|
When considering the proposed amendment to the Minnesota constitution, it is
important to remind people that it is not "just" about defining (much less
"defending") marriage. Such measures do not benefit a single marriage or family
in any way. No proponent of such an amendment has ever explained how a family
struggling to make ends meet gains anything by preventing other couples from
marrying or accessing other forms of legal recognition. These proposals do hurt
families in all of our communities and promote discrimination and prejudice
against GLBT people. More critically, this amendment, if enacted, would outlaw
any form of legal recognition of same-sex couples and their families,
including "civil unions," "domestic partnerships," and other
arrangements that actually enjoy the support of most Americans. This
goes far beyond defining or "defending" marriage – it is a direct
assault on families that most Minnesotans actually want to help.
Additionally, while amendment supporters claim to want to curtail
so-called "activist judges," the proposed language would unquestionably
trigger numerous legal battles before these very judges, because the
language of the amendment is not clear in exactly what it claims to
prohibit. In other states that have passed amendments like this, a broad
range of protections for unmarried couples – different-sex or same-sex –
have been threatened. For example:
Michigan:
- On March 17, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox issued an
opinion stating that the voter-approved state constitutional ban on
legalized same-sex relationships requires that state and local
governments in Michigan rescind domestic partner benefits previously
offered to employees' unmarried partners.
- Governor Jennifer Granholm ordered domestic partner benefits to
be removed from contracts that were being negotiated for State
workers.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals is being asked to rule that the
provision of domestic partner benefits to Ann Arbor public school
employees violates that state's constitutional amendment.
Ohio:
- A judge in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) has dismissed felony
domestic violence charges against a man accused of assaulting his
unmarried female partner.
- The University of Toledo announced it can no longer consider
domestic partner benefits for its employees.
- A Franklin County court is being asked to void a custody
agreement between a same-sex couple.
Utah:
- A Utah attorney is claiming the constitutional amendment there
invalidates a protective order taken out against a man by his
ex-girlfriend.
General information about the anti-marriage and anti-family
constitutional amendments in other states:
- 16 states are currently considering changes to their
constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage and other forms of
relationship recognition
- 17 states have passed constitutional amendments against the
legal recognition of same-sex couples and their families
- 13 passed in 2004
- 10 of the 17 amendments ban marriage and other forms of legal
recognition for same-sex couples
|
