crustybastard

    Where are all the douchebags who used to wallpaper Queerty with their footstamping insistence the Target/MN Forward issue was just an innocent case of some folks being “pro business,” not anti-gay?

    Shouldn’t they be here explaining to us foolish naifs how this latest example of political homophobia is just another example of Minnesotans being pro-business?

  • gray hunt

    Truth ! When put to a public vote NO state has elected to grant gay marrage. That NO as in NO ! Only looney leftie judges have decided to change the laws. Sorry but that is the truth.

  • Ricky

    gray hunt – Truth – the Prop 8 initiative that succeeded in California – did so with only 500,000 more votes — in a state of 33 million – Truth – if you put any minorities rights to a vote in any of the states where gay rights have failed – you would have the same outcome – America has a gift for hating – Truth – whenever someone uses politically meaningless emotionally-charges words like “loonies” they are uneducated, unwashed, unloved, have a pronounced overbite and poorly dressed.

  • Sam Wheat

    I’d just like to know: What’s with this sudden, hysterical need for gays to marry? On the news I’ve seen people break down in tears when an anti-marriage ruling comes down, and why? Because they can’t get married? For real? And what’s the purpose of getting married? (and please don’t drag out the old chestnut, “It’s about equality”) For benefits? For a wedding? You’re hot to get divorced? Or, as I suspect, is it more a political football used for leverage against the straights to garner attention in an attempt to convince the world that you’re “proud”? In case no one noticed, gay relationships don’t have the best history of longevity (and don’t bother providing examples to prove otherwise, I’m speaking in generalities).

  • matt baume

    @Sam Wheat: I’m sorry to hear that your own personal experiences with gay relationships have lacked longevity, but the National Lesbian Longitudinal Family Study — among many others — indicates that LGBTs are as capable of maintaining long-lasting relationships as straight people. Maybe even more so, given what we hear about the straight divorce rate.

    Regarding the need for gays to marry, my goodness, where to start. How about not getting deported back to dangerous countries, or qualifying for impoverishment protection under Medicare, or avoiding inheritance taxes, or sharing custody of children, and visiting each other in the hospital, or the right to sue for wrongful death, and so on.

  • Hysterical Lesbian

    @Sam Wheat

    Since you have the expert knowledge that gay relationships don’t have the best history of longevity, I am guessing you are a married conservative man, feverishly trying to hide your history with rent boys. Don’t worry, we’re used to you guys trolling our web sites rather than dealing with your own issues.

    Now hear this: your view of our “hysterical” need to get married is so misguided, I can’t even stand it. What makes ME hysterical is that conservative members of congress are trying to OUTLAW gay marriage, EVEN THOUGH WE DON’T HAVE IT.

    When congress starts passing laws saying you can’t do something you already can’t do, let me know how that feels. Lucky for you, congress is just as addicted to rentboys as you are.

  • Steve

    Shucks — Before this article, I _had_ seriously considered moving my corporate headquarters and its 980 employees to Minnesota. I guess that won’t be happening, now.

  • Shannon1981

    @Same Wheat- everything that Matt Baume said. And why the hysterical need for conservative, bigoted jackoffs to troll our web sites and try to control the lives of people who are not harming them?

  • catsura

    On less state to ever visit.

  • catsura


  • ron

    Well, if activist judges weren’t so eager to strike down legislative bans on gay marriage, these constitutional amendments wouldn’t be needed. Liberals just don’t think of consequences.

  • Jim

    And nearly every state will do the same thing in the near future. Maybe you should move your corporate headquarters out of the country.

  • sanluvsgod


  • Brian Miller


    nearly every state will do the same thing in the near future. Maybe you should move your corporate headquarters out of the country

    Assuming that’s true (and it really isn’t), many companies are taking your advice. Tired of having to deal with American xenophobia, bigotry, and ignorance (and the effect it has on immigrant and LGBT employees), many startups, tech companies and established high-value enterprises have gone across the border to Canada and taken their jobs, capital and investment with them.

