.

Richfield Resident Addresses Community About New Amendment That Would Ban Gay Marriage

Local couple writes to community members about the impact a ban on gay marriage rights would have on the gay couples.

Editor's Note: The following letter was submitted to Richfield Patch by Richfield residents .

Dear Richfield Patch and Richfield Residents,

I am sure by now everyone heard that there is a constitutional amendment that would ban marriage equality for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) people making it's way through the Minnesota House and Senate. If this bill is passed by the legislature, Gov. Mark Dayton does not have the power to veto this legislation. It would have to go to the ballot for a vote in the 2012 elections.

If this bill were to pass and become law among the many things it would do is place discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people into Minnesota's State Constitution. Not only would same-sex couples not be allowed to legally marry the person they love, but they would also be denied all rights and responsibilities to their same-sex spouses including hospital visitation, assistance with intense medical treatment, and the ability to care for their partner's deceased remains in the event of their death. 

Minnesota LGBT persons and families already do not have these rights. A constitutional amendment would permanently make the loss of those rights a constitutional mandate. 

Allow me to give you one example of how devastating the loss of these rights can be. A man and his partner in South Minneapolis were together for 26 years. One day, one of those partners died in the home. When the grieving partner called for the EMT's who later called the state medical examiner to verify the death of the individual. They could not remove the deceased man's body from the home, until the other partner called his late partner's mother to identify him as her son.  The now widowed partner, grieving and horrified by the loss he was experienced was further inconvenienced by not being a "family member," according to Minnesota Law so as to identify who his partner of 26 years was. 

A constitutional amendment would make this kind of thing permanent. 

How does this kind of thing really reflect the best of Minnesota?

How would placing this as a constitutional mandate in Minnesota be a good neighborly thing?

Another question I suggest we all ask ourselves is, should any of us be able to vote on the validity or legalization of someone else's marriage and/or love relationship?  

If this amendment is passed and placed on the 2012 ballot, the campaign to get it passed will get extremely ugly.  The National Organization for Marriage, the Minnesota Family Council, and the Minnesota Catholic Conference will produce television, newspaper and Internet advertisements falsely claiming that if gay and lesbian people are allowed to be married, that it will force the local public schools to teach homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle as early as the third grade.  Contrary to the opinions of anti-LGBT hate groups, that is not happening in Massachusetts, California or any other state where marriage equality is allowed.  In fact in the State of Vermont where marriage equality is legal, the issue is not even a concern for the voters there. 

The same hate groups will also produce ads saying that LGBT couples want marriage equality so that they can "recruit and molest children." This also is a false and misleading statement.

LGBT couples who are caring for children are very successful at raising them. In fact there have been next to no cases of abuse of any kind against LGBT couples and families who raise children. 

I ask Richfield residents to please contact Rep. Paul Thissen, Rep. Linda Slocum and Sen. Ken Kelash and ask them to oppose the passage of this amendment.  

This constitutional amendment will not produce jobs, it will not improve the economy and it will not fix the budget short falls left by the previous administration. It is not a good move for Minnesota.

Sincerely,
Philip Lowe, Jr. & Jason King

Caitlin Burgess May 13, 2011 at 05:38 AM
Somehow I thought I was living in 2012 already! My birthday's coming up this weekend so I think I'm getting a little off, turning a year older and all.
CT June 08, 2011 at 04:31 AM
You do realize that many of the founders of our country were in fact Deists, not Christians. Morality and Christianity are not one and the same. In fact, one can be moral without being religious as all. And homosexual marriage will be approved one day. Maybe not tomorrow, but within the next ten years for sure. It is coming. If you don't like it and think it is immoral, then don't marry another man! It really is as easy as that.
CT June 08, 2011 at 04:43 AM
What exactly are the dangers of homosexual behavior? Because I actually don't see them. Just so you know, our generation views yours and your opinions on homosexuality largely in the same manner your generation probably views previous generations' views on race and equality. You are outdated sir.
Philip Lowe, Jr. June 08, 2011 at 04:00 PM
Thank you for your excellent comments CT. Well said!
Jody Johnson June 09, 2011 at 02:02 AM
Thank you CT- glad to see a member of the "younger generation" speaking out on this. Some of us middle aged folks always believed in equality too, even as younger folks... it gives me hope to think that someday this will not even be seen as a question to debate, but simply a reality- that everyone deserves the right to have their loving committed relationships recognized.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »