DISCUSS: How Does Fridley Feel about the MN Marriage Amendment?

Obama 'does not support' amending the state Constitution on marriage.

President Obama re-election campaign and Governor Dayton gave proposed Minnesota Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and requiring voters' photo IDs a thumb's down and veto stamp Monday, respectively.

But what does Fridley think about changing the state Constitution, now that both questions are on the November general election ballot?

Share your opinion in comments below and add your voice to the poll above.

Here is what Kristen Sosanie, spokeswoman for the Obama for America-Minnesota campaign said about the marriage measure, according to MPR, and how Republicans in Minnesota responded. (See this post for more on Dayton and the photo ID amendment.)

"While the President does not weigh in on every single ballot measure in every state, the record is clear that the President has long opposed divisive and discriminatory efforts to deny rights and benefits to same sex couples. ... That's what the Minnesota ballot initiative would do—it would single out and discriminate against committed gay and lesbian couples—and that's why the President does not support it."

Republican Response
Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Pat Shortridge responded:

"While it’s flattering that President Obama thinks so highly of Minnesota to weigh in on our ballot initiatives when he has so much else on his plate, I’m pretty sure we can decide these questions for ourselves. By putting these critical issues on the November ballot, the Republican legislature has given Minnesotans the opportunity to make their voices heard on these issues."

(A Minnesota GOP spokesperson did not return a call to clarify whether "weigh in on our ballot initiatives" meant Obama had also taken a stand on Minnesota's proposed photo ID amendment.)

Amendment Text
Here is the text of the bill that sent the constitutional marriage question to the voters of Minnesota on the 2012 general election ballot:

A bill for an act proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; adding a section to article XIII; recognizing marriage as only a union between one man and one woman.


An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article XIII, to read:

Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2012 general election. The question submitted must be: "Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

Nathan Williams April 12, 2012 at 02:23 PM
It's already illegal in MN. This amendment does nothing. Why can't our elected officials make the decision instead of putting it up for a vote by the majority that affects a minority? It's a big political show. Do the right thing and vote against it.
Chris Steller (Editor) April 12, 2012 at 05:33 PM
You're right, Nathan, same-sex marriage is already banned by state law. The critical difference, as I understand it, is that putting it in the state Constitution would protect that ban from being overturned in court, like in Iowa.
Laura June 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
We let blacks and whiets marry each other. Women can vote. We support people with disabilities. Why not let gays and lesbians marry? Whats so wrong?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »