PGI logo cropped.png
Congressional Millionaire’s Club
The Personal Gain Index shines a light on how members of Congress benefit during their tenure.





Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1 (2012)

From Ballotpedia
Revision as of 16:10, 16 December 2012 by Alejandortiz (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search
Amendment 1
Flag of Minnesota.png
Quick stats
Type:Constitutional amendment
Constitution:Minnesota Constitution
Referred by:Minnesota State Legislature
Topic:Marriage
Status:Defeatedd
A Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Amendment 1, was on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Minnesota as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment, where it was defeated.[1] The measure would have defined marriage in the Minnesota Constitution as between one man and one woman in the state.[2]

Unlike previous, unsuccessful attempts to place a marriage amendment on the ballot, the 2012 measure may leave open the possibility of same-sex civil unions.[3]

Election results

See also: 2012 ballot measure election results
Minnesota Amendment 1
ResultVotesPercentage
Defeatedd No1,510,43452.56%
Yes 1,399,916 47.44%
Results via Minnesota Secretary of State

Text of measure

The question, along with the measure's ballot title, was presented to voters as follows:[4]

Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.
"Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."
  • YES
  • NO

Constitutional changes

The proposed amendment would add a section to Article XIII of the Minnesota Constitution. The section is as follows:[4]

Section 13.

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

Background

The proposed measure was supported by Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, Rep. Sondra Erickson and Sen. Paul Gazelka.[2] According to reports, in 2005 Erickson and Gazelka joined other legislators in drafting a marriage amendment. The measure was approved in the House but stalled in the Senate.[2]

Support

Although same-sex marriage was already illegal in the state, supporters stated that they hoped to reinforce this with the proposed measure. Pointing to the state of Iowa in which a similar ban was overturned by the Iowa Supreme Court in 2009, Sen. Paul Gazelka said, "I want to give the people of Minnesota the opportunity to protect the definition of marriage from activist judges."[2]

Supporters

Arguments

  • The Minnesota Catholic Conference announced its support for the marriage amendment.[7] A statement on the organization's website read, "This is our time to stand up and defend marriage as a unique institution that, from the beginning of human history and in every culture, is the union of one man and one woman for the propagation of the human family and the upbringing of children."[8] Archbishop John Nienstedt reiterated the group's support, stating, "The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, supports this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but rather for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral."[9] Archbishop Nienstedt's column in favor of the measure can be found here.

Minnesota Marriage Minute: Episode 1, 1-3-12
  • Republican presidential candidate and Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann declared her support for the measure.[10]
  • State Rep. Steve Drazkowski said, "Without the marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. In fact, a lawsuit to legalize same-sex marriage was heard recently in the Minnesota Court of Appeals. This is exactly what happened in Iowa, Massachusetts and California. Similarly, legislators can redefine marriage without the permission of the people, as several legislators have pledged to do...I strongly supported this legislation during the 2011 session, and when it comes time to cast your ballot a year from now, I’m hopeful you will do the same."[6]

Campaign advertisements

See also: Minnesota Same-Sex Marriage Amendment (2012), supporters, TV ads

In early January 2012, Kalley King Yanta, a former anchor for a Minneapolis-based television station, joined the Minnesota for Marriage group to launch a series of videos - called the "Minnesota Marriage Minute" videos - regarding the proposed constitutional amendment. According to Episode 1, released on January 3, 2012, a new episode would be published every week. "The Minnesota Marriage Minute videos are an exciting opportunity to promote a respectful dialogue about the future of marriage in Minnesota," said John Helmberger, chairman of Minnesota for Marriage.[11]

In November 2011, Minnesota for Marriage launched two videos.

