First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
120 amendments to the Minnesota State Constitution have been approved by voters.
A grand total of ZERO of those amendments sought to limit the rights of Minnesotans.
When you go to vote in November 2012, you might want to ask yourself, “If we start now, who’s next?”
Minnesota’s new Senate Majority Leader was asked today whether or not he would withdraw support of the marriage amendment based on the Governor’s request. Here’s what he had to say:
…this caucus, and certainly the house, is on record on that one. That’s, in my mind, in the well and I don’t think we’re ready to consider that right now.
I guess that means that the fight is still on. Here’s to fairness and equality in 2012.
Mitt Romney has defended gay marriage and even signed marriage licenses for same sex couples and Ron Paul doesn’t believe the government should protect the institution of marriage… I have a record of defending life, marriage and the family and I’ll protect them as president of the United States.
Source: The New York Times
I’ve mentioned before that Marriage between same-sex couples is already a “prohibited marriage” in the state of Minnesota. However, our law goes well beyond just prohibiting same-sex marriage, it also voids any recognition for same-sex marriages performed other states or jurisdictions.
So again, I ask you, what exactly is this marriage amendment accomplishing?
517.03 PROHIBITED MARRIAGES.
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
(b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.
Great opinion piece by Richard W. Painter, Professor of Corporate Law at the University of Minnesota Law School. He reinforces the fact that state law already defines marriage between a man and a woman and that an amendment to our constitution would do nothing more than cause a “divisive debate” that would be costly to Minnesotans.
Painter goes on to warn of the slippery slope in amending the constitution:
Once we do this with marriage laws, advocates on both sides of other issues will use constitution amendments to promote their agendas.
When it gets right down to it, Minnesota does not need this amendment. Painter’s piece is a great opinion article that hits that point home on multiple fronts with perhaps the most impactful reasoning being related to our economy:
At a time when many Minnesotans are unemployed and business owners are struggling with lagging sales and rising costs, we do not need a ballot measure on a divisive social issue that drives people away from our state.
Painter was associate counsel to the president and chief White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush.
May 2, 2011: Representative Steve Simon shares his views on the proposed Marriage Amendment and strongly urges a No vote to adding the amendment to the November, 2012 ballot.
How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?
Prior to urging a No vote, he shares these words of impact:
I truly believe… if we pass this, if we put it on the ballot, if this becomes part of our constitution, history will judge us all very, very harshly.
I think I am going to throw away my ‘I Love New York’ carrying bag now that queers can get married there.Michigan Mayor Janice Daniels, June, 2011
Source: ABC News
Here’s a great feel-good commercial from the folks at GetUp! Action for Australia. Entitled, “It’s Time” the video does a great job telling the story of a relationship from the lead character’s point of view, until, at the end, a twist is revealed.
Merry Christmas. May you and yours have a wonderful holiday season.
It’s hard to believe that over 20 years ago The Golden Girls were helping bring light to the topic of same-sex marriage on primetime TV. In the episode entitled, “Sister of the Bride,” Blanche’s brother Clayton announces his intent to marry his partner. And while at first, Blanche doesn’t understand, this conversation with Sophia helps her see that her brother’s relationship with Doug is really not that different than her own relationship with her late husband George.
Blanche: …why does he have to slip a ring on this guy’s finger so that the whole world will know?
Sophia: Why did you marry George?
Blanche: We loved each other, we wanted to make a lifetime commitment, wanted everybody to know.
Sophia: That’s what Doug and Clayton want too. Everyone wants someone to grow old with and shouldn’t everyone have that chance?
After watching the video, take a moment to reflect on what committed gay and lesbian couples are really looking for. I promise you, it’s not special rights we want. It’s simply to celebrate commitment and take part in the benefits that a union can provide. In 2012, please help me defeat the mean-spirited marriage amendment in Minnesota and give me my chance to grow old with someone I love.
Merry Christmas Eve.
The bible says, ‘Before you take out the speck in your neighbor’s eye, take the log out of your own eye.’ My mother used to say, ‘If the shoe fits, wear it… If it’s befitting for somebody whose own conduct doesn’t measure up to what they’re professing to believe in, or prescribing for others, then they should be called on that.
Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton, 12/23/2011
Source: Minnesota Public Radio
Mark Dayton, asking that the legislature consider removing the marriage amendment from the ballot in 2012.
Today, Gov. Dayton said that he hopes that the Republican-controlled legislature will remove the proposed amendment from next year’s ballot based on the recent hypocrisy of Amy Koch’s inappropriate relationship.
On Thursday, Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder, signed into law a bill that bars government employers from providing health care benefits to domestic partners of public employees.
According to the Detroit Free Press, “[The bill] was primarily aimed at ending the practice of providing benefits to same-sex couples adopted by some government agencies and most of the state’s public universities after the adoption of the one-man, one-woman marriage amendment in 2004.”
This is yet another example of the far-reaching impacts these types of constitutional amendments can have in the state. At a time when Michigan should be working to create jobs and growth, the governor has actually taken a step back in time and said, “You’re not welcome here.”
There is still some question as to whether this law will apply to university employers. While the governor has said there would not be an impact to universities, Republican lawmakers contend that the law would indeed apply to universities as well.
Campaign finance officials announced that those who give money to support or oppose ballot questions (like the marriage amendment) must disclose their donations. However, it sounds like the fight may not be over.
Turns out that the National Organization for Marriage has worked hard in other states to ensure donors’ names are protected. In fact, they’ve brought lawsuits forward to ensure that those who give money to support hate are protected.
Other political donations must be disclosed, so why not on something as important as amending our state’s constitution. Here’s hoping current disclosure rules stay in place.
Sadly, the bill only protects the eight letters in the word “marriage,” while doing nothing to protect the institution itself. The text of the proposed amendment reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”
This is incredibly weak legal language, and will only open up the future possibility of a rogue judge declaring that homosexuals can receive the same rights and benefits of marriage, albeit under another legal name like “civil union.”
Homosexual activists know this, and many have openly advocated for weak marriage amendments, knowing that they can still get everything they want under another name.
Alex Mason, May 2, 2011