On Election Day 2012, voters are charged with a very important task.
Not only will they be casting their vote for local, state and national races for government office, but also in favor or opposition of a constitutional amendment regarding marriage in the state of Minnesota.
If passed, the state's Constitution would be amended to state that marriage is only between one man and one woman, reflecting current state law.
Voting "yes" on the ballot measure means you do support the changing of the Constitution. Voting "no" means you do not support the change.
Patch asked readers to share why they are voting for or against the measure. The following are submitted statements from Richfield and Twin Cities area residents who are voting "yes":
Reed Bornholdt of Richfield:
I believe marriage should remain defined as (and reserved for) the union between one man and one woman. For centuries, organized societies have recognized the importance of heterosexual marriage to society as a whole. In particular, societies have encouraged what’s best for the children that result from the union of one man and one woman. What’s best for the child is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship. Marriage is a special arrangement that has already been tarnished by divorce. As seen in other countries that have adopted same-gender marriage, we likely would see a devaluing of “marriage,” a decline in the number of marriages (“If everyone can marry, why should anyone marry?”), more children born out of wedlock and higher divorce rates.
Without a marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. This is exactly what happened in Iowa, Massachusetts and California. Similarly, legislators can redefine marriage without the permission of the people, as several legislators in Minnesota have pledged to do. The marriage amendment ensures that if activists want to redefine marriage in the future, they must receive the approval of voters to do so.
I will vote in favor of the amendment.
Bonnie Gasper of Eden Prairie:
Our family visited the Vote NO booth at the MN State Fair in August and spoke with a self identified attorney volunteering for the cause. I asked him what the logical outcome of what constitutes 'marriage' will be if they are successful in redefining the meaning of marriage. He said that concern was a "separate issue."
So, I asked him if marriage is indeed a 'right', then how can he deny that 'right' to others who desire polygamous, polyamorous, even incestuous relationships as deeply as people of the same sex? Again, he said it was a "separate issue."
It isn't a separate issue, because it reveals the uncomfortable truth that if marriage is regarded as merely a 'right' and not an historical institution defined by God, understood and recognized as the union of one man and one woman, then anything can qualify. Anything.
Since he was an attorney, I also asked since many companies now provide domestic partner benefits, what other marriage 'benefits' were unavailable to committed same-sex couples that someone like him couldn't remedy with legal paperwork? He didn't name any.
Society does not prevent same sex or opposite sex couples from cohabitating or forming long term commitments to each other. They can and they will continue having the freedom to do so. However, society (as well as the courts) are not free to call those unions marriages when they are not.
And marriage is not a civil right. People with same sex attraction have the same enumerated rights as every other American and they are protected by our Constitution.
I'm happy to report our conversation with this man was spirited yet very respectful. We thanked him for not calling us haters, bigots or homophobes and he seemed sincerely sor ry that so many on his side prefer to shout down or silence the opposition rather than discuss the issue. (Evidently, those who keep stealing the Vote YES to Marriage signs in Eden Prairie, don't share his tolerance or respectfulnes!)
Marriage is a unique institution that stands alone as a union of one man and one woman, and our government has a compelling interest to protect it.
Want to weigh-in? Leave a comment below.
***
Other releated articles:
- Minnesota Marriage Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'No'
- Minnesota Voter ID Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'No'
- Minnesota Voter ID Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'Yes'
Follow Richfield Patch on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter
I'll even give you sources: Canadian stats on marriage and divorce: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/subject-sujet/theme-theme.action?pid=40000&lang=eng&more=0 Out of wedlock births: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-05-13-unmarriedbirths_N.htm Cohabitation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohabitation Cohabitation stats from 2006 (which is before most of those countries allowed same sex marriage) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7027518.stm
1. joint filing of bankruptcy permitted 2. next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims 3. Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses 4. sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits 5. domestic violence intervention 6. Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse 7. Funeral and bereavement leave (companies don't have to allow this if you are not married.) 8. Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege) None of the above can be granted through paperwork. And that's not all of them. Sorry for 3 different posts, but there is a restriction on the number of characters in a comment.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Same sex marriages are not legal, already. If same sex marriage is someday legalized, will parents and pastors no longer be able to religiously instruct their children as they wish?? Religious instruction is already different from secular. Right now, kids go to school and are told their existence is an unplanned act of nature. At home, they may be told they were created by a God out of love. The world system says one thing, parents and pastors another. It happens and people simply have to decide what to believe on their own. What a beautiful distraction while our nation is being destroyed. We're being taken completely over by big corporate-sponsored tyrannical one-world government, and THIS is what we're talking about?? Divided and conquered; that's us!?