Tactics and strategies

  • The Minnesota Family Council has a project called "Minnesota Worldview Leadership Project" which sought "thousands of other Minnesotans who believe in God's design for marriage."[12]
  • Supporters of the proposed amendment operated a booth outside the Minnesota State Fairgrounds but in early September 2011 announced that they had secured a booth inside the Fair.[13]

Campaign contributions

Supporters of the proposed measure Minnesota for Marriage have thus far raised $1.4 million.[14]

Opposition

Minnesota Democrats had been vocal in opposing the proposed amendment, and a Change.org petition was made to encourage the party to fight the measure that could be placed on the ballot. According to the petition: "Please be clear about where the DFL Party stands on LGBT equality. Please express your concerns about the looming dangers to LGBT equality in Minnesota. Please call all DFLer’s in MN to become concerned and active for the equal rights of LGBT Minnesotan’s.”[15]

The principal group in opposition of the amendment was Minnesotans United for All Families. According to Richard Carlbom, the campaign manager, the group's steering committee includes four legislators: Sen. Scott Dibble and Reps. Karen Clark, Tim Kelly, and John Kriesel.[16]

Opponents

  • Minnesotans United for All Families
  • Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
  • Gov. Mark Dayton (D)
  • Sen. Scott Dibble
  • Rep. Karen Clark
  • Rep. Tim Kelly
  • Rep. John Kriesel
  • President Barack Obama[17]
  • Bishop Peter Rogness of the St. Paul Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
  • Mayflower Community Congregational UCC[18]
  • Minnesota AIDS Project[18]
  • Minnesota Conference of the United Church of Christ[18]
  • Minneapolis Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in AmericaCite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag
  • The Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations[19]
  • Mayflower United Church in Christ[19]
  • Open Circle Church[19]
  • Shir Tikvah Synagogue[19]
  • Mt. Zion Temple[19]
  • Jewish Community Action[19]
  • Minnesota Atheists[19]
  • Duluth City Council[20]
  • St. Paul City Council[21]
  • Macalester College faculty and staff[22]
  • CEO of General Mills[23]
  • Minnesota Vikings player Chris Kluwe[24]
  • Thomson Reuters
  • St. Jude Medical[25]
  • Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics[26]

The following are various collections of individuals or organizations that have made collectives statements about the measure:

  • Thirty-five rabbis from the Minnesota Rabbinical Association signed a statement opposing the amendment in February, 2012.[27]
  • Fifty-three art organizations in Minnesota have come out endorsing the Minnesotans United for All Families campaign[28]

Arguments

  • Governor Mark Dayton (D) opposed the proposed amendment. Speaking at a gay rights rally, Gov. Dayton stated, "I'm here to support those Minnesotans and Americans who want the same rights, freedoms, opportunity, respect, dignity and legal protections and legal opportunities as every other one of their fellow citizens... which is the founding principle of this country!"[29] On May 25, Dayton symbolically vetoed the measure, but since amendments do not require the Gov.'s signature, it will still appear on the ballot.[30]
  • President Barack Obama issued a statement opposing passage of the measure, but affirming that the issue should be dealt with at the state level.[31]
  • On August 8, 2011, the Minnesota AFL-CIO voted unanimously to oppose the proposed amendment. Minnesota AFL-CIO President Shar Knutson said, "The labor movement is, and has always been about protecting and advancing the rights of all people. We will not stand by and allow discrimination to become part of Minnesota’s constitution."[33]
  • The Independence Party of Minnesota announced on August 23, 2011, that they are joining the campaign against the proposed amendment. Chair Mark Jenkins said, "Our platform declares that ‘We oppose having the government impose state-sponsored morality or values on people of good conscience with differing views. This is a perfect example."[34][35]
  • On September 14, 2011, Duluth United For All Families (DUFAF) launched their efforts to defeat the proposed amendment. "We're also sort of in the early stages of this campaign so we really just calling out to get the choir together, if you will... the people who are going to come together and do the volunteer work with us," said Gary Anderson, a volunteer organizer with Minnesota United For All Families (MUFAF).[37]
  • Rep. John Kriesel said, "I'm a Republican baceause I believe in individual liberty and freedom. I think that this is an attack on that. I also think that this is an attack on a small minority of people in Minnesota."[38][39]
  • John Taft, CEO of RBC Wealth Management U.S., said he opposes the amendment he believes it would be bad for business. He said, "I truly do believe that keeping Minnesota competitive depends a great deal on attracting and retaining the best talent the world has to offer."[40]
  • On December 19, 2011, the Duluth City Council passed a resolution in opposition of the proposed state constitutional amendment.[20]
  • In a statement, media company Thomson Reuters expressed its opposition to the amendment on business grounds, saying, "We believe the Minnesota Marriage Amendment, if passed, would limit our ability to recruit and retain top talent,” several Minnesota-based company executives wrote in an email to employees."</ref="reuters">

