Is it just me, or wasn’t it just 100 Days until Minnesota votes on marriage? If you’re like me, you’re probably wondering where the past 50 days went! It’s hard to believe that August has come and gone and we’re already over halfway through September…
Trust me, the rest of September is going to fly by and we’ll be saying “trick or treat” before you realize it. With only 50 days to go until election day, please take a minute to do ONE thing from the list below:
- Reblog or Share this post. Let others know that we don’t have much time left to tell our stories and educate voters in Minnesota
- Update your Facebook status: “50 days from today, Minnesota will determine whether or not discrimination will permanently be written into our state constitution. Ask me why I’ll be voting NO to stop that from happening.”
- Read about the volunteer opportunities available near you and sign up for at least one of them.
- Text a friend letting them know that we’re 50 days out from NOvember’s election day.
- Write a letter to your local paper sharing your thoughts about why this amendment would be bad for our state and the impact it would have to real Minnesotans
We’ve made great progress and are nearly tied in the polls. The other side is about to begin their dirty campaign; please help me proactively counter that by taking action today.
I hope to be celebrating with you 51 days from now, but that’ll only happen if each of us takes action now…
ctiffer
/ September 18, 2012OK. I will vote yes on this amendment.
Why?
Because I believe that religion’s have the right to define “marriage”. This does not mean I am a “homophobe” or have anything against the civil rights of any American, regardless of sexual orientation, etc, etc. I believe that “marriage” is a religious term. I also beleive that any married person is in a Civil Union. I also believe that any two adults, whom are “of sound mind” should be able to enter into a Civil Union (what is “sound mind”? IMHO, it is anyone who is 18 or older and can legally enter into a binding contract). Therefore, I believe that any two concenting adults can commit to one another, and receive all of the rights and benefits traditionally associated with “marriage” (Health insurance, survivorship, tax treatment, and so on).
But I feel that this whole “marriage” deal is a wrong-headed approach. I persoanlly believe that “marriage” is a religiuous term. If a religious organization “marries” someone, they are in a civil union. Period. If some religions choose to to allow same sex couples to marry, that is their choice. History will tell us whether or not that choice is prudent.
Forcing the term “marriage” is a bad idea. Let the uber religious have that term. Same sex couples should abandon that term and instead, go for the title “Civil Union”.
Work on that. It is a matter of Human Rights. Trying to hijack the title “marriage” is just tring to pick a fight. If this is truely about the rights of all Americans, let’s find common ground and define what the rights of all Americans are, regardless of whether they choose same or opposite sex “unions”.
If I choose to get “married”, that term is defined by the leaders of the religion of my choosing. But, by getting “married”, I also enter into a civil union that grants me certain rights and responsibilites. Those rights and responsibilites should not be dictated by religious affiliation, but be available to all.
Of course, I have a completely off-the-wall belief: two people living together, regardless of sexual orientation, should have to file a joint tax return, but that is a whole different can of worms…….
Minnesota for Equality
/ September 20, 2012Hi ctiffer,
Thank you for your post and for sharing your thoughts on the site. You know, I once was of the same opinion of you. I had the attitude, “let them have their term as long as we have something else that provides the same rights.” And then someone said to me one day, “do you want your own drinking fountain too?”
The concept of separate but equal really doesn’t lead to equality. We’ve learned that through our parents and in our history books.
I completely understand the fact that “marriage” may be a sticky term for some, however, that is the term our government includes in policies and laws. Now, to your points above, if the government replaced the term marriage with “civil union” in all policies and laws, we would be having a much different conversation. But until that real separation of church and state happens, we’ll continue to work at changing hearts and minds every single day.