The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment, which will appear on the
November 6, 2012 general election ballot, states:
Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
Minnesotans can vote:
“Yes” to keep the current definition of one man/one woman marriage, or
“No”making it possible to easily change the definition of marriage.
Leaving the box blank counts as a “No” vote.
MYTH: Minnesota’s marriage law has no rational basis and only exists
because of moral animosity toward gays and lesbians.
FACT: Minnesota’s marriage law defining marriage as the union of one man and one
woman – just as the law in 44 other states does – is not only rational, but is profoundly
in the common good.
It is motivated by a sincere and well-placed interest in ensuring that children born of the
sexual union of men and women are known by and cared for by their own parents.
Children deserve a mother and a father and marriage is society’s way of channeling
potentially procreative relationships between men and women into intact families that
are the ideal environment for children.
MYTH: Government shouldn’t interfere with personal decisions. No one should be
able to dictate who we can love.
FACT: Of course, no one is telling anyone who they can love. Every person – gay or
straight – is entitled to live as they choose. This amendment is not trying to stop
homosexuals from loving each other or from committing themselves to one another. But
no person is entitled to redefine marriage for all of society.
Marriage is not just about private romantic relationships, it is about public obligations to
care for any children that might be produced by that relationship. Marriage is a unique
relationship in that it is the only form of relationship that society regulates as a way of
channeling potentially procreative unions into stable family units for the benefit of
children.
Marriage is the only type of relationship from which children are a direct result – whether
intentional or not – and therefore requires support and protection for the common good.
That is why in our marriage ceremonies we make public vows, even if no one else is
present except a magistrate, as a sign to the community that we will be faithful to each
other and raise any children that result from our unions. The well-being of children is
something all of society has an interest in.
MYTH: Legal experts don’t anticipate conflicts if marriage is redefined.
FACT: Legal experts on both sides of the same-sex marriage debate have examined
the conflict between same-sex marriage and religious liberty. They predict conflict that
will work a “sea change in American law” and will “reverberate across the legal and
religious landscape.” (“Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts”
by Douglas Laycock, Anthony R. Picarello and Robin Fretwell Wilson, Rowman &
Littlefield 2008”)
Legal Scholars predict, “the volume of new litigation will be immense.” Conflicts
between religious liberty and same-sex marriage generally take one of two forms. First,
religious organizations, individuals and small businesses that object to same-sex
marriage will face a wave of new lawsuits under state anti-discrimination and other laws.
Second, those that conscientiously object to same-sex marriage will be labeled as
bigots and unlawful “discriminators” under state law and thus face a range of penalties
at the hands of state agencies and local governments, such as the withdrawal of
government benefits or exclusion from government facilities.