Protect marriage before politicians redefine it in November. Minnesotans will vote on whether or not to make the union of one man and one woman the definition of marriage in its constitution. The outcome of this vote will have a tremendous impact on the future of families and society at large. The intent of this amendment is to further preserve and protect our existing definition of marriage by putting it into the state constitution.
If approved by votes, the Marriage Protection Amendment will preserve marriage from future judicial or legislative activism and place in the hands of voters the sole authority to determine the definition of marriage in our state.
There is a clear and present threat to marriage in Minnesota. According to an article written by Minnesota for Marriage, there were five bills presented in the 2009-10 Minnesota legislative session to redefine marriage.
Still other legislation proposed in 2011 sought to eliminate marriage altogether. In addition, gay marriage activists have filed lawsuits in state court to redefine marriage in Minnesota.
The answer to these threats is to pass the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment puts our traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman into our state constitution where it is safe from meddling by activist judges and politicians.
If the Amendment is defeated, marriage will be redefined for everyone. Our historic understanding of marriage as the union of one man and one woman would be replaced by a new legal definition of marriage as the union of two adults regardless of gender.
This new, redefined version of marriage as a genderless institution would be the only legally recognized definition of marriage in Minnesota.
Such a radical change in the definition of marriage will produce a host of societal conflicts that government, exercising its broad enforcement powers, will have to resolve.
Citizens, small businesses and religious organizations whose own beliefs, traditions, morals or ethnic upbringing are at odds with an alternative definition of marriage will find themselves subjected to legal consequences if they do not act according to the new legal orthodoxy.
Voting “Yes” for the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment strengthens democracy and allows the people of Minnesota the opportunity to protect marriage before judges or politicians redefine it.
Ultimately, we as a society all suffer when we fail to nourish a true, thriving marriage culture founded on the truth experienced by virtually every civilization in every nation since the dawn of time – marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
Patricia Cina
Grand Rapids
Comments (26)
Add commentWell said!
1 man , 1 woman= marriage
But I'm certain okey dokey who you gonna pokey will be on here to dispute the whole article.
Protect Freedom
"There is a clear and present threat to marriage in Minnesota." It is divorce, abuse, inequality, economy...it is not whether or not same-sex couples have benefits and rights. Treating others with respect and dignity never diminishes what a person or a couple has-- it only strengthens it.
This writer actually argues for voting "no" when she decries the effect of the amendment on religious entities. There are people and religions who support gay marriages, who support equal rights and benefits-- this amendment would take away their rights to make that choice. There is no place in our Constitution for discrimination. It has never been right to legislate discrimination. It still isn't. We are a country of diverse people--that is our strength.
Regardless of personal opinion--we cannot allow our Constitution to be discriminatory. Women should vote; slavery is wrong; marriage, in a civil sense, should be protected as a union and contract between two people, which provides certain benefits and privileges. To protect those equalities is the responsibility of our Constitution and of us.
.
Protect Freedom
"There is a clear and present threat to marriage in Minnesota." It is divorce, abuse, inequality, economy...it is not whether or not same-sex couples have benefits and rights. Treating others with respect and dignity never diminishes what a person or a couple has-- it only strengthens it.
This writer actually argues for voting "no" when she decries the effect of the amendment on religious entities. There are people and religions who support gay marriages, who support equal rights and benefits-- this amendment would take away their rights to make that choice. There is no place in our Constitution for discrimination. It has never been right to legislate discrimination. It still isn't. We are a country of diverse people--that is our strength.
Regardless of personal opinion--we cannot allow our Constitution to be discriminatory. Women should vote; slavery is wrong; marriage, in a civil sense, should be protected as a union and contract between two people, which provides certain benefits and privileges. To protect those equalities is the responsibility of our Constitution and of us.
.
Well Written
Thank You verita_e_pace for a well written response. Very sad when you get 2 Thumbs Down for being against discrimination and taking away rights.
These are the same people who would have voted to deny the right to vote for women and minorities and denying mixed marriages. Didn't they use Bible verses against mixed marriages?
Bond is off on another trail...
Try staying on track here Bondo, We are not living in the dark ages, the consitution,the laws and the definition clearly stated, Changing the constitution, the law & definition of marriage wont fly, no mater how you try to twist it to suit your specific desires.
