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
On May, 2, Alex Mason wrote on behalf of the Family Policy Network that amendment verbiage was “incredibly weak legal language” and that because of the language used, gays and lesbians could seek the same rights and benefits of marriage under a civil union.
Mr. Mason, on behalf of the Family Policy Network, makes it clear what the proponents of this amendment really want: Ensuring that gays and lesbians in committed relationships have all rights removed. Sadly, that’s what this amendment means to these folks.
This amendment has little to do with actually protecting anything. In states where similar amendments have passed, proponents have sued institutions that offer partner benefits because they are in violation of the constitution. Of course, it would be hateful to say directly that this is the goal. So instead, they hide behind the “protecting marriage” mantra.
Mr. Mason, we know what you really want. And I’m hopeful that Minnesotans see right through your message and join me in voting No in 2012.