|
The constitutional amendment does not
protect any families or marriages.
This amendment would provide no benefit to families headed by
different-sex married couples, while it would significantly harm
families headed by same-sex couples. No proponent of such an amendment
has ever explained how any family gains anything by denying other
families legal protection.
The amendment could ban all forms of legal recognition for same-sex
couples and their families.
The proposed amendment, as currently worded, would ban same-sex
marriage and call into question the legality of civil unions and
domestic partnership benefits. And while public opinion fluctuates
regarding civil marriage for same-sex couples, exit polls taken after
the past election show that 60% of voters support civil marriage or
civil unions for same-sex couples.
GLBT Minnesotans will continue to form family bonds and have children,
regardless of what is recognized by law.
Banning same-sex marriage will only sanction discrimination by
denying those couples the 1,138 federal rights and responsibilities
afforded to married couples. The question is not whether there will be
same-sex couples but whether their families and their children are
deserving of the same rights and privileges granted to the rest of
society.
This conversation is in its infancy – public debate should be allowed to
continue.
This is a relatively new issue, one not debated publicly by earlier
generations, and there is evidence that the public is growing more
accepting of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) people. We
should not shut down this conversation prematurely by permanently
enshrining today's bigotries for tomorrow's generations.
Why should the people vote on this issue? Minnesota's Constitution was
written to ensure equal treatment for all people.
Neither the US nor the Minnesota Constitution has ever been amended
to mandate discrimination. Appealing to voters to impose inequality is
exactly the sort of abuse of democracy that constitutions were intended
to prevent. This amendment hurts Minnesotan's and their families by
putting unequal treatment into our Constitution.
Additionally, it is unclear to the proponents of the amendment
exactly what voters are being asked to decide. During the House vote on
the amendment in regular session, the bill's amendment's chief author,
Representative Dan Severson, explained that Minnesota courts would have
to define what "the legal equivalent of marriage" allows or prohibits if
the amendment passes. Minnesota voters should not be asked to add an
amendment to the Constitution that will do indeterminate damage to some
of our state's citizens.
The following examples illustrate the impact broader anti-family
amendments have on polices and laws.
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 must 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:
- Two judges in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) have dismissed
felony domestic violence charges against men accused of
assaulting their unmarried female partners. The judges have
ruled that under the state's constitutional ban on same-sex
marriage, domestic violence laws cannot be enforced unless the
perpetrator and the victim are married.
- 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.
- The first shareholder resolution challenging domestic
partnership benefits at a major corporation will be voted on
Wednesday, April 27th, 2005, at the annual meeting of the NCR
Corporation to be held in Dayton, Ohio. Supporters of the
resolution said that NCR should respect the religious beliefs of
its employees and shareholders.
Utah:
- A Utah attorney is claiming the constitutional amendment
there invalidates a protective order taken out against a man
by his ex-girlfriend.
- The University of Utah has dropped its plan to provide
domestic partner benefits to the unmarried partners of its
employees. General Council for the University has advised
its employer to discontinue plans to extend domestic partner
benefits because the law is "extremely unsettled". The
council explained that the University should drop the
domestic partner benefits package to avoid becoming a test
case to determine the scope of the amendment.
Laws and Constitutional Amendments Barring Marriage and other Forms of
Recognition for Same-sex Couples in the United States
- 18 states have passed constitutional amendment
against the legal recognition of same-sex couples and
their families
- 14 passed in 2004-05
- 11 of the 18 amendments ban marriage and other forms
of legal recognition for same-sex couples
- 39 states have passed Defense of Marriage statutes
prohibiting same-sex marriage
|