    It’s ironic. Conservative hard-right douchebags pursue blatantly anti-business anti-gay laws, they’re warned about it by business leaders from Eli Lilly to Chrysler, they pass the anti-gay laws, and then they complain about high unemployment rates and low salaries after driving the innovators out of their jurisdictions.

    Smartphones, computers, software, internet technologies and bespoke design have a high proportion of gay people involved in development and marketing, as well as immigrants and other groups Republicans despise. The declaration of endless war against those who are different is really, at the end of the day, a declaration of war on economic well-being.

  • MattS

    @Brian Miller: A very good point. American right wing politics are sending people abroad, and you can tell from the fact that businesses understand gay rights are important. Most leading companies and federal agencies recognize GLBTQ personnel as being indispensable and it shows in their HR actions (Less so in their campaign contributions, but let’s be honest, Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want Chevron to pay $0 in taxes, but John Boehner does, regardless of social issues).
    That said, I’ve been to, and lived, in the “gay paradise” of Canada, in Montreal no less. Yes, legal rights and social acceptance are better than the US, but the new conservative majority threatens that. And Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto are far away places from Yellowknife, Thunder Bay, and Gander (Although met GLBT folks from all and you were all great!). It’s a lot like the US in that way, you have an accepting atmosphere in cities and a rural disaster of acceptance.

    @Sam Wheat: You sound like me when I was 15. I think I needed some help figuring out why my future people needed to get married when figuring out my identity.
    Good luck.

  • Steve

    @Sam Wheat: “And what’s the purpose of getting married?”

    Dennis and I have been together for more than 20 years. Among our friends, we know couples who have been together for 30, 40, even 50 years. The various powers and rights that come with marriage really do matter. There are very serious issues that involve life and death, and lots of money. Some of them include: When someone is unconscious in hospital, who makes the medical decisions? When someone dies, who gets the house? And the investment accounts? And, how much estate tax is due? And, how about social-security survivor benefits?’

    The fact that your own gay relationships have not lasted very long, is your problem. Please don’t try to make it ours. We have quite enough problems of our own. Being able to be married, would solve a number of them.

  • declanto

    @Brian Miller: “The declaration of endless war against those who are different is really, at the end of the day, a declaration of war on economic well-being.”
    May I humbly add that said warfare on the “Otherness” destroys the dynamic of the social fabric as well. Diversity is a survival trait in any culture. America is committing cultural hari-kiri. There are many other cultures in the world who would gladly welcome creative, productive individuals whatever their sexual orientation may be.

  • Sam Wheat

    As was painfully predictable, virtually every response to the question “Why get married?” involved money:

    “When someone dies, who gets the house? And the investment accounts? And, how much estate tax is due? And, how about social-security survivor benefits?”

    So there’s the answer, ugly as it may be: greed.

  • Libertarian Larry

    @declanto: Your statement, “There are many other cultures in the world who would gladly welcome creative, productive individuals whatever their sexual orientation may be,” is absurd. I invite you to list these countries that are so much more civilized when it comes to human rights. And once you’ve provided that list, I (and all other patriotic Americans) invite you to make immediate plans to relocate there, since you believe your native country is so evil and racist and homophobic. Buh-bye.

  • Danny

    And the rule of law should be maintained when human rights are violated, because? Oh that’s right, the rule of law ends when human rights are violated. No sane person upholds a constitution that violates the human rights of their friends, family, and neighbors. Always knew policitians wanted to end the rule of law. We live in fascinating times.

    If the Holocaust taught us anything, it is that politicians who violate human rights are pure evil.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @Sam Wheat: Greed? If two people have made a life together, what, pray tell, is greedy about them wanting to have the same protections as straights?

