Talk:Same-sex marriage in Minnesota

statute or constitutional ban

Is there a statute or constitutional ban on same sex marriage in Minnesota? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.207.230 (talk) 11:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A statute, see Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state. Hekerui (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Question: this article seems to imply that (if the ballot measures passes) it will not impact civil unions or domestic partnerships in the State. Yet it provides NO citation to this statement. Why? In fact a great deal of the article lacks proper citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.123.38.190 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that the amendment does not affect civil unions, because under Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. 517.01, https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=STAT_CHAP&year=2007&section=517#stat.517.01.0), marriage is a civil contract or union; the amendment would ban such unions between couples of the same gender. Stating that the proposed amendment does not affect domestic partnerships is somewhat dubious, because Minnesota law does not recognize such partnerships at this time. I changed the text to read that the proposed amendment does not refer to civil unions or domestic partnerships, which is plainly true.Jeisenberg (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.queerty.com/minnesota-wont-get-around-to-marriage-20090330/. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Major Business and Constitutional Amendment

Notable that a major business would take a stand. Also, notable that NOM just asks businesses to stay neutral and does not demand they share their stand. Anyone want to add this?

• see Mike Hughlett; Baird Helgeson (June 14, 2012). "General Mills against gay marriage ban". Star-Tribune. Retrieved June 15, 2012.

Moving page later today

When Governor Dayton signs the bill in a few hours, I will move this page to Same-sex marriage in Minnesota, in the vein of other pages for states where SSM is legal or a law has been enacted ensuring that it will become legal in the near future (e.g., Same-sex marriage in Delaware). If you have objections for some reason, please state them now. Moncrief (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC) ...or forever hold your peace. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha! I should say "I or someone else will move..." Someone might beat me to the move! Moncrief (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Done :) Hekerui (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Minnesota is 13th not 12th

Hello everyone, please remember, California was the second state to legalize SSM (regardless what happened with Prop 8 and what happens in the courts). As the sentence is currently written, saying Minnesota is the 12th to legalize is plain wrong.

“ Minnesota is the thirteenth U.S. state and fourteenth U.S. jurisdiction (including Washington D.C) to legalize marriage between same-sex couples, ”

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as far as your edit is concerned, I'm not saying you are wrong. I know California legalized it, then it was overturned. The sources say it's the 12th. So it's original research, whether you like it or not, to say 13th. If you can find sources explaining that it's the 13th and why then that would be supported. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, facts need sources. Teammm ^talk
_email 02:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we both agree Minnesota was not the 12th state to legalize, by the simple fact that the source albeit authoritative is objectively wrong. Pretty much everyone Same-sex marriage in *US State* article, skips this type of sentence. There is no real reason to have the sentence. Because the sentence is misleading, I think it should be taken out. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If you take the sentence out that would be an acceptable solution here, because I do see what you mean. Teammm ^talk
_email 15:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

dates in question

State law took effect on July 1, 2013 makes SSM legal, certificates will begin being issued on 8/1/13. See http://kstp.com/article/stories/s3082732.shtml to verify. Since I was married in Canada in 2011, filed amended taxes and I have already received a supplemental refund from the Minnesota Department of Revenue refiling as SSM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlflynn (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I made the appropriate changes in the body of the article and the summary. Also to Timeline of same-sex marriage in the United States. I expect there are other Wikipedia entries where this might be noted as well. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2013 (UTC)