Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
Recent News
Home / News / DFLers back bill to block gay marriage amendment
The goal of the bill is to repeal the constitutional amendment during the 2012 legislative session to stop it from going on the fall general election ballot. Minneapolis DFL Rep. Karen Clark, who is openly gay, is the chief author of the bill in the House. Sen. Scott Dibble, who is also an openly gay lawmaker from Minneapolis, will lead on the bill in the Senate.

DFLers back bill to block gay marriage amendment

Sen. Scott Dibble and Rep. Karen Clark stand outside the House chambers after the gay marriage amendment passed last session (staff photo: Peter Bartz-Gallagher).

More than a dozen Minnesota House DFLers have introduced a bill that would block a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

DFLers hope to block the constitutional amendment during the 2012 legislative session to stop the issue from  landing on the general election ballot this fall. The Republican-controlled Legislature introduced and passed the ballot initiative in both chambers last May.

Openly gay Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis, is the chief author of the bill in the House. Minneapolis DFL Sen. Scott Dibble, who is also openly gay, will lead on the bill in the Senate.

“It’s appalling that we would try to do this kind of constitutional amendment,” Clark said. “It’s not in step with most of Minnesota.  It’s a lot of time, energy and money that’s being wasted on something that will hopefully fail anyway.”

The bill was introduced along with nearly 150 others late last week to meet the deadline for introduction of recess bills in the Legislature. The 2012 legislative session convenes on Jan. 24.

Clark knows it will be difficult to pass the bill in a GOP-controlled Legislature, but said many of those who voted for the bill in May are now having “second thoughts.”

“I think it will be challenging,” Clark said. “We actually have a lot of people who have had second thoughts about that amendment who voted for it. There was some stuff happening at the end there where we could have stopped this. Hopefully we can do it now.”

About Briana Bierschbach


  1. God I hope they do that here in NC too. The anti marriage should not have gone through our state legislature in the first place

  2. It is simply “unamaerican” for anyone in a “free country” to expect the majority to vote to deny rights they themselves enjoy to a minority of fellow americans. The founders had the wisdom and personal experience to realize what a conflict “personal beliefs” could cause in the business side of government but also how important it was for individuals to have the right to “practice” their particular faiths. Their understanding of this importance is evidenced by where they address it, it’s the “first amendment” not buried in the middle, not left for the end but FIRST. They were clear to protect “individual rights to religious freedom” but also crystal clear on the need for government not to invlove itself or in any advance or inhibit it or one over another. I look at this propsed amendment and see the “religious beliefs of ONE group, potentially being forced on everyone”. This proposed amendment also doesn’t pass the “Lemon Test” as I understand it, and for those reasons, which are backed by the Constitution and SC history should be denied. By allowing my brother-in-laws to marry in no way alters, affects or redefines mine or anyone else’s marriage and I challenge anyone to prove otherwise.

  3. The only reason it’s an issue,is to court the Evangelicals to the polls because they’re biggest sheep the GOP can string along.

Leave a Reply