Minnesota Network for Progressive Action


 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Marriage Discrimination Amendment: Locked Into A Mistake

Category: Gay Rights
Posted: 05/14/12 18:48

by Dave Mindeman

On WCCO This Morning with Esme Murphy, both sides of the Marriage Discrimination Amendment had spokespersons. You should look at this video depicting the segment with Jason Atkins, Vice President of Minnesotans for Marriage.

About one minute into the interview, he makes one of the most ridiculous arguments for favoring the amendment I have heard yet.

Look at it here.

A few of the quotes he made....

"(marriage) is the only institution that connects children to their parents."

and....

"..separating marriage's role in bringing men and women together or severing that connection between marriage and children...and children with their biological parents."

Now wait a minute. Marriage isn't THE method of connecting children to their parents. After all, we have a lot of out of wedlock births in this country. Parents and children are not connected by the Marriage Certificate but rather the Birth Certificate. A birth certificate names the biological parents and the courts recognize that. Really, marriage is an incidental in this case. People marry that have had children from previous marriages....they marry after they have already had children.

Quite frankly, in this argument, Mr. Atkins doesn't have a clue.

But he continued with additional assertions. You can listen to the video to verify this, but here is my best guess transcript of what he said after that:

"The polls show that people are not against....in fact, they are in favor..of not preventing people from forming relationships....forming families...going into their own place of worship and having their relationship recognized. They want people (because they have compassion) to hand down property, to visit loved ones in the hospital and they don't want people interfering with that---(and I'm for that, too, by the way). I think they should be able to hand down property, go into any house of worship they choose and to have that recognized as marriage..........
But what voters are against, and what voters are against strongly....and this is the relevant issue for voters....is redefining marriage for everybody.... and forcing everyone as a state, to have their state, recognize and affirm same sex unions as marriage. That's what voters are against. The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment doesn't take away anyone's rights---doesn't prevent any people from going to their church and having their union recognized as marriage; so what Mr. Carlblom (Chair of Minnesotans United for All Families) said earlier 'that this mandates something on religions and churches from marrying people' is completely false. I would stand with any minister who wanted to marry anyone he or she chose.....that's not the issue.
This amendment simply affirms the definition of marriage and makes sure the converstaion doesn't stop, but takes it out of the courts and the Capitol, and makes ure the conversation stands in the hands of the people."


My goodness, where does one begin?

First of all, let's have the actual wording of this amendment:

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

The pro-amendment Minnesotans for Marriage seem to be making an argument now that this is merely word semantics. This won't prevent same sex unions. That will be OK. It just can't be called marriage.

Well, then why make this part of the Constitution? What makes a semantics of wording so important that the Constitution must be changed?
With a Constitutional provision locking marriage into a box, how can we know if legal rights will apply. Will contested property fights take this amendment and strip a same sex partner of all legal rights? Will custody battles get ugly and angry with this amendment in the middle? Will this amendment be held up as a reason for a church body to deny a same sex couple their ceremony and celebration?

These are questions that need not be asked. They are questions that can be answered but do not need the complication of a discriminatory Constitutional provision designed to be ambiguous and vague.

Mr. Atkins, you are dead wrong. This amendment will make certain that this conversation is always in the courts and the Capitol. You are taking it out of the hands of the people and putting it into the Constitution.

Yes, Mr. Atkins, you can stand with ministers trying to do the right thing and allow the marriage of a same sex couple. But you know that in the end, and as you will count on, where you stand has nothing to do with the legalities of this issue.

The damage will be done and you can smile and minimize this deed all you want. This amendment is a travesty of individual rights....and you, Mr. Atkins and your Minnesotans for Marriage organization, will have chained Minnesota into a mistake. One, that posterity can only question as to why.
comments (1) permalink
Jackie
05/14/12 20:34
What a blithering idiot, as are all the others who are just as completely illogical, and hateful....hiding behind their bibles.
 

Please Note: Your email and homepage will be displayed in our comment section if entered

Post comment
Name
E-mail   not required
Homepage   not required
Comment
Spam Prevention


« First « Previous

Calendar

« November 2019 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Latest posts


Comments


Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.