|
Post by sharon on Jul 13, 2012 20:19:59 GMT -6
I've been wondering when to bring up the Anti-marriage amendment and this video reminded me how important it is not to put it off.
It's uncomfortable to talk about, and humiliating honestly. To have to discuss in the hypothetical whether or not we deserve to have an election about whether or not to use the Constitution to bully our family and our community is ridiculous and infuriating and degrading. But we are moms. And moms do what they have to, to try to protect their families and their children. So I have to talk about it, discomfort aside. Because my child deserves better than to have this hateful amendment succeed.
Those of you who were on MLM saw a lot of this info, but now we are on the new site and so I need to get it out there again. I apologize for the repetition for all the "old timers."
I'm going to present information, broken down into manageable chunks so no posts are too long. I'm completely open to questions and discussion.
And of course, I do hope each and every one of you will vote no, but I know that some of you will vote yes. And all I can do is wish you well anyway and know deep in my heart and soul that if anyone ever comes after your family and children and community this way, I will stand with you anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 13, 2012 20:23:22 GMT -6
Part One: So what is this amendment that people are talking about?
The amendment in question would add a statement to the Minnesota state constitution stating that only opposite sex couples would be eligible for marriage licenses in our state. It takes what is state law and makes it part of the Constitution, which is much harder to change. Laws can be overturned by judges or changed by the legislator writing a new law and the governor signing it.
So, while the amendment would change nothing in the short run, since it only restates what the law already says, it makes longer term what is known to be a temporary situation –-- same-sex married couples being set aside for different treatment under the law than opposite-sex married couples in our state.
The amendment was voted on in the House and Senate, and it passed, putting it on the ballot in the fall. Voters will be asked to decide if they do or do not want the specific wording that has been proposed to be added to our state constitution. If more than half of voters vote for it, then it is included. If less than half of voters vote for it, it is not included.
Either way the legal status of same-sex married couples in Minnesota will not change in the short run. The state law still exists, with or without the amendment.
|
|
|
Post by dara1012 on Jul 14, 2012 7:20:34 GMT -6
Thank you for starting this discussion and breaking it down to ensure that people understand that we are not voting about allowing gay marriage at this time. Though I wish in November that instead of voting to against further discrimination I instead had the opportunity to vote to allow gay marriage. Love is love and it doesn't matter who is loving who in my opinion. I support your family 100%.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 14, 2012 7:52:46 GMT -6
Part Two:Difference between marriage and a marriage license:
First of all, it’s important to understand the difference between a marriage and a marriage license. Marriage is a vow, an agreement, taken between two people. Sometimes it’s a religious agreement, sometimes not. Sometimes it’s done in front of others, sometimes not. Many married couples have a marriage license – that license is their “ticket” to over a thousand rights and privileges that flow to couples who have one. There are religious marriage agreements, state marriage rights, federal marriage rights and these are all separate entities.
For a heterosexual couple it’s generally pretty basic – they get married, apply for a marriage license and all that same time, both can occur. Some will get their marriage license separately from a religious ceremony, but often it is folded in to one process. And for heterosexual couples that license is required to be honored federally and in every state. For example if an opposite-sex couple marries in Minnesota and moves to Mississippi, their new state is required to honor the marriage license – even if the local culture disapproves of the marriage for some reason, even if they would not have been eligible get a marriage license in their new state.
For same-sex couples there is a law that is ironically named The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that sets them aside for different treatment under federal and state marriage laws. When a same-sex couple marries and receives a marriage license, the federal government is forbidden from honoring it by this law. Yes, same-sex couples with a valid marriage license in their home state, are still not federally married. They file state taxes as a married couple and federal taxes as two single people. That is the law. This same law says that states are allowed choose whether or not to honor another state’s marriage license – only if those listed are a same-sex couple.
So, married couples may have a marriage license that is valid in their home state or not. They may have a marriage license that is valid federally or not. They may have a marriage license that would be valid if they established residency somewhere they do not live, but is not valid now. They may have several licenses from various states and other countries and still may or may not be granted marriage rights where they live.
It does get complicated. And we haven’t talked about religion yet.