Tactics and strategies

  • "It’s Personal to Me Campaign" - according to reports is a campaign to persuade voters with personal stories about gays and lesbians in Minnesota who oppose the marriage amendment.[41]
  • Minnesotans United for All Families announced that they are holding training sessions on how to fight the ban. The group said they invite people to "unite with Minnesota's spiritual and religious communities in a campaign kickoff training to enhance voices of faith for marriage equality."[12]
  • On October 30, 2011 a rally was held in Minneapolis.[42]
  • On December 7, 2011 a rally was held at the University of Minnesota, Duluth. The rally was organized by the on-campus Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG). Duluth Mayor Don Ness was there to support the efforts.[43]
  • Though it is legally ineffective, Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed the amendment when it arrived at his desk on April 9, 2012, as a form of protest against the measure. In a letter to the speaker of the House, Gov. Dayton said, "Although I do not have the power to prevent this unwise and unnecessary constitutional amendment from appearing on the Minnesota ballot in November, the Legislature has sent it to me in the form of a bill. Thus, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign or veto the amendment. I am vetoing the amendment and its title; I urge Minnesotans to reject it in November."[44]

Campaign contributions

It was reported that Minnesotans United for All Families, leading opponents of the measure, had raised an estimated $4.6 million by June 2012. As of January 28 Marriage Equality Minnesota had contributed to the campaign with a donation of $85,000.[45][14]

Campaign advertisements

On Tuesday, September 18, Minnesotans United for All Families aired its first ad against the amendment. The ad debuted on the internet, but was also shown later in the day on TV in Twin Cities and Duluth. The group says it plans to run the ad until election day.[46]

Polls

See also: Polls, 2012 ballot measures
  • A May 2-5, 2011 Star Tribune poll found that 39% of respondents supported the measure while 55% opposed it.[47] The poll surveyed 806 Minnesota adults with a sampling error of +/- 4.7 percent.[48]
  • A May 23-24 SurveyUSA poll of 552 registered voters has found that 51% of respondents favored the marriage amendment. 40% of respondents opposed the measure. 8% reported that they would not vote on the measure and 2% were undecided.[49]
  • A New York Times projection of trends in same-sex marriage polling data has revealed mixed prospects for the Minnesota Amendment. Under the more conservative model, the amendment passes with 54% of the vote. Under a more accelerated model, the measure would fail, receiving only 49 percent of the vote.[50]
  • A November 2-3, 2011 Star Tribune poll found that 48% support an amendment, while 43% oppose and 9% are undecided. A total of 807 registered voters were polled. The survey had a margin of error of +/- 4.4 percentage points.[51]
  • A January 21-22, 2012, Public Policy Poll revealed that 48% support the amendment, while 44% are opposed and 8% are undecided. A total of 1,236 registered voters were included in the poll. The margin of error was +/- 2.8 percentage points.[52][53]
  • On February 9 results from a SurveyUSA poll conducted between January 31 and February 2 were released. Of the 542 polled, 10% said they were not going to vote on the amendment. The poll's margin of error is +/-4.3 percent.[54]
  • A May 31 - June 3, 2012, Public Policy Poll revealed that 43% support the amendment, while 49% are opposed and 8% are undecided. A total of 973 registered voters were included in the poll. The margin of error was +/-3.1 percentage points.[55]
  • On July 22, 2012, results from a SurveyUSA poll conducted between July 17 and July 19 were released. Of the 552 polled, 52% said they approved of the measure, 37% opposed it, 6% were undecided, and 5% said they were not going to vote on the amendment. The poll's margin of error is +/-4.3 percent.[56]
  • A poll conducted September 10-11, by Public Policy Polling, shows an even split in Minnesota voters. The poll found that 48% of voters currently support the ban, 47% oppose it, and the remaining 5% are undecided. The survey was given to 824 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-3.4%. The amendment would add a ban on same-sex marriage to the state constitution.[57]
  • A poll conducted October 5-8, by Public Policy Polling, shows the amendment losing support of some Minnesota voters. The poll found that 46% of voters currently support the ban, 49% oppose it, and the remaining 5% are undecided. The survey was given to 937 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-3.2%.[58]
  • A poll conducted November 2-3, 2012, by Public Policy Polling, shows the amendment trailing with Minnesota voters. The poll found that 45% of voters currently support the ban, 52% oppose it, and the remaining 3% are undecided. The survey was given to 1,164 likely voters and has a margin of error of +/-2.9%.[59]
Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
May 2-5, 2011 Star Tribune Poll 39% 55% 7% 806
May 23-24, 2011 SurveyUSA Poll 51% 40% 10% 552
Nov. 2-3, 2011 Star Tribune Poll 48% 43% 9% 807
Jan 21-22, 2012 Public Policy Poll 48% 44% 8% 1,236
Ja. 31 - Fe. 2, 2012 SurveyUSA 47% 39% 4% 542


