I don’t often express political viewpoints in public. I think it is partly from a sense of privacy and partly a feeling of “why would anyone care what I think?” We’ll see if this post is another rare instance or if I decide to start being a little more open.
Our Republican led legislature passed a bill to put on the ballot in November a question for the voters: Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota? Today as we passed a billboard in support of the amendment my son asked me what I thought of it. I had an instant response. I am very solidly against it. I have several reasons.
One reason that comes quickly to mind is that same-sex marriages are already against the law in Minnesota. Why should we pass an amendment to prohibit something that is already prohibited? Should we next pass an amendment saying that it is illegal to steal and also to kill someone? Supporters will tell you that they are worried about “activist judges” overturning the law. Well, first off that hasn’t happened yet. And second, if you are so worried about that why not write a better law. (I know, such a law probably wouldn’t get signed by our governor and this allows “the people of Minnesota to speak their mind.” As if voting him out of office for vetoing it wouldn’t be enough of a way to speak our mind.)
You will also hear about how a marriage only being between one man and one woman is the “natural” situation supported by the Bible and centuries of precedent. There are many examples in the Bible of multiple wives and concubines. There have been many cultures where it is perfectly acceptable and even desirable for a man to have multiple wives. Most of the objection to polygamy is modern social norms and that is even mostly focused in the Western world. (I am not saying I am in favor of polygamy, just that the idea of it being the “natural” way is a specious argument.)
Another statement in favor of the amendment is that allowing same-sex couples to marry “weakens the institution of marriage.” I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how this is so. How on Earth does it weaken the commitment I made to my wife when I vowed to “love, honor and cherish as long as we both shall live?” How does Jim Grimm and Joe Schmoe marrying affect my marriage? Heck, how does Jim marrying an antique desk affect the strength of my marriage? My only objection to Jim marrying his favorite piece of furniture is that it has no way of clearly giving consent.
Recently an often repeated reason to vote down the amendment has been that it would reinforce same-sex couples as second-class citizens. It would very clearly state that there are some rights that are not for them. It has even been said that it would be similar to calling them slaves. This last is awfully dramatic, but the thought of it treating them as second-class citizens does appeal to my general sense of fairness. Everyone should have the same opportunities and the same rights.
This leads into my biggest objection to this proposed amendment: I do not see it as the job of the constitution to take rights away from people. To me the purpose of a constitution is to lay down the rules of how the government will work for the people. The only way rights should be involved in constitutions is to protect them. I look at many of the amendments to the United States Constitution: “Congress shall make no law…”, “the right…shall not be infringed”, “The right…shall not be violated.” As my memory serves, the only amendment to the United States Constitution that ever took away rights, is also the only one to have ever been repealed. Every other amendment deals with protecting rights of the people, or changing the rules of how the government should work. I am sure people can come up with examples and interpretations from various constitutions that will counter my theory, but it doesn’t change my belief of what a constitution is for.
Do not amend the Minnesota Constitution to provide that only a union of one man and one woman be recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Do not use the vehicle for protecting rights to take them away from anyone.
