In seven weeks, Minnesotans will be asked to vote on perhaps one of the most contentious social issues we’ve ever been asked to consider as a society — the Marriage Protection Amendment. Proponents claim it will protect families and children, and prevent “activist judges” from changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
The fundamental problem with this amendment is not its anti-gay and exclusionary stance. Rather, it is the manifestly religious language of the measure that stands in clear violation of the First Amendment of our nation’s Constitution.
Minnesota for Marriage has stated: “We believe that marriage was created by God as the union of one man and one woman for a very specific purpose.” They cite dubious research and pseudo-scientific studies as support for the claim, but the essential argument here is a religious one.
People are also reading…
The separation of church and state is the foundation of our system of government. It exists to prevent government from interfering in religious affairs, and vice versa. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that legislation — and constitutional amendments — must have an inherently secular purpose that does not seek to promote or inhibit religion.
Yet here, a group of individuals wants to overturn that in favor of enshrining one religious belief — one that not all Minnesotans hold. Indeed, many Christians believe marriage is about love and commitment and not doctrines or what genitalia go where and when.
At its core, marriage is a civil — not a religious — institution. Power is vested in individuals by our state government to officiate ceremonies, but a marriage itself takes place at city hall, not in a church. It is a flight of unfortunate irony then that in attempting to marry religion and politics, supporters of this amendment threaten the very religious liberty they claim to fight for.
Both the civil and religious liberties of all Minnesotans are at stake here. A constitutional amendment is not the way to conduct a conversation or respect our fellow citizens and neighbors. It’s uncivil. Please — vote “no.”