May 31 - June 3, 2012 Public Policy Poll 43% 49% 8% 973
July 17- July 19, 2012 SurveyUSA 52% 37% 6% 552
Sept. 10-11, 2012 Public Policy Polling 48% 47% 5% 824
Oct. 5-8, 2012 Public Policy Polling 46% 49% 5% 937
Nov. 2-3, 2012 Public Policy Polling 45% 52% 3% 1,164

Lawsuits

2012 measure lawsuits
Lawsuits.png
By state
ArizonaArkansasColoradoFloridaMaryland
MichiganMassachusettsMinnesota
MissouriMontanaNevada
North DakotaOhioOklahoma
OregonRhode Island
By lawsuit type
Ballot text
Campaign contributions
Constitutionality
Motivation of sponsors
Petitioner residency
Post-certification removal
Single-subject rule
Signature challenges
Initiative process

On July 9, 2012, supporters of the amendment filed a lawsuit with the Minnesota Supreme Court suing Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie over his changing of the amendments ballot title. Supporters claim that Secretary Ritchie is illegally using his office to oppose the measure. On the subject, Sen. Scott Newman, a supporter of the amendment and prime author of the Minnesota Voter ID Amendment, said, "When I look at this, I just think it is very unfortunate that we have a secretary of state that is using his constitutional office for partisan, political purposes."[60]


Campaign finance controversy

Under current Minnesota disclosure guidelines, corporations may donate to ballot measure campaigns without disclosing their own donors. In the case of the marriage amendment, organizations like Human Rights Campaign (against) and the National Organization for Marriage (for) are not required to reveal their donors when they contribute to ballot measure campaigns in Minnesota.

However, the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board met on June 14, 2011 to consider reversing its opinion on the policy. Notable proponents of the marriage amendment, the Minnesota Family Council and the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), oppose the reversal, saying that it could open donors to intimidation and chill free speech. Counsel for the NOM, Josiah Neeley, argued that donations to ballot measures are distinct from other political contributions since, unlike politicians, they cannot be bribed or bought off.[61]

Proponents of the change, like Common Cause Minnesota, argue that ballot initiative campaigns can affect broader political campaigns and that the public has a "right to know" the funding sources of political speech. Ultimately, the advisory opinions of the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board are not legally binding, but are seen as the Board's interpretation of existing law and do effect Board's disclosure guidelines. The Board has on several occasions asked the Legislature to clarify the statute.[61]

Disclosure required

On June 30, 2011 the Minnesota Campaign Finance Board adopted a resolution that requires that corporations that donate to ballot measure campaigns disclose the names of large donors. According to reports, ballot measure campaigns already disclose their donors. The ruling impacts those groups that donate to the campaigns. Corporations that donate at least $5,000 to a campaign would now be required to release the names of those who contributed $1,000 or more.[62][63]

On October 4, 2011 the board approved definitions and guidance in support of the June decision.[64] The statement of guidance details how a ballot measure donation to an outside group should be disclosed and defines what constitutes a contribution, general donation and political fund.[65]

The complete "statement of guidance" can be read here.

The first financial reports for the proposed marriage amendment are due at the end of January 2012.

