The Debate about Marriage for Same-Sex Couples 

A wave of anti-marriage amendments passed in 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2008. The first of these were prompted by a November 2003 ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court that the commonwealth should not deny same-sex couples the right to marry. Since that date amendments to about 30 state constitutions have been adopted. 

These amendments are part of a conservative electoral strategy. A major purpose of these anti-marriage amendment campaigns is to drive up conservative voter turnout during elections and divide the electorate. The effort to amend Minnesota’s constitution has been  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 would be prevented from getting their positive messages about important policy issues like education, health care, and transportation into the public debate. State legislators who have voted to keep these amendments off the ballot have been repeatedly rewarded with re-election.

Proponents of a constitutional 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.

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. Minnesota also does not recognize legal same-sex unions from other states or countries.

An amendment is wrong for Minnesota for many reasons. An amendment banning marriage equality in no way protects any families or marriages. Further, denial of access to these protections will leave GLBT families in Minnesota without the stability and security 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. The state constitution should embody the values of equal protection for all. To allow an amendment to go to a vote would be to allow the constitutional amendment process to be exploited for political gain.