What those who think the state should adopt a religious interpretation of marriage are missing is that some day, future legislation, if it can be religious, may or may not be at ODDS with their beliefs - and THEN what? Just because the state supports your God today doesn't mean it will not change gods tomorrow. Why should I give the state that power? I don't take my religious instruction from St Paul or Washington DC, anyway, NOR do I take my voting instruction from a pulpit. Render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, and unto God that which is God's; there's good reason for that. Leave it to local government to run the water treatment facilities and emergency services to keep us healthy and safe, and to run the schools to teach math and science and reading and history ... Leave it to the church to instruct me as to whether I'm going to heaven or hell, and whether my marriage is a marriage. Governor Dayton's a nice guy but he's not my pastor and shouldn't be, and (sorry, but...) I don't think I'd want my pastor to oversee state affairs, either. They do great jobs at what they do. Let's let them perform in their roles.
When marriage was redefined in Canada, school officials embarked almost immediately on a program that they themselves refer to as the “unlearning process”. Materials relating to same sex marriage begin to permeate all subjects and all grade levels. To defend this, Board officials claim that learning is facilitated when students observe elements of their own diversity in the curriculum. They actually believe that simple arithmetic cannot be learned without reference to same sex marriage. In my jurisdiction, the real goal is not to use “same sex marriage” as an aid in teaching the three R’s to young children. Instead, the objective becomes using the three R’s as an aid to teach acceptance of same sex marriage to young children who are lacking in both spiritual maturity and critical thinking skills. Is this the type of education that Minnesotan’s want for their children?Those people – a strong majority of Minnesotans – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex “marriages” would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.
Below is a full list of sources to specific examples of consequences that have occurred once marriage has been redefined as a genderless institution. Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption. June 8, 2012, Zenit.org, Christians Pay Consequences for Opposing Same-Sex Marriage January 13, 2012, LifeSiteNews.com: Judge Rules Christian Facility Cannot Ban Same-Sex Civil Union Ceremony on its Own Premises September 18, 2007, The New York Times: Group Loses Tax Break Over Gay Union Issue September 18, 2005, LifeSiteNews.com, Knights of Columbus Challenged by Canadian Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for ‘Wedding’ Reception Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies. September 10, 2012, CBS Boston, Gay Couple Sues Worcester Diocese For Refusing To Sell Mansion To Them September 14, 2011, CitizenLink.com, IL Christian Foster Care Group Loses State Contract June 3, 2011, Chicago Tribune: Catholic Charities in Joliet, Peoria Opt Out of Adoptions
The marriage amendment is about the stability of law, to defend against the likely result if the courts are left room to "overturn" the entirety of marriage law, as was done in variations in Iowa, California, and Massachusetts. If marriage laws are to be changed, the people should have a chance to weigh in though the normal political process. Doing it by judicial fiat is a disruptive and irresponsible way to do it.
The simple fact is this: if you offer services outside your church (eg: hospital, adoption, etc), you cannot discriminate. The church gets the tax exemption, but not the rest of the groups. Look at the businesses that lose lawsuits when they discriminate. Replace "gay coupe" with "african-american couple". Discrimination is discrimination. And it has NO PLACE in our nation.
We don't make up our morals. Most of us get them from our faith. Mainstream religions all over the world have called homosexuality "sin" to various degrees. GLBT activists want to *force* people to stop disapproving of what they do. This is bullying, pure and simple. Humility is essential in any civil discussion. Those who sling words like "bigot" are not engaging in civil debate, but a bigotry of their own, where those who disagree are more than wrong, but worthy only of insult and derision.
Catholic Charities were not encouraged to stay opened either. Haven't you heard of subtle discrimination? Read between the lines. Also, substitute the "bigot to same sex marriage" with threat to same sex marriage" and see what you get.