  • matt baume

    I don’t think it’s “greed” to want to be able to keep your house after your wife dies.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @ron: I am ashamed to share your name. I guess blacks should still be slaves, and asians should be exempt from labor protections, and hispanics born in the US should be denied the rights of citizenship? You, sir, are a bigot.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @Libertarian Larry: Same-sex marriage is legal in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In Mexico, same-sex marriages are only performed in Mexico City, but the marriages must be recognized by all Mexican states. Israel does not recognize same-sex marriages performed on its territory, but recognizes same-sex marriages performed in foreign jurisdictions. Massachusetts, Iowa, Connecticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, the Federal District of Columbia, have same sex marriage. New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Rhode Island recognize marriages that are performed in jurisdictions where they are legal. Quite a few countries have extended Civil Union Rights to same sex couples, even Germany has a Civil Unions Law, not to mention a Gay Foreign Minister and Vice-Chancellor. Surely, the United States can survive Adam marrying Steve.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @Libertarian Larry: Libertarian? Not hardly, Larry. The Libertarian Party does not believe in the Government dictating to its citizens what they may and may not do in their personal lives.

  • Ken

    @gray hunt: You said: “When put to a public vote NO state has elected to grant gay marrage. That NO as in NO ! Only looney leftie judges have decided to change the laws”

    1. We’ve never had a popularity contest before to determine people’s rights under the law. There was no referendum on school integration, no referendum on civil rights for blacks, no referendum on giving women the right to vote, and no referendum on interracial marriage. All that was decided by “looney leftie” judges.

    2. You must be new to America. Here’s how it works. The legislature passes laws. The executive branch enforces laws. When a case arises, the court system determines if the laws are compliant with the constitution. When a case arises challenging the constitutionality of the law, and if the challenge prevails, the law is unenforceable. So far, every law that denies equal rights and protections to a minority has been determined to be unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

    3. Everyone is free to have their own opinion, everyone is free to strategize a court case based on their opinion, but no one can finally determine the constitutionality of a law other than a court. Not Congress, not the president, and not a referendum.

    4. In a referendum or lynch mob, the majority rules, but the court can override it, because in America, courts are required to determine if laws are constitutional, and unpopular people have the same rights as popular people.

    5. Judges are required by the constitution to be “leftie,” “loonie,” and “activist” by your definition. “Activist judge” just means “judge that made a decision that I don’t like.”

  • GreatGatsby2011

    First I just have to say that I laughed out loud when I read Sam Wheat’s equating equality to an “old chestnut”. Because that’s not important or anything. It’s not like it’s one of the founding principles of our country or the guiding force behind all legislation passed (ideally). Let’s just throw that ole chestnut right out of the argument, shall we? I mean the US Constitution is just some dusty ole document, right? It’s just laughable.

    But I digress. The reason that I wanted to get married (please note the past tense as I’ve been happily married to my husband for 2.5 years now) was because I loved him and wanted to make a promise in front of all my friends and family, a promise affirmed by a legally binding document from the state of California, that I love my husband and that I will continue to love him and only him until one of us shuffles off this mortal coil and perhaps beyond (depending on whether or not there is an afterlife). So, unless I’m mistaken, my reasons for getting married are the same reasons that heterosexual couples have.

    Now why I am grateful that I am married is another story entirely. My husband hadn’t visited a doctor in many years due to the fact that he couldn’t afford to get medical attention as his employer didn’t offer health insurance, Medicaid isn’t available in our community for able-bodied adults without dependents, and he couldn’t afford to private pay his medical bills. After we were married and he was placed on my health insurance plan I insisted he visit a doctor as he was having dizzy spells and some memory loss issues. After some testing the doctors discovered that my husband had a malignant brain tumor. Luckily the tumor was operable and I am happy to say that after chemotherapy my husband has been in remission for a year now. If my husband and I hadn’t gotten married he could be dead today. So I feel I can safely say that same-sex marriage saved the life of the man I love.