Response

In response to the "statement of guidance" Minnesota for Marriage chairman John Helmberger said, "Minnesota for Marriage will disclose all donations we receive, as well as all expenditures that we make, consistent with longstanding Minnesota law. However, what [campaign finance board] bureaucrats are attempting to do goes well beyond what the law requires, substituting themselves for the Legislature in an illegal attempt to compel disclosure of information not required by law. We oppose such illegal regulations."[66]

National organization, the National Organization for Marriage said, "The CFB cannot illegally force us to report information the law does not require."[66]

In response to the disclosure debate The Free Press said in part, "Only with the full light of transparency can the public understand the political motivations behind the initiatives, thereby allowing the public the full arsenal of tools with which to make the most informed decisions in the voting booth."[67]

Requirements upheld

On October 31, 2011 reports indicated the the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board may relax its policies on campaign disclosure for ballot measures. However, on November 1, 2011 the board voted to uphold the disclosure requirements. Although the request to relax the rules was defeated, the board agreed to move forward with more research on how to classify expenditures and if "expressed advocacy" should be included as an expenditure.[68]

On December 8, 2011 the state campaign finance board amended the disclosure rules for campaign-style ads. If ads or other public communications mention the upcoming 2012 election then routine campaign finance reporting is required, however, if the ad or communication does not specifically mention the 2012 vote on a proposed amendment then less disclosure is required.[69]

Complaint filed

On February 22, 2012, Common Cause Minnesota, an elections watchdog group, filed a complaint with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board against the groups Minnesota for Marriage and Minnesota Family Council. The complaint accuses the two groups, both headed by John Helmberger, of violating state law by failing to properly disclose donors for their campaigns in support of the marriage amendment. According to Common Cause Minnesota's executive director, Mike Dean, "Minnesota law requires disclosure of campaign contributions because the public has a right to know what special interests are paying for political ads."[70]

Chuck Darrell, a spokesman with Minnesota for Marriage, countered the complaints by saying that Mike Dean was "hardly an uninterested person," and was, in fact, trying to help the other side. Darrell further contested that, "Minnesota for Marriage has complied with all the guidance of the campaign finance board."[70]

In early March, the state Campaign Finance Board agreed to investigate the complaints filed by Common Cause Minnesota.[71]

Legislative bill to block vote

In the last week (the week of January 9, 2012) to introduce bills for consideration during the 2012 legislative session lawmakers introduced a bill regarding the November 2012 vote on same-sex marriage. The bill, if approved by lawmakers, would remove the proposed constitutional amendment from the ballot and block it from a public vote.[72]

The bill's chief author was Rep. Karen Clark. According to reports, in the Minnesota State Senate the bill was to be represented by Sen. Scott Dibble.[72]

The 2012 legislative session convenes on January 24, 2012.

The bill number was HF1885 and the bill text is available here.

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the Minnesota Constitution

In order to refer proposed amendments to the ballot, they must be agreed on by a majority of the members of each chamber of the Minnesota State Legislature. Legislators introduced three bills proposing the ballot amendment.[73] After winning approval in the Minnesota State Senate, Senate File 1308 was approved by the State House. Since the bill does not require the governor's approval, the proposed amendment moved directly to the 2012 ballot.[1]

The three bills are as follows:

Timeline

Calendar.png

The following is a timeline of events surrounding the measure:

Event Date Developments
SF 1308 April 27, 2011 Bill SF 1308 filed
Poll May 23-24, 2011 A SurveyUSA poll found that 51% of respondents supported the measure while 40% opposed it.[49]
Veto May 25, 2001 Gov. Dayton symbolically vetoed the measure. Since amendments do not require the Gov.'s signature, it will still appear on the ballot.[30]
Poll May 2-5, 2011 A Star Tribune poll found that 39% of respondents supported the measure while 55% opposed it.[48]
Approval May 21, 2011 Measure sent to the ballot by Minnesota State Legislature.[74]

Minnesota’s Defense of Marriage Act lawsuits

In July 2011 three same-sex couples - Duane Gajewski and Doug Benson, Lindzi Campbell and Jesse Dykhuis, John Rittman and Tom Trisko - filed an appeal to overturn Minnesota's Defense of Marriage Act.[75]

The case was dismissed by a Hennepin County district court judge in March 2011 but it has since been filed with the Minnesota Court of Appeals in hopes that the case can be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Hennepin County judge argued said that first a 1971 case, Baker v. Nelson, must be overturned by the Minnesota Supreme Court.[75]