You would no more want to be associated with my definition of my word marriage than I do those of gays!
Those of us that cherish this word would appreciate it if you and yours would find another word & definition it to use for your lifestyle.
Protect Marriage?
This is how you are going to protect marriage?? I think all these efforts need to be refocused on the over 50% divorce rate and also high rates of infidelity in marriages. That's how you're going to protect marriage!
I can't even believe this has become such an issue when the current definition of marriage made by our society is that it's more than likely not forever, and your spouse will more than likely not be faithful... Let's focus on the real problems that already exist!
Psst. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional in court today
And this amendment will be struck down if it passes.
Waste of money.
What are the real problems
What are the real problems that exist?
I think the divorce rate in MN is lower than you may think.
That is a issue that also has questions. Why do women get pregnant and not get married. Why are they having a sexual relationship with someone who they don't want to marry?
I have no idea on why the divorces, but I do think people
don't take the marriage vows seriously and don't work on the marriage. Sad when there are kids, otherwise, I don't care.
Would it be so different for gays?
I still know 2 gay couples that do not want to marry.
Real problems that exist for all people -employment, economy, debt. and leadership in the administration.
Hung Up On A Word
"Those of us that cherish this word would appreciate it if you and yours would find another word & definition it to use for your lifestyle."
So you want to discriminate and deny another human being of their rights because you have a problem with the definition of a word? A WORD !. Amazing...simply amazing.
No matter how you opponents want to rationalize your YES vote, it comes down to your support of discrimination, bigotry or hatred, take your choice, pure and simple.
judgemental anyone?
We are voting yes and don't have to "rationize"our vote to you or anyone. That is your opinion that we support discrimination, bigotry and hatred.
Nothing about this is pure and simple, especially when you vote your conscience and get accused of bigotry, discrimination and hatred..
What is it called when you decide what is in my mind and my heart?
You are correct, sadiemarriedlady
No one will ever change a person's mind or heart with personal attacks.
Seriously, it breaks my heart
Seriously, it breaks my heart that there is an issue like this that tears people apart. I really do understand the desire of gays to marry, but in my mind, marriage is between a man and a woman. I support civil or legal unions and I don't care if they get partner benefits although that could open up another can of worms.
My opinion is based on my thinking not the Bible although a case can be made for the "God created Adam and Eve".
I don't go there
Then, sadiemarriedlady, let us
hope for Minnesota's sake that it does not pass, and then we can have a discussion on passing a civil union law. If this passes, the discussion is ended. The current law can be changed easier than an amendment can be overturned.
This was passed without any discussion in our towns. it was forced on everyone. No debates...nothing.
The legislators arrogantly thought they knew what Minnesotans felt and believed. They thought Minnesota was ready to vote for this. But I doubt they realized how profound the effect would be on families and churches. It has been the single most divisive issue I have ever seen in Minnesota politics.
We can do better. Vote this down and start over.
Wow, I can't believe I actually agree largely with what Chey
...just posted regarding other serious threats to marriage. Unfortunately, muddying the waters to redefine the legal definition marriage to be all about "romantic" love actually makes divorce more likely to be acceptable. Why? Because when you stop feeling "the love" you don't have a real marriage any more. My belief is that a true marriage is forever, regardless of how you feel at any given time or whether there isn't a drop of romance left in your relationship.
And Mendax (oops, I mean "verita"), there isn't a shred of evidence that any religion that endorses gay marriage is being persecuted. To the contrary, the only religions being persecuted are those that support the definition of natural marriage.
Wow, I can't believe I actually agree largely with what Chey
...just posted regarding other serious threats to marriage. Unfortunately, muddying the waters to redefine the legal definition marriage to be all about "romantic" love actually makes divorce more likely to be acceptable. Why? Because when you stop feeling "the love" you don't have a real marriage any more. My belief is that a true marriage is forever, regardless of how you feel at any given time or whether there isn't a drop of romance left in your relationship.
And Mendax (oops, I mean "verita"), there isn't a shred of evidence that any religion that endorses gay marriage is being persecuted. To the contrary, the only religions being persecuted are those that support the definition of natural marriage.