  • Libertarian Larry

    @Ron (not ron): Dude: First off, I never said I want the g’ment dictating anything, least of all marriage or any laws pertaining to personal rights. I’m all for gay marriage, I just don’t understand the venom coming from the gay community every time they don’t get their way with it. Second, like I stated before, since you sing the praises of such highly desirable places to live as Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Mexico, and Israel, then renounce your U.S. citizenship, pack your stuff, and relocate to one of them. Oh wait, that’s right — you’d be a fool to do so, because you know that these countries could never provide you with the cushy lifestyle you currently enjoy here. Funny how liberals are always threatening to leave the country if they don’t get their way . . . but alas, they never do.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @Libertarian Larry: Dear Larry. Precisely what in my posts is venomous? Nothing. Secondly, I hold dual citizenship in Germany. I live in the United States because I choose to. Frankly, if you think the US has such a high standard of living, you are sadly misinformed. Several of the countries on the list of countries allowing same sex marriage have higher standards of living. One thing that the US does offer is the ability for its citizens to disagree and to work to change what they disagree with. That is the beauty of this country. We are not a country where people have to flee, if they disagree with the current policies of the government. One could just as easily suggest that you move to Uganda or some other enlightened country. I am no more “Liberal” than you are “Libertarian”.

  • Libertarian Larry

    @Ron (not ron): What, you ask, is venemous? Well, I never stated that YOU were venomous, it was a generalization, but since you asked . . . for starters, how about “You, sir, are a bigot.”

    You say you’re not a liberal, but only a leftie would call someone a bigot with no knowledge of that person, and only a leftie would fail to recognize such a statement as venomous.

    And you reinforced my stance with your claim that you live in the U.S.A. because you CHOOSE to, because it’s the better place to live, because I suspect everyone in Germany would think you mad if you chose to live there rather than here.

  • Jim

    @Brian Miller: Minnesota will make 32 states, I would bet at least 40 within a few years, maybe 45. If you going to restrict yourself to those remainding states, you have limited yourself alot. Probably to those tiny New England states.

  • Ron (not ron)

    @Libertarian Larry: Not-so Libertarian Larry. 1. If you think “bigot” is a venomous term, you have lived a sheltered life. I called “ron” a bigot, because he chose to call all judges that happen to strike down legislation as “activist judges.” Seems to me when I took American Government, there was such a concept of “checks and balances” between the branches of our government. Politicians of all stripes tend to do what is ultimately politically expedient for themselves. Sometimes it takes the judicial system to set right what has gone astray.
    2. As for me being liberal, anyone who knows me would laugh at that idea. I am a member of the Republican Party, although my views tend more toward the Libertarian Party. 3. Nowhere do I say I choose to live in the US because it is the better place to live, so don’t put words into my mouth, thank you. I choose to live here for a variety of reasons, Germany and the US are different, each has its strong points, and its weaknesses. Just because I choose to live here, however, does not mean that I cannot strive to make it a better place to live.

  • Libertarian Larry

    @Ron (not ron): Hmmm, interesting. Well, if you and your beliefs are typical of the Republican party, then it must be the Republican Party of Vermont, or maybe Manhattan, or perhaps Hollywood, or I must have been attending some dark satanic cult all these years I was attending Republican benefits, because Republicans DO believe that “activist judges” (aka any judge with an agenda) should be removed. And if you don’t believe they exist, go sit in any courtroom for a couple days — I used to work there, and every judge I ever encountered had a political agenda other than justice. Some have a racial agenda, some a gender agenda, some a left-or-right agenda, but they all have it and they all exercise their power as judges to exploit it.

    Which means that you, sir, are an impostor when you say you’re of the Republican Party. It reminds me of when Michael Moore claimed he was a member of the NRA: He had, in fact, paid his money and gotten a membership, but he’s always been publicly anti-second amendment, which means he’s a hypocrite who THINKS he’s tricking America into believing he’s legit, when in actuality he’s only stroking the dicks of those who already worship him. It’s just laughable.

  • FlopsyMopsyCT

    Libertarian Larry: Did you go to law school in MN? A lot of what you say reminds me of a classmate with whom I graduated.

Comments are closed.