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that the Baker decision does not apply because the 2011 case refers to recognizing marriages in other states.[75]

See also

Template:EVeram

Articles

External links

Campaign links

Additional reading

Campaign disclosure

References

  1. 1.0 1.1 Boston.com, "Minn. marriage amendment on ballot," May 23, 2011
  2. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 St. Cloud Times,"New legislators say same-sex marriage amendment could go to voters," November 27, 2010
  3. Star Tribune, "Legislators trim wording of marriage amendment," April 28, 2011
  4. 4.0 4.1 Minnesota Legislature, House File 1308
  5. The Minnesota Independent,"Minnesota for Marriage sees momentum in NY, NH, NC wins," September 20, 2011
  6. 6.0 6.1 South Washington County Bulletin,"Viewpoint: Why Minnesotans should support marriage amendment," December 21, 2011
  7. Minnesota Catholic Conference, "Statement Of Minnesota Catholic Conference On Passage Of Marriage Amendment," Accessed June 3, 2011
  8. Minnesota Catholic Conference, "Marriage," Accessed June 3, 2011
  9. Catholic News Agency, "Archbishop Nienstedt offers reasons to back Minn. marriage amendment," June 10, 2011
  10. Politico, "Michele Bachmann touts tangible conservative record," June 3, 2011
  11. The Washington Independent,"News anchor, anti-abortion activist to be the ‘face’ of Minnesota anti-gay marriage amendment," January 9, 2012
  12. 12.0 12.1 Advocate.com,"Faith Leaders Training for Religious Rumble in Minnesota," August 30, 2011
  13. MinnPost.com,"Supporters of only straight marriage get booth inside Fair," September 9, 2011
  14. 14.0 14.1 Associated Press "Minnesota marriage amendment backers raise $1.4 million," June 19, 2012
  15. Minnesota Independent, "Minnesota Democrats vow to fight anti-gay marriage amendment", March 7, 2011
  16. Politics in Minnesota,"Foes of gay marriage ban face uncharted territory," September 14, 2011
  17. Chicago Phoenix "Obama campaign comes out against Minn. anti-gay amendment," April 9, 2012
  18. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named MI10611
  19. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WINov22011
  20. 20.0 20.1 LGBTQ Nation,"Duluth passes resolution opposing constitutional ban on gay marriage," December 20, 2011
  21. Star Tribune,"St. Paul City Council opposes marriage amendment," January 25, 2012
  22. The Mac Weekly "Discrimination has no place in the MN Constitution," April 25, 2012
  23. Star Tribune "Gay marriage opponents follow more aggressive strategy in Minnesota," July 2, 2012
  24. SouthFloridaGayNews.com "Minnesota Vikings Player Comes Out in Support of Gay Marriage," June 29, 2012
  25. Associated Press "Thomson Reuters opposes anti-gay ballot measure in Minnesota," July 16, 2012
  26. Minnesota Public Radio,"Children at heart of marriage amendment debate, partisans say," September 6, 2012
  27. Minnesota Public Radio "Minn. Jewish leaders oppose marriage amendment," February 7, 2012
  28. KSTP "Arts Organizations Join Marriage Amendment Opponents," May 14, 2012
  29. Advocate.com, "Minn. Governor Addresses Equality Rally," April 15, 2011
  30. 30.0 30.1 Star Tribune, "Dayton adds vetoes real and symbolic," May 25, 2011
  31. Advocate.com, "White House on Minn. Ballot Initiative," May 24, 2011
  32. Independence Minnesota, "We Oppose the Proposed Minnesota Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same-Sex Marriage," Accessed June 3, 2011
  33. The Minnesota Independent,"AFL-CIO votes unanimously to oppose anti-gay marriage amendment," August 9, 2011
  34. The Minnesota Independent,"Independence Party to campaign against anti–gay marriage amendment," August 23, 2011
  35. Politics in Minnesota,"IP joins anti-gay marriage amendment coalition," August 23, 2011
  36. The Minnesota Independent,"MAPE votes to oppose anti–gay marriage amendment," August 22, 2011
  37. WDIO,"Duluthians Pushing Back Against Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment," September 14, 2011
  38. Fox9news,"MN Republicans Announce Opposition to Marriage Amendment," October 6, 2011
  39. Associated Press,"Some GOP leaders aim to defeat marriage amendment," October 6, 2011
  40. SCTimes.com,"Few Fortune 500 companies in Minn. take stand on marriage amendment," October 23, 2011
  41. St. Cloud Times,"Marriage amendent: 2 sides prepare for heated debate," August 20, 2011
  42. KSTP,"Rally Opposes Constitutional Ban On Same Sex Marriage," October 30, 2011
  43. WDIO,"UMD Marriage Amendment Rally Draws Crowd," December 7, 2011
  44. Star Tribune "Dayton decries photo ID push with a 'veto'," April 9, 2012
  45. Start Tribune,"Foes of marriage amendment raise $1.2 million," January 28, 2012
  46. Associated Press,"Group against Minnesota gay marriage amendment airs first ad," September 18, 2012
  47. Star Tribune, "Minnesota Poll: Support falls for ban on gay marriage," May 13, 2011
  48. 48.0 48.1 Star Tribune, "Minnesota Poll: Majority oppose gay marriage ban," May 13, 2011
  49. 49.0 49.1 KSTP.com, "SURVEYUSA: Gay Marriage Poll Shows Possible Close Vote," 05/25/2011
  50. New York Times, "The Future of Same-Sex Marriage Ballot Measures," June 29, 2011
  51. The Star Tribune,"Minnesota Poll: Marriage amendment divide is deep," November 8, 2011
  52. Baptist Press,"Polls: N.C. & Minn. marriage amendments lead," January 31, 2012
  53. Twin Cities Daily Planet,"New poll shows anti-gay marriage amendment battle is tight," January 30, 2012
  54. 5 EYEWITNESS News "New SurveyUSA Poll Shows Support for Marriage Amendment," February 9, 2012
  55. Public Polling Policy "Minnesotans’ opposition to marriage amendment growing," June 5, 2012
  56. MinnPost.com "New marriage-poll results: a dramatic change in voters' views — or a fluke?" July 24, 2012
  57. Public Policy Polling,"Minnesota split on marriage amendment," September 12, 2012
  58. Public Policy Polling,"Minnesota marriage amendment narrowly trails," October 8, 2012
  59. Public Policy Polling,"Obama up 8 in Minnesota, amendments trail for passage," November 3, 2012
  60. Duluth News Tribune "Minnesota amendment proposals become legal battles over words," July 10, 2012
  61. 61.0 61.1 Star Tribune, "On amendment issues, reveal corporate donors?," June 14, 2011
  62. Minnesota Public Radio,"Board: Large donors on amendment campaigns must be disclosed," June 30, 2011
  63. Alexandria Echo Press,"Board closes loophole in campaign contributions," June 30, 2011
  64. Minnesota Public Radio,"Disclosure rules apply, Campaign Finance Board says," October 4, 2011
  65. Minnesota Public Radio,"Campaign Finance Board releases guidelines on ballot initiatives," September 28, 2011
  66. 66.0 66.1 The Minnesota Independent,"Anti-gay marriage groups say they won’t follow new campaign finance guidelines," October 4, 2011
  67. The Free Press,"Our View: Disclosure is best on ballot questions," October 19, 2011
  68. The Minnesota Independent,"Campaign finance board temporarily upholds disclosure requirements," November 2, 2011
  69. Associated Press,"Board: Some ads discussing Minn. gay marriage measure subject to less disclosure than others," December 8, 2011
  70. 70.0 70.1 Star Tribune "Watchdog group files complaint against two marriage amendment supporters," February 22, 2012
  71. Minnesota Public Radio "Campaign Finance Board to investigate marriage amendment backers," March 9, 2012
  72. 72.0 72.1 Politics in Minnesota,"DFLers back bill to block gay marriage amendment," January 16, 2012
  73. The Minnesota Independent, "Minnesota Republicans offer constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage," April 26, 2011
  74. Minnesota Senate File 1308, Bill History
  75. 75.0 75.1 75.2 The Minnesota Independent,"Couples file appeal in Minnesota same-sex marriage lawsuit," August 19, 2011