|
A wave of anti-marriage amendments passed in 2004 and
2005. In November of 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial Court ruled (4-3) that the commonwealth should not deny
same-sex couples the right to marry. Since that date, anti-gay
marriage measures, particularly amend-ments to state
constitutions, have been initiated and, in some states, adopted.
In November, 2004, ballot measures banning same-sex marriage
(and some banning other forms of partner recognition as well)
passed in 13 states and in 2005 similar measures were passed in
2 more, bringing the total number of states with anti-marriage
constitutional amendments to nineteen. However, also in 2004,
anti-marriage measures were defeated in 14 state legislatures.
These amendments are part of a conservative electoral
strategy. A major purpose of the anti-marriage amendment is
to drive up conservative voter turnout during the election and
to divide the electorate. Minnesota’s amendment is also an
attempt to create a political smokescreen to get candidates
elected based on fear and to prevent conservative leaders from
having to address the issues that would make real improvements
for families across the state. With marriage on the ballot,
elected officials will not be able to get their positive
messages about important policy issues, like education, health
care, transportation, etc. into the public debate. The truth is
that state legislators who have voted to keep these amendments
off the ballot have been rewarded with re-election.
Proponents of the amendment seek to remove all legal
protections for same-sex couples and GLBT families. The
amendments are clearly about more than marriage. Amendment
proponents seek to prevent all types of relationship recognition
for same-sex couples and families and have used marriage as a
platform for attacking all civil union and domestic partner
recognition. Additionally, of the states that have recently
passed anti-marriage initiatives, some are now facing possible
constitutional amendments to ban adoption and foster care by
same-sex couples. Across the country this year there may be as
many as sixteen anti-adoption and foster care bills in
legislatures or ballot initiatives to face additional statewide
votes, according to
USA TODAY. By placing a socially divisive issue on the
ballots, conservative organizations are attempting to enshrine
their religious views into state constitutions, while also using
statewide votes for partisan gain.
The public shows strong support for legal recognition for
same-sex couples and families. While many voters indicated
their opposition to marriage rights for same-sex couples, they
also demonstrated strong public support for legal recognition
generally. Exit polling on November 2, 2004, showed that while a
majority of voters oppose same-sex marriage, 60% believe that
same-sex couples deserve to have their relationships legally
recognized in some way. If young Americans (15 to 25 years old)
are polled, they show even stronger levels of support for GLBT
citizens. In the largest survey of young people on gay rights
since the Massachusetts ruling of 2004, the Center for Democracy
and Citizenship, the Council for Excellence in Government and
CIRCLE found that fifty-six percent support same-sex couples
being able to legally marry and 63% support civil unions or
legal partnerships.
Same-sex marriage is not recognized by Minnesota or by the
federal government. Congress and 37 states have enacted
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) legislation to define marriage as
the union of one man and one woman, and current Minnesota law
continues to define marriage as a civil contract between a man
and a woman (see p. 18). Additionally, Minnesota and other
states with DOMA laws will not recognize legal same-sex unions
from other states or countries.
The amendment is wrong for Minnesota for many reasons.
The amendment in no way protects any families or marriages.
Instead, its broad wording may permanently ban the state
legislature, as well as local governments, from providing any
type of protections or benefits to same-sex couples and
families. Denial of access to these protections will leave GLBT
families in Minnesota, including the children of GLBT parents,
without the stability and security which are critical to the
long-term financial, emotional, and physical health of every
family member.
The rights of a minority should never be put up for a popular
vote, but instead public debate on how to protect GLBT families
should continue so that attitudes about marriage and other ways
to provide families with legal protection may continue to evolve
with society. An election right now would prematurely end this
debate and enshrine today’s discriminatory views into the state
constitution. The constitution should remain a document
embodying the values of equal protection for all. The
constitution should not be amended with broad and unclear
language the effects of which are unknown. Last, to allow this
amendment to go to a vote would be to allow the constitutional
amendment process to be exploited for political gain. |
