Responses to Pro-Amendment Arguments

Contents:

• The people of this state should have the right to decide this issue for themselves at the ballot box.
• Marriage has meant one man and one woman for centuries.
• Children need a mother and a father.
• We must ban same-sex marriage or face a
  slippery slope on other issues (e.g. polygamy).
• If we don't support the amendment, “activist judges” will force same-sex marriage on Minnesota.
• If we don’t ban same-sex marriage, places of worship will be forced to marry gay couples or clergy could be charged for preaching against homosexuality.
• This amendment does not ban civil unions or domestic partnerships.
• Same-sex couples can get the protections they need from legal contracts like wills and health care powers of attorney.
• Offering same-sex families the same benefits other families receive would be too expensive.
• Marriage should be left alone and the legislature should pass civil unions for same-sex couples.
• Same-sex marriage or legal partnerships weaken the institution of marriage. In Scandinavian countries where same-sex couples have nearly all of the legal protections of opposite-sex couples there has been a disassociation between marriage and parenthood and a decline in marriage.
• Gay or lesbian people can’t marry or form civil unions in Minnesota now, so if this passes it doesn’t really change anything.

Argument: The people of this state should have the right to decide this issue for themselves at the ballot box.

Response: There should be an ongoing public debate about equal treatment for same-sex couples, but this amendment shuts down that debate. When people have a chance to understand that the amendment would ban any legal protections for same-sex families, they oppose it. Amendment proponents are not being honest with the public. They say they want to let voters decide, but then misrepresent the amendment by claiming it's just about "defending" or "protecting" marriage, when it actually has much more far-reaching effects.

Argument: Marriage has meant one man and one woman for centuries.

Response: Marriage has undergone many changes to evolve with society, even making dramatic changes in the last century. For example, marriage was not considered a religious institution prior to 1215 when the Catholic Church recognized the union as a sacrament. Also, for centuries marriage was regarded first and foremost as an economic relationship, a means by which a man obtained property by securing a wife. Not until industrialization did couples marry for love, rather than survival. The largest recent change to marriage came in 1967 with a U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which ruled marriage could no longer be restricted to people of the same race. Marriage has evolved over the years to meet changing economies, social mores and the societal needs of couples and over time has become a more egalitarian institution.

Argument: Children need a mother and a father.

Response: Every reliable source agrees that there is no difference in the ability of same-sex parents and opposite-sex parents to raise healthy, well-adjusted children. When possible, children do best in a home with two loving parents. While not all children have two parents, those who do deserve the safety net of protections that marriage provides—access to health care, clear custody rights in the event of one parent’s death, and survivor benefits. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and The Child Welfare League of America all oppose any effort to deny the protections of marriage to gay and lesbian families.

Proponents of marriage amendments routinely take studies of single-parent versus two-parent families and claim that research shows that children need a mother and a father, which is a misrepresentation of what these studies find.

Argument: We must ban same-sex marriage or face a slippery slope on other issues.

Response: This argument is a red herring designed to change the subject from legally recognizing same-sex couples and their families, which the public supports. Whether marriage may be withheld from same-sex couples is a vastly different question from whether marriage may be withheld from multiple-partner relationships.

Argument: If we don't support the amendment, “activist judges” will force same-sex marriage on Minnesota.

Response: The Supreme Court of Minnesota has already held that restricting marriage to one man and one woman is permissible and there is no reason to believe they will reverse this decision.

Argument: If we don’t ban same-sex marriage, places of worship will be forced to marry gay couples or clergy could be charged for preaching against homosexuality.

Response: In 2004, Senator Michele Bachmann sent a letter to places of worship in Minnesota explaining that the 501(c)(3) tax status of churches could be jeopardized if they spoke out against same-sex marriage or protections for GLBT people. To back up this argument, Senator Bachmann and other proponents of the amendment use examples of pastors and others in Canada, Ireland, Sweden and England who faced penalties or charges when they spoke out against GLBT rights. This argument is simply untrue. No marriage law has ever required any church to marry couples they do not wish too. Churches will continue to be free to refuse to marry any couple they wish, for any reason that suits them. The free speech of clergy will also remain unaffected by same-sex marriage.

Argument: This amendment does not ban civil unions or domestic partnerships.

Response: The amendment specifically bans not only marriage, but also the “legal equivalent” of marriage. States with similarly-worded amendments have discovered that such bans have consequences far beyond defining marriage. All legal recognition for same-sex couples and families are put at risk by the broad wording of the amendment.

Argument: Same-sex couples can get the protections they need from legal contracts like wills and health care powers of attorney.

Response: No legal contract can offer the full array of protections that come with marriage. For example, there is no legal contract that can require the government to provide benefits or recognition to a partner, or to require companies to recognize a partner for health insurance purposes. Legal contracts between partners can only give a handful of rights such as inheritance (although partners, unlike spouses, are subject to taxation) and the right to make medical and legal decisions for each other. Yet contracts like these, which provide little protection for couples, often require the assistance of costly attorneys, and simply do not come close to replicating the rights of marriage.

Argument: Offering same-sex families the same benefits other families receive would be too expensive.

Response: Budgetary reasons are not a moral justification for denying any group of citizens equal treatment. GLBT people work hard and earn their health and retirement benefits every single day; however, right now, non-GLBT workers can share these benefits with their families whereas GLBT workers cannot. The amendment could make that inequality permanent.

In fact, studies show that there may actually be economic advantages to offering the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. A 2004 study by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office found that the federal government would actually gain one billion dollars in revenue if same-sex couples could marry. Another study of the impact of same-sex marriage on California's budget found that allowing same-sex couples to marry will result in a net gain of $22.3 to $25.2 million each year for the state budget.

Argument: Marriage should be left alone and the legislature should pass civil unions for same-sex couples.

Response: This amendment would ban civil unions permanently through the state constitution, which would leave the legislature powerless to create civil unions. Many people who oppose same-sex marriage also oppose the amendment because it goes too far.

Argument: Same-sex marriage or legal partnerships weaken the institution of marriage. In Scandinavian countries where same-sex couples have nearly all of the legal protections of opposite-sex couples there has been a disassociation between marriage and parenthood and a decline in marriage.

Response: Stanley Kurtz from the Hoover Institute conducted research on the state of marriage in Scandinavian countries and concluded that the main cause of marriage’s decline in Sweden and other countries was their acceptance of same-sex unions. Yet Kurtz fails to support his claim by establishing a significant causal link between gay marriage and marital decline in Europe. While divorce rates have increased in the United States and Europe over the past 30 years, regardless of whether or not they recognize same-sex unions, the overall trend has nothing to do with same-sex couples. In fact, the marriage data from Scandinavian countries shows that divorce rates have not increased since the passage of partnership laws and that marriage rates have remained stable or increased. In the United States, the only state that allows same-sex couples to marry (Massachusetts) continues to have the lowest divorce rates in the country.

Argument: Gay or lesbian people can’t marry or form civil unions in Minnesota now, so if this passes it doesn’t really change anything.

Response: Existing domestic partner recognition laws in Minneapolis would likely be nullified by this amendment. The legislature would also be permanently prevented from ever creating statewide civil unions or domestic partner recognition for same-sex couples. Furthermore, this amendment would change something very important--the Minnesota Constitution. It would change the Constitution to say that it is acceptable to treat GLBT Minnesotans unequally and to enshrine that inequality indefinitely. That is a distinct departure from the way the Constitution functions now, to guarantee equal protection to every citizen.