Each religion makes its own marriage rules. Some religions require that both members of the couple be an official part of that religion for the marriage to be valid. Some require that a member of that particular religion or sect’s clergy perform the ceremony for it to be valid. Some have other requirements.
A couple can be denied marriage within a certain religious institution, sect or religion and still can get a marriage license. A couple with a valid religious marriage may be denied a marriage license. The two often go hand in hand and so it is often taken for granted that a couple can get both, but in fact they are separate issues.
As a specific example, my own religion is Judaism and our sect is Conservative Judaism. In Conservative Judaism, only two Jewish people can marry. If a Conservative Jew wishes to marry a non-Jew, they cannot do so within Conservative Judaism. They can however get a marriage license, regardless of this. The religious law has no bearing on state and federal law – they are separate issues.
It goes the other way too - state and federal law cannot force a religious institution to perform a marriage. The fact that an interfaith couple has the legal right to get a marriage license has no bearing on my synagogue, which cannot be forced to perform a wedding just because the couple is eligible for a marriage license.
Marriage and a marriage license are two separate things. That’s important to understand, because sometimes when marriage laws and marriage licenses are discussed it gets shortened and called “marriage” for convenience (by people arguing both for and against fair marriage laws), even though that can be confusing. It gives the impression that passing a law can keep couples from marrying and that is not what is being discussed – it how the law will treat a segment of married couples that is at question.
|
|
|
Post by deannemdm on Jul 14, 2012 8:15:00 GMT -6
I keep hearing different wordings for the amendment-- some would be a yes and some a no
Keep or define marriage between a man and a woman in MN---NO (or limit marriage) or I can't remember how they worded it, but it was a negative question where voting yes would not limit it Important to read the wording on the ballots-- I have seen stuff about arguements about how they are going to word it and so no entirely sure until I read the ballot and I see how it is worded (I do not want to limit it and don't want to be tricked but the wording)
|
|
|
Post by irish on Jul 14, 2012 8:21:35 GMT -6
Thank you for posting this information Sharon. You know you and your family have my family's support Do you know what the number of the amendment is? I think that would be helpful to know for some people so they know exactly what to vote no on!!
|
|
|
Post by cakemakermom on Jul 14, 2012 9:02:56 GMT -6
I'd like to add the couple of things I had here from MLM. As an American, we need to abide by the federal constitution and all it's amendments that followed. Two of the amendments are particularly important. First of all it the First amendment which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If we were to put into law anything that has to do with one religion's practices, this one being the fact that some religions do not allow gay people to form a union, then we wouldn't be in compliance with this first amendment. We wouldn't be allowing other religions to be able to practice all the things they practice if they allow gay people to marry, even if your religion doesn't. This is the separation of church and state, they are separate entities and should remain so. Like Sharon said, getting a marriage license has nothing to do with religion and should never have had. The states have the right to allow it's citizens to have fair and equal rights, no matter what religions say. The second important amendment to the Constitution of the United States is amendment 14, section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Remember when people of two different races couldn't get married? Well, this amendment allowed them to get married. The more important thing here is that the wording did not say all people of opposite gender may be allowed to get married with the exception of those seeking same gendered marriages, it states All People born here or legally accepted are Citizens. All Citizens have the right to be happy, or in it's words may not be deprived of liberty. No State (being the state of MN in this example) may make laws that exclude Citizens from those privileges (life, liberty, or property). The way this amendment is stated, all people are citizens, whether they are gay, straight or bi. It did not say only people looking to procreate are citizens. It did not say only people looking to marry the opposite gender are citizens. It only said that all people are citizens. If you wish to brush up on your Constitution and it's amendments you can go to the federal archives and read up on the laws that affect all of us. www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.htmlThe wording is going to make it confusing, they're trying to change it a little, but it will still state something about two people of opposite gender being the only ones allowed to be able to form a union. Vote No simply for the sake of abiding by the US Constitution, even if Congress seems to be ignoring it at the moment, or your belief in marriage. It should be the couple's decision, not everyone and their mother's decision.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 14, 2012 16:32:23 GMT -6
I can find the exact wording, but yes, the thing to remember is to vote "no." The voