Historically, constitutional amendments have been used to grant and protect rights such as women’s suffrage, freedom from involuntary servitude, and the Bill of Rights.
Minnesota’s proposed Marriage Amendment is the first which seeks to deny rights.
In striking down the similar Proposition 8 in California, a federal appeals court panel said, “Proposition 8 serves no purpose other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”
Let’s give Minnesota’s Marriage Amendment the burial it deserves.
Rolf Westgard
Deerwood
Comments (7)
Add commentRolf - you need a new hobby.....
Not true..... Not even close.
Amendments to the constitution exist precisely because of people like you spouting extremist viewpoints like you do.
The majority of Americans believe in and feel strongly about defending the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. End of discussion. We live in a democracy and the majority has spoken. Period. You represent a minority viewpoint that has a right to speak but that doesn't give your viewpoint the slightest bit of legitimacy. In fact, on this issue you display your deep and regretful ignorance.
Liberals and activist judges always seek to circumvent the voice of the people on important issues and try and impose their slanted views through backdoor methods and tactics.
Amendments offer a protection recognized in our society and are important for defeating people like you who seek to undermine, minimize, hamper, and denigrate our societal frameworks.
Despite some of the rhetoric you may have heard, this amendment is not a restriction on anyone's rights. It is simply a way to codify in our state constitutions the marriage laws we already have on our books, thereby giving them more protection from activist judges and making them more difficult to change without voter approval.
While a constitution should only be amended for the most important of reasons, the protection of the definition of marriage is such a reason. If we allow the judiciary to rewrite our laws, redefine our families and restructure our society without so much as a vote of the people, then we no longer have a democratic form of government. Approving such an amendment takes the issue away from the courts and puts it squarely where it belongs with the people.
Over the past several years, voters in states all across our country have weighed in on the definition of marriage, and the result has been a unanimous and resounding verdict. In each case, voters approved state amendments defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and put the issue beyond the reach of activist judges.
Wise-up Rolf and go take-up golf or something......
End of discussion
Whenever you see "end of discussion", the writer is on weak ground and doesn't want to hear anymore.
The voters of Minnesota have yet to speak. Despite the political efforts of certain churches, Minnesotans will come out and trash this so-called Marriage Amendment.
Why does everyone care?
Why does everyone care so much about this? I'm not gay. But I still don't care if a man wants to marry a man or a woman wants to marry a woman. What are they trying to do with a civil union? Well, they would like to be able to claim their partner as a legal beneficiary, they would like to be able to receive family health insurance, they would like to be able to make decisions for and be with their partner should they happen to be in ICU. They want the legal status to be considered "immediate family" or "next of kin". Does that threaten my heterosexual marriage in any way, shape or form? No. Does it mean that all churches or clergypeople have to perform gay marriage? No. Does it mean that I have to become gay? No.
It means they can go to the court house and have a legal binding marriage and obtain a marriage license. Why should anyone have a problem with that? Do people think that if there is a constitutional amendment that people will no longer be gay? And that gay people will no longer fall in love and enter into committed relationships with other gay people? Hello! You can't stop that with any law.
I do think, however, that if gays are allowed to have a legal binding marriages, it should take a proper divorce to dissolve it. Fair is fair.
People who are against legalizing gay marriage must be either extremely homophobic or so insecure in their own marriage/sexuality that they feel the need to meddle in someone else's. Live your life. If you don't like gay marriage, then don't be in one. But that doesn't give you the right to determine for everyone else.
Contract Law
Why on earth do republicans want to use the force of government to ban contracts? Are they going to try banning car loans or lease agreements next?
One of the most important reasons our government exists is to enforce contract law. If two consenting adult human beings want to enter into a contract it should be of no concern to nosy big government types.
Amen Okey and John
It's none of my business if two gay people want to marry. I have no right to deny their rights.
Next up to bat, U.S. Supreme Court ruling
And I will bet that Civil Rights Discrimination is the central theme, and that the foundation of Separation of Church and State is upheld like the recent 9-0 decision.
Which makes Paul Gazelka's Co-Authored Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution a moot point.
However, it the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't decide this until after the November 2012 elections, the best folks can do is vote this down and send a message.
well, carebear
What was that about the majority wanting this amendment? Not even on the Dispatch site would that one pass.
I think you have forgotten about recent history in states like Washington. They supported gay marriage with a recent vote. And there are 6 who have passed gay marriage laws. More are coming.