Minnesota Marriage Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'Yes'

Voters will asked to cast their vote for or against the measure Nov. 6.

On Election Day 2012, voters are charged with a very important task.

Not only will they be casting their vote for local, state and national races for government office, but also in favor or opposition of a constitutional amendment regarding marriage in the state of Minnesota.

If passed, the state's Constitution would be amended to state that marriage is only between one man and one woman, reflecting current state law.

Voting "yes" on the ballot measure means you do support the changing of the Constitution. Voting "no" means you do not support the change.

Patch asked readers to share why they are voting for or against the measure. The following are submitted statements from Richfield and Twin Cities area residents who are voting "yes":

Reed Bornholdt of Richfield:

I believe marriage should remain defined as (and reserved for) the union between one man and one woman. For centuries, organized societies have recognized the importance of heterosexual marriage to society as a whole. In particular, societies have encouraged what’s best for the children that result from the union of one man and one woman. What’s best for the child is a mother and a father who are the parents of that child, raising that child in a stable, married relationship. Marriage is a special arrangement that has already been tarnished by divorce. As seen in other countries that have adopted same-gender marriage, we likely would see a devaluing of “marriage,” a decline in the number of marriages (“If everyone can marry, why should anyone marry?”), more children born out of wedlock and higher divorce rates.

Without a marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. This is exactly what happened in Iowa, Massachusetts and California. Similarly, legislators can redefine marriage without the permission of the people, as several legislators in Minnesota have pledged to do. The marriage amendment ensures that if activists want to redefine marriage in the future, they must receive the approval of voters to do so.

I will vote in favor of the amendment.

Bonnie Gasper of Eden Prairie:

Our family visited the Vote NO booth at the MN State Fair in August and spoke with a self identified attorney volunteering for the cause. I asked him what the logical outcome of what constitutes 'marriage' will be if they are successful in redefining the meaning of marriage. He said that concern was a "separate issue."

So, I asked him if marriage is indeed a 'right', then how can he deny that 'right' to others who desire polygamous, polyamorous, even incestuous relationships as deeply as people of the same sex? Again, he said it was a "separate issue."
It isn't a separate issue, because it reveals the uncomfortable truth that if marriage is regarded as merely a 'right' and not an historical institution defined by God, understood and recognized as the union of one man and one woman, then anything can qualify. Anything.

Since he was an attorney, I also asked since many companies now provide domestic partner benefits, what other marriage 'benefits' were unavailable to committed same-sex couples that someone like him couldn't remedy with legal paperwork? He didn't name any.

Society does not prevent same sex or opposite sex couples from cohabitating or forming long term commitments to each other. They can and they will continue having the freedom to do so. However, society (as well as the courts) are not free to call those unions marriages when they are not.
And marriage is not a civil right. People with same sex attraction have the same enumerated rights as every other American and they are protected by our Constitution.

I'm happy to report our conversation with this man was spirited yet very respectful. We thanked him for not calling us haters, bigots or homophobes and he seemed sincerely sor ry that so many on his side prefer to shout down or silence the opposition rather than discuss the issue. (Evidently, those who keep stealing the Vote YES to Marriage signs in Eden Prairie, don't share his tolerance or respectfulnes!)

Marriage is a unique institution that stands alone as a union of one man and one woman, and our government has a compelling interest to protect it.

Want to weigh-in? Leave a comment below.


Other releated articles:

  • Minnesota Marriage Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'No'
  • Minnesota Voter ID Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'No'
  • Minnesota Voter ID Amendment: Why I'm Voting 'Yes'

Follow Richfield Patch on Twitter | Like us on Facebook | Sign up for our daily newsletter

Donald Lee November 05, 2012 at 05:59 PM
It is not pretty to see so many otherwise reasonable people toss around the word "bigot" when referring to those who simply want to support and defend tradiional marriage and the values that it represents. We don't make up our morals. Most of us get them from our faith. Mainstream religions all over the world have called homosexuality "sin" to various degrees. GLBT activists want to *force* people to stop disapproving of what they do. This is bullying, pure and simple. Humility is essential in any civil discussion. Those who sling words like "bigot" are not engaging in civil debate, but a bigotry of their own, where those who disagree are more than wrong, but worthy only of insult and derision.
Annie S. November 05, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Donald - your approval is not needed on things that do not directly involve you. Believing so is is arrogant, and pride is also a sin.
Denise Siegel November 06, 2012 at 01:42 AM
They are threats to society. Human beings can become an endangered species just like other animals. Traditional marriage protects this legally as best as possible. Same sex marriage have been on a tirade to weaken and alter history and religion through government intervention. Catholic Charities, Chik-Fil-A, and Catholic Hospitals have been targets to religious discrimination. Government cannot exchange one civil right for another.
Denise Siegel November 06, 2012 at 01:48 AM
John, Catholic Charities were not encouraged to stay opened either. Haven't you heard of subtle discrimination? Read between the lines. Also, substitute the "bigot to same sex marriage" with threat to same sex marriage" and see what you get.
Denise Siegel November 06, 2012 at 02:00 AM
They are threats to society. The human race can become extinct. Maybe not in our lifetime. You can't go around calling everyone a bigot just because you don't agree with someone or don't understand their reason. "Bigot" is a strong word and a cop out for same-sex marriage proponents to truly understand the other position. They think by using the word "bigot" will ostricize the religious right and make smaller numbers in people over time. Overusing the word bigot is categorizing us like racists such as the KKK. Do you really want to do that to people you know? Are you going to call people in your past a bigot? Most people in favor of SSM were once opposed to it? Are they "ex-bigots"? Also why is it considered paranoia for traditional marriage proponents to believe that plural marriage or pedophile marriage is next? 20 years ago or so, same-sex marriage was considered paranoia? Also please explain how same-sex marriage "bigotry" is the equivalent to biracial marriage bigotry. Where does your thought process come from? Huh? BTW: I voted absentee already and I voted YES proudly!


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
See more »