Watch LIVE: Minnesota House Vote on Marriage Equality


UPDATE: The House has approved the bill in a 75-59 vote!

The Minnesota House of Representatives is set to vote on marriage equality starting at 12 pm (1 pm ET) today. If the bill is passed by the House, the Senate could get it as early as this weekend.

MinnesotaWatch it LIVE here (opens in new window), AFTER THE JUMP...

Security has been heightened at the Capitol:

State lawmakers have been advised that 30 to 40 additional uniformed officers will be on hand to maintain a safe environment during debate Thursday. Thousands of people are expected to be on the Capitol grounds while the House weighs the gay marriage bill. Signs posted at entrances warn that the building will be closed to new visitors upon hitting capacity. A state security official says that will be determined on the size and tenor of the crowd.

Read our latest updates on the bill HERE and HERE.

Watch it LIVE here (opens in new window), AFTER THE JUMP...

And feel free to discuss in the comments. Make sure not to miss a Towleroad headline by following @TLRD on Twitter. And thank you for sharing and retweeting our content.

If the video isn't working you can try watching LIVE here. And the Star Tribune will be running a livestream as well.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Here we go! Fingers crossed. Good Luck!

    Posted by: Christian | May 9, 2013 12:57:16 PM

  2. It's being said that the amendment that would explicitly label this bill a civil marriage bill would without doubt lead to passage of marriage equality in Minnesota and Minnesotans United is pushing for it. Undecided legislators said they'd vote for the marriage bill if that provision was added.

    Posted by: Francis #1 | May 9, 2013 1:17:05 PM

  3. OMG my heart is racing!!

    Posted by: AJ | May 9, 2013 1:32:56 PM

  4. The amendment passed on a voice vote.

    Posted by: Francis #1 | May 9, 2013 1:33:16 PM

  5. Guy up now is trying to introduce a bill that will make all marriages civil unions.
    It has no shot but he's made it clear he's a no vote on the marriage bill.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2013 1:38:50 PM

  6. @Francis #1: And that's what infuriates and maddens me about this whole affair. Marriage is and has ALWAYS been a civil issue. It predates religious wedding ceremonies by centuries. People are constantly confusing the MARRIAGE (the union of two consenting adults' financial and legal interests, including mutual care and childcare) with the WEDDING (aka the "Princess Perfect Costumed Theme Party").

    The churches only got into it when couples would use church services to announce their wedding (and let a large number of fellow citizens know about the subsequent union of two FAMILIES' mutual economic interests). Of course, the churches REALLY got into the "sanctity of marriage" business when they figured out that they could CHARGE for the officiant's blessing of their union.

    If the states would cut off the convention of giving religious wedding officiants the temporary notary powers to execute the marriage license, couples would have to go the the Justice of the Peace to get married, and the whole confusion would end.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: The officiant at our wedding executed the marriage license, so technically I'm a hypocrite. A happily married hypocrite, but still...!

    Everything else I write here stands. And GO MINNESOTA! You can bring Marriage Equality to the Midwest! Show EVERYBODY that famous Minnesota Nice!

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000 | May 9, 2013 1:39:44 PM

  7. Explicitly label it a civil marriage bill?

    The state already has no purview over religious marriages.

    Posted by: JamesInCA | May 9, 2013 1:41:13 PM

  8. Sadly,we are seeing some swing voters that will vote yes on this (including Kim Norton Democrat) that will most likely vote no on gay marriage.
    And that was the whole point of this amendment.
    He knows it won't pass but by doing this,he can say he tried to comprimise and they wouldn't have it,therefore they will vote no on the other ones.
    It's basically the cowards way out.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2013 1:50:56 PM

  9. if it makes them happy to call it civil marriages, they can have it. i know and you know that that is all we are asking for anyway.

    Posted by: bandanajack | May 9, 2013 1:51:45 PM

  10. BTw,the federal government won't acknowledge these.
    So no go to the civil unions route. A route which by the way the amendment that failed wanted to block.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2013 1:55:25 PM

  11. CA 36000 - didn't Iowa already bring marriage equality to the Midwest?

    Posted by: JamesInCA | May 9, 2013 1:56:00 PM

  12. I don't understand this amendment. I thought we were voting for marriage equality.

    Posted by: Gigi | May 9, 2013 1:56:09 PM

  13. Rep Kelly's bill is not a for 'civil marriage' but for civil union.
    Treacherous ground for all married Minnesotans.

    He's hoping to force the Federal Gov to give the word marriage to religious institutions.

    Posted by: JONES | May 9, 2013 1:58:11 PM

  14. Gee,why wasn't this bill offered last year?
    Oh wait,that's because they were trying to ban civil unions and domestic partnerships as well.
    This is a smokescreen and nothing more.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2013 1:59:52 PM

  15. 111-22..there goes that.

    Posted by: Kevin | May 9, 2013 2:01:29 PM

  16. Fortunately, CUs for all was a no-go, not to mention a waste of time.

    Posted by: Ernie | May 9, 2013 2:02:48 PM

  17. Rep Kelly (civil union advocate) says his marriage is between him, his wife, his church, and God.'

    No. No. No.

    You don't get to force domain for the word 'marriage' to religious institutions.

    Legally your marriage is a civil contract. Your church ceremony is a celebration within a chosen group. Has nothing to do with your civil liberty to marry the one you choose.

    Posted by: JONES | May 9, 2013 2:02:50 PM

  18. In other words, "I am not a homophobe, my constituents are".

    Posted by: Dastius Krazitauc | May 9, 2013 2:03:02 PM

  19. @One of the CA 36,000, exactly. The amendment is completely unnecessary. But I'm guessing it was necessary to bring in the final votes or bring in some Republican votes.

    Tim Kelly's civil union amendment failed so I expect marriage equality to pass now.

    Posted by: Francis #1 | May 9, 2013 2:03:43 PM

  20. Four Democrats voted for the civil unions bill. We'll see if they defect and don't vote for the actual marriage bill, but I think they will.

    Posted by: Francis #1 | May 9, 2013 2:11:05 PM

  21. Bravo Mullery.

    40 years ago approved a gay dance on campus.

    Posted by: JONES | May 9, 2013 2:19:06 PM

  22. Rep. Mullery's speech made my heart sing!

    Posted by: Gigi | May 9, 2013 2:19:17 PM

  23. Thanks JONES!

    Posted by: Gigi | May 9, 2013 2:19:52 PM

  24. @JamesinCA: Well, I'll be...! You're right!

    Sorry, Iowa.

    Posted by: One of the CA 36,000 | May 9, 2013 2:22:47 PM

  25. Ugh, I know it's often worth it for the prize at the end, but is anyone else bothered with how these votes on ssm are ALWAYS, INVARIABLY so utterly long and drawn out?

    It feels like such a no-brainer issue, yet there has to be this absurd pretense of this being so "tough" and how "debate is necessary." It's equal rights! There shouldn't be a need to dally!

    Posted by: Owen | May 9, 2013 2:31:10 PM

Post a comment


« «Why Does Music Move Us? โ€” VIDEO« «