Why limit marriage to just 2
Why limit marriage to just 2 people if they all love each other. Who are we to judge?
twilight
That is exactly how I did think and currently do think on how the Obamacare law was passed. Many of us called, wrote,
emailed that we didn't want the law and they passed it anyway.
The thing about this is we the people will be the ones voting not the judges or state legislators.
I feel more comfortable with we the people voting directly on it.
liberal state
Now that I think about it, I don't know why people are concerned that it will pass as MN is a liberal state. So,
really all the liberals will vote against the amendment.
words
Words mean alot. Like love ,hate, ect. Not that long ago I could burn [filtered word] (bundle of sticks), declare i'm gay (happy) now it's alife style. I could put up a rainbow picture (for the beauty) now its life style. STOP please from stealing existing words and changing them to fit what YOU want.
captron
Yes the Capt. letters is raised voice.
Jeremiah 29:6
"Marry and have sons and daughters; find wives for your sons and give your daughters in marriage, so that they too may have sons and daughters. Increase in number there; do not decrease.
Where's Warren Limmer and/or Paul Gazelka...
CHRIS KLUWE TO DEBATE A CHAIR OVER MARRIAGE EQUALITY...
http://www.vita.mn/crawl/174665111.html
Beware what you vote for
As the amendment reads one man, one woman, it doesn't say one man, one woman at a time. This could spell the end for all second marriages. Beware of what the interpretation of the law could mean in the future.
Marriage is about Biology, i.e. Children
Same-sex relationships are different than heterosexual relationships and treating them differently is not discrimination.
Great video says it all, why gov't promotes natural marriage and prohibits harmful relationships http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com/2012/10/marriage-biology-not-bigotry/
Children have rights. They deserve to know their mother and father and be in relationship with them. Marriage has been eroding for decades by ceasing to prosecute adultery and allowing no-fault divorce and cohabitation. Same-sex marriage is the next great attack on the further destruction of marriage. And children are the casualties.
The word matters much more than we realize...
I've watched this debate rage for years and one thought keeps cycling back and that is the enormous significance of the word "marriage". I am personally convinced that the word is itself the root of virtually all of the contention that is taking place in the societal conflict over what constitutes gay rights and therefor the most significant issue for us to consider. Equality under the law--the stated goal of the gay community--does not require that their relationship be called "marriage." And the Marriage amendment does not prohibit equality under the law. In practical terms, it only protects the word. Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not the same. Opposite-sex relationships have a biologic potential that is infinite; same-sex relationships have a biologic potential that is zero. They are in fact opposites regarding the very particular relationship the word "marriage" was created to identify. This is not trivial. We are not splitting hairs. Accuracy and clarity in communication absolutely demand these relationships be referred to with different terms. Using the same word for both gives the appearance that they are identical, and that is simply not true. To put it bluntly, it is a lie. Do we choose to tell the truth, or do we choose to lie? And what do we tell each new generation? All my thoughts on this issue cannot be contained here, but I posted my own blog respecting this issue at
sayneverto1984.blogspot.com
I admit it is long. I hope it will generate some meaningful conversation.
The word matters much more than we realize...
I've watched this debate rage for years and one thought keeps cycling back and that is the enormous significance of the word "marriage". I am personally convinced that the word is itself the root of virtually all of the contention that is taking place in the societal conflict over what constitutes gay rights and therefor the most significant issue for us to consider. Equality under the law--the stated goal of the gay community--does not require that their relationship be called "marriage." And the Marriage amendment does not prohibit equality under the law. In practical terms, it only protects the word. Same-sex and opposite-sex relationships are not the same. Opposite-sex relationships have a biologic potential that is infinite; same-sex relationships have a biologic potential that is zero. They are in fact opposites regarding the very particular relationship the word "marriage" was created to identify. This is not trivial. We are not splitting hairs. Accuracy and clarity in communication absolutely demand these relationships be referred to with different terms. Using the same word for both gives the appearance that they are identical, and that is simply not true. To put it bluntly, it is a lie. Do we choose to tell the truth, or do we choose to lie? And what do we tell each new generation? All my thoughts on this issue cannot be contained here, but I posted my own blog respecting this issue at
sayneverto1984.blogspot.com
I admit it is long. I hope it will generate some meaningful conversation.