Talking Points Against The Amendment

Contents:

• The amendment is not legally necessary and is a distraction from the issues that need to be addressed by the legislature.
• The constitutional amendment does not protect any families or marriages.
• The amendment could ban all forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples and their families.
• GLBT Minnesotans will continue to form family bonds and have children and these families need protection.
• Minority rights should never be decided by a popular vote.
• This conversation is in its infancy – public debate should be allowed to continue.
• Minnesota's Constitution was written to guarantee
  equal treatment for all people and is not designed to take rights away from people.
• Marriage is an institution that changes with society.
• The language of Minnesota's constitutional amendment will have far-reaching and unintended effects, even for heterosexual people.
• The amendment's language and effect are unclear about the meaning of "the legal equivalent of marriage," which will lead to costly lawsuits for the state.
• This amendment will hurt Minnesota's reputation as a tolerant place, and in turn will hurt economic growth in the state. Economic growth is positively correlated with GLBT-friendly communities.

The amendment is not legally necessary and is a distraction from the issues that need to be addressed by the legislature. Those pushing the amendment are doing so for political purposes. Minnesotans want legislators to focus on real issues like education, health care, and transportation. This amendment represents divisive politics at its worst; we should not let proponents use the constitution as a partisan tool.

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 the amendment has ever explained how any family gains anything by denying other families legal protections.

In the United States, Americans have been less inclined to marry over the last few decades. The number of people entering marriage has declined 50% since 1970 while cohabitation rates have increased. According to one study, divorce rates have doubled since 1960 with nearly 40-50% of heterosexual marriages ending in divorce. Studies have shown that the lack of affordable health care and child care, long hours at work without adequate pay, and other economic factors contribute to the kind of stress that can lead to divorce. Same-sex couples and families are not one of the many challenges facing marriage in America.

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, and any other attempt to provide protections to same-sex couples and families. And while public opinion fluctuates regarding civil marriage for same-sex couples, exit polls taken during the 2004 election show that 60% of voters support either civil marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples.

GLBT Minnesotans will continue to form family bonds and have children and these families need protection. 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. Indeed, children being raised by same-sex couples would be major beneficiaries of marriage equality, because marriage would have the effect of protecting the rights of the family as a whole. Children of same-sex couples often cannot establish a legal relationship with one of their parents, which creates physical and financial risks for the child. For example, one parent may not be able to authorize medical treatment in an emergency; a child may not be able to get child support from the non-legal parent in the event of a separation, and social security benefits are not available to a non-legal parent. Children are harmed when their parents are prevented from marrying or having other legal protection.

Minority rights should never be decided by a popular vote. There are many hotly contested issues in our public sphere – from gambling to gun control – that the public might wish to debate. But this is exactly the wrong type of issue for a popular vote. The civil and human rights of a minority should never be decided by a majority vote. One doesn't have to look far in American history to imagine what would have happened if the rights of other minority groups had been decided by a popular vote.

This conversation is in its infancy – public debate should be allowed to continue. The issue of how to protect same-sex couples and their families is relatively new—one not debated publicly by earlier generations. There is evidence that the public is growing more accepting of GLBT people and is changing its views on how to protect GLBT families. The conversation about how to protect GLBT families should not be shut down prematurely by permanently enshrining today's views for tomorrow's generations.

Minnesota's Constitution was written to guarantee equal treatment for all people and is not designed to take rights away from people. Neither the U.S. nor the Minnesota Constitution has ever been amended to mandate discrimination. Appealing to voters to impose inequality in the constitution is exactly the sort of abuse of democracy that constitutions were intended to prevent.

Marriage is an institution that changes with society. Less than four decades ago, laws banning interracial marriages were still on the books in most states. At the time the US Supreme Court struck down anti-miscegenation laws, a Gallup poll found that 72% of Americans believed that interracial marriage was still wrong and that 48% believed it should be a punishable crime. We cannot allow current public opinion to permanently enshrine discrimination in Minnesota's Constitution.

If experience in other states is any measure, the language of Minnesota's constitutional amendment will have far-reaching and unintended effects, even for heterosexual people. States that have passed constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions within the last few years are discovering that such bans have consequences far beyond defining marriage. In some states, heterosexual women are unable to protect themselves from domestic violence because they are unmarried to their perpetrators. Backers of the proposed amendment in Minnesota claim it would not ban all legal protection for same-sex couples and would not endanger particular benefits for them; yet amendments in other states have done exactly that. There is mounting evidence of the far-reaching consequences in other states:

• Utah - In a lawsuit, a man is claiming the state's constitutional amendment invalidates a restraining order taken out against him by his ex-girlfriend.
• Ohio - Numerous judges in Ohio have ruled that domestic violence charges cannot be filed against unmarried people--whether they are gay or non-gay; at least 15 cases have been dismissed.
• Ohio - The University of Toledo announced it cannot offer domestic partner benefits to its employees because of the new amendment.
• Michigan – Gov. Jennifer Granholm ordered domestic partner benefits to be removed from contracts that were being negotiated for state workers.
• Michigan - An anti-gay group is suing the Ann Arbor School District in an effort to strike the school's employee domestic partner benefits policy. They are using the amendment as the central legal claim against the policy.
• Michigan - Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has ruled that existing domestic partner benefits for municipal employees cannot be renewed in future contracts. This ruling could wipe out all existing public employee domestic partner benefits in Michigan.

The amendment's language and effect are unclear about the meaning of "the legal equivalent of marriage," which will lead to costly lawsuits for the state. It is impossible to know what prohibiting the recognition of the "legal equivalent" of marriage actually means. Legislators cannot rest on vague assurances from amendment supporters that these challenges will not occur. Businesses that want to recognize their employees' unmarried domestic partners may face additional legal expenses as they try to determine whether (and how) they can provide partner benefits to stay competitive in today's market for talented employees. Here are just some of the unanswered questions about this amendment:

– Opponents of 'gay marriage' claim that same-sex couples should write contracts to address concerns between them. Under this proposal, how would state courts be able to enforce such private contracts?
– How would this language affect the ability of the Department of Public Health or the Department of Commerce to investigate claims related to insurance provided by a private employer to an employee's unmarried partner?
– How would this language affect the ability of a government hospital like Hennepin County Government Center to honor a health care directive appointing an unmarried partner as a patient's health care agent?
– How would this language affect state courts' ability to hear domestic-abuse charges arising in the context of an unmarried couple?
– How would this language affect the ability of public libraries to stock books or periodicals dealing with issues of unmarried couples?
– How would this language affect the ability of Minnesota parents to nominate other adults to be the standby custodian of their children?
– How would this language affect the provision of benefits to University of Minnesota staff members' unmarried partners?
– How would this language affect the ability of the State or its political subdivisions to choose to contract with private employers who provide domestic-partner benefits?
– How would this language affect the ability of employees of local government units to use their accumulated sick leave to care for an unmarried partner?
– Would this language require a municipality to prohibit unmarried couples' access to a municipal pool on a 'family day?'
– How would this language affect the ability of a school district to offer adult community education classes on estate planning issues for unmarried couples?
– Can a shareholder of a corporation sue if the company offers domestic partner benefits?

This amendment will hurt Minnesota's reputation as a tolerant place, and in turn will hurt economic growth in the state. Economic growth is positively correlated with GLBT-friendly communities. A prominent researcher, Richard Florida, has determined that having a tolerant environment is one of the three key factors in driving economic growth. In The Creative Class, Florida published his research on economic growth and stability in American cities. In Cities and the Creative Class, Florida explains the empirical data behind his discovery that creative people are the engine behind regional economic growth. For a city or region to prosper, Florida finds that it has to have the "3 T's" of economic development: technology, talent and tolerance.

Florida defines "tolerance" as an openness and inclusiveness that can attract and retain diversity. Because GLBT people have faced substantial discrimination and opposition, Florida states that gay people are the "canaries" of the creative class. According to Florida, a high percentage of gay people, or "Gay Index," in a city or region is a good measure of how open a place is to diversity. Finding that an area that welcomes gay people tends to welcome all people, Florida concludes that a high percentage of gay people is a good predictor for economic growth. The statistical analysis of his research found the "Gay Index" was better than any other measure of diversity as a predictor for high tech industry and its growth. Passing the amendment will cause Minnesota to be thought of as an intolerant state and will make businesses wary of relocating or expanding operations here.