.

Local Catholics Hold "Faith Action Week" Against Amendment

Several Southwest Minneapolis congregations are debating a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota.

Hundreds of Minnesota churches are holding meetings this weekend organized by a group pushing to stop a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, including one in Southwest Minneapolis.

According to a statement sent out by the group, Minnesotans United for All Families, members of 150 congregations across Minnesota are participating in a "faith action week" to persuade their fellow congregants to vote down the marriage amendment. The statement says amendment opponents will be arguing that the proposal goes against core parts of many faith traditions.

"The events were organized by people of faith across the state to spark conversations about how all people are made in the image of God and how the proposed amendment would limit religious freedom in Minnesota," said Minnesotans United spokesperson Kate Brickman. "Hundreds of events will take place across the state, as faithful Minnesotans continue to speak out against the amendment – not in spite of their faith, but because of their faith."

One of the churches meeting this weekend is Kingfield's . As the Minnesota Catholic Church is a strong supporter of the amendment, church members will be meeting in one parishioner’s home.

Minnesota's religious communities are being heavily targeted by both sides in the marriage amendment battle. 

J.P. September 16, 2012 at 02:47 PM
The churches involvement in promoting the banning of civil rights of U.S. citizens is, in my opinion, a gross violation of the separation of church and state. As a Utah resident, I watched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints spend millions of dollars to promote Prop 8 in California four years ago. It barely passed, and it in effect removed a segment of the population's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." If a particular religion wants to refuse to allow or recognize gay marriage within its edicts, fine. But to impose its edicts within the government, thereby controlling the lives of people who aren't members goes way too far. I know first hand, I live in the great Utah theocracy, controlled by the LDS church. The government cannot tell us how to pray, the church shouldn't be telling us how to vote.
Nate W. September 18, 2012 at 07:08 PM
If someone wants to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, one must demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified. For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
Nate W. September 18, 2012 at 07:09 PM
The much disputed question of whether same-sex relationships are morally good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, is beside the point at this stage of legal consideration. The first question is about identity and difference. This is the material legal matter of properly recognizing and identifying what exists and distinguishing between marriages and auto clubs, between schools and banks, between friendships and multinational corporations. It has nothing to do with civil rights.
Nate W. September 18, 2012 at 07:11 PM
To recognize in law the distinct character of a marriage relationship, which entails sexual intercourse, involves no discrimination of a civil rights kind against those whose bonds do not include sexual intercourse. Those who choose to live together in life-long homosexual relationships; or brothers and sisters who live together and take care of one another; or two friends of the same sex who are not sexually involved but share life together in the same home—all of these may be free to live as they do, and they suffer no civil rights discrimination by not being identified as marriages. There is no civil rights discrimination against an eight-year-old youngster who is denied the right to enter into marriage. There is no civil rights discrimination being practiced against a youngster who is not allowed the identity of a college student because she is not qualified to enter college. There is no civil-rights discrimination involved when the law refuses to recognize my auto club as a church. A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something