After passing the state Senate vote 37-30 on Monday, Gov. Mark Dayton’s promised signature is the last step in making Minnesota the nation’s 12th state allowing gay marriage and the first in the Midwest to do so outside of its legislature.
Sophomore Danielle Tschida, president of the UST Allies club, said the bill’s passing made her proud and happy be a Minnesotan.
“People have come out in great numbers contacting their local government to show support,” Tschida said. “I’m very happy the bill passed and think it brings Minnesota one step closer to equality.”
Rallies began at the Capitol building hours before the afternoon discussion and vote. People yielded signs for both the equal marriage “Vote Yes” and traditional marriage “Vote No” stances, but, unlike Thursday’s House vote, supporters dominated the Capitol dome.
Sophomore Matt Anderson said the November hype accelerated the bill’s passage through the Capitol as it “galvanized the pro-side.” As for how the bill will affect St. Thomas, Anderson said he does not see students voicing varying opinions on campus an issue.
“I don’t think this will have an impact on St. Thomas, just like this won’t have an impact on heterosexual marriages. Or, at least, it shouldn’t until someone makes it a problem,” Anderson said. “I can’t really think of any ways in which this would impact the university.”
Some St. Thomas students said they have difficulty agreeing with the bill due to their faith. Sophomore David Trout said he adheres to the Catholic faith the best that he can, though Trout said that he respects his peers.
“I also want to say that I love all of my homosexual friends, peers, and neighbors while respectfully disagreeing with their lifestyle,” Trout said.
Trout also said he does not see a great benefit to same-sex couples through the passage of this bill.
“I am confused about what this bill accomplishes practically for homosexual couples. It is already legal for homosexual couples to live together, sleep together and do many other things that married couples do,” Trout said. “I don’t mean this in any kind of accusatory manner, but I ask in hopes of moving forward together in order to find the best solution for everyone, and I don’t understand how this fits that.”
Although political parties did play a strong role in the vote, three Democrats and one Republican crossed party lines. Junior Jenna Coffey said “rigidly conformed opinions” are causing tensions between both sides.
“(Students) are taught that supporting gay marriage makes you open-minded and opposing it makes you a bigot,” Coffey said. “Politically correct thinking is pushing our culture in a direction where it is becoming taboo to have a dissenting opinion, because people equate disagreement with hatred.”
Freshman Mariah Neuhauser agrees with same-sex marriage but does not think the government should play a role in defining what marriage means.
“I am a Libertarian, and although I strongly believe in the right for people to marry regardless of their gender, I feel that the government is overstepping its boundaries by enacting a law based on same-sex marriage and heterosexual marriage,” Neuhauser said.
Even still, students can debate further where marriage crosses legal and religious boundaries. Junior Jordan Graf said his Catholic faith instilled a “deep dedication to justice and the dignity of each and every person,” and he hopes that the passage of the bill will enhance those qualities in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transexual community.
“As a gay person trying to live my life in love, virtue and responsibility, I understand the great benefit this law will bring other LGBT persons: the recognition of love as sacred, as valued, as protected,” Graf said. “The legal acceptance of LGBT people will surely make it easier for LGBT’s on campus live happy, healthy lives.”
As the legislation makes its way onto Dayton’s desk, Minnesotans will continue to voice opinions about the ordeal.
“I will still believe that marriage is only possible between one man and one woman … notice that this is a different claim than that ‘only heterosexual couples should get married,’” Trout said. “Even if marriage is allowed legally between homosexuals, I hope that some kind of distinction is still made between their union and the union of a heterosexual couple.”
Anastasia Straley can be reached at stra0669@stthomas.edu.
I personally believe that it is of utmost importance to prevent religious fanaticism and ultra-conservatism from dictating social policy in America. Furthermore, individuals who adhere to such views are not at all representative of most people of faith, and in turn do a disservice to their religion by portraying it as bigoted, antiquated, and unwaveringly orthodox. What I fail to understand about this debate is why these people act like their rights or convictions are being compromised by the so-called “redefining” of marriage. Is heterosexual marriage any less valid now that the amendment has passed?
These people are still free to hold whatever beliefs they’d like, however discriminatory. That said, imposing Christian values upon a nation that was — contrary to popular belief — **not** founded on Christian moral precepts is incongruent with everything America stands for. While I believe that remaining civil is important in debating contentious issues, certain views deserve absolutely no respect and must be called out for what they truly are — intolerant and flagrantly faith-based. The “defense of marriage” happens to be one such view.
Bravo Jordan and Danielle – couldn’t agree more. This is a proud day for Minnesota, for advancing the cause of equality and human rights – especially with the extension of the 515 State rights and benefits granted once only to opposite-sex married couples to all couples.