November 19, 2003 - The Massachusetts Supreme Court yesterday struck down a ban on gay and lesbian marriage. The court gave lawmakers six months to change state laws, a move that could make Massachusetts the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage. Phil Duran is the Legal Policy Analyst at OutFront Minnesota, the largest organization serving the state's gay-lesbian-bisexual and trans-gender communities. He says the Massachusetts ruling has revived debate about same-sex marriage in Minnesota, but will have little impact on the state's gay and lesbian couples.
November 20, 2003 - Two Republican state legislators said today (THURSDAY) they'll push a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Their announcement comes two days after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that gay couples have the right to marry under that state's constitution. The Minnesota legislators say defining marriage in the state constitution would ensure that voters, not judges, decide the issue. Minnesota Public Radio's Laura McCallum reports...
November 21, 2003 - The issue of gay marriage has elicited a strong response from our listeners. Several of you called our comment line yesterday after we aired a National Public Radio commentary by Stanley Kurtz.... who opposes gay marriage. Kurtz said gay marriages... by definition can't produce children... and allowing them would undermine what he calls the "symbolic link" between marriage and parenthood. That... he says... would lead to more out-of-wedlock births and more family disillusionment. He says this has already happened in Scandanavian countries.. where gay marriages have been allowed for a decade. But this listener... from Minneapolis... questions the comparison to Scandanavian countries.
February 26, 2004 - MPR’s Lorna Benson profiles Liz Mc Elhinney and Siddiqi Ray, a lesbian couple in Minnesota who recently married in San Francisco, which began to grant marriage licenses to gay couples.
March 9, 2004 - Midday presents a report and conversation regarding Minnesota lawmaker’s debate of a bill that could lead to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The constitution would state: "Only the union of one man and one woman will be recognized as a marriage in Minnesota."
March 22, 2004 - Several thousand people attended a rally at the Capitol today in support of a constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Supporters of the ban say they want the Minnesota constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. While ban supporters rallied outside the Capitol, their allies in the Senate tried, but failed, to force a floor vote. Opponents of the amendment say the measure is mean spirited and would codify discrimination in the Minnesota Constitution. Minnesota Public Radio's Tom Scheck reports...
March 25, 2004 - Midday presents excerpts from debate on bill to amend the constitution to define marriage. On March 24th, the Minnesota State House voted on a proposal that would let voters decide if the Minnesota constitution should ban same-sex marriage. The vote was 88-44 in favor of proposal.
March 25, 2004 - MPR’s Laura McCallum reports that the Minnesota State House passed a measure by 88-44 that would put a constitutional amendment question on the ballot in November 2004. It goes next to a Senate committee for vote, where it may be defeated.
March 26, 2004 - MPR’s Tom Scheck reports on a committee vote in the DFL Senate defeating proposed amendment that would ban gay marriage. That measure would allow the voters to decide if the Minnesota Constitution should ban same sex marriage and any legal equivalent. The committee did approve a proposed constitutional amendment that would prevent the courts from forcing the Legislature to define gay marriage, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court has done.
March 26, 2004 - MPR's Tom Scheck reports on the debate over same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue. The civil rights argument has caused concern among some African American religious leaders in Minnesota, especially when they've heard it compared to the fight for racial equality. While they argue that the civil rights struggle is completely different than the gay marriage issue, others counter that one should look to history in considering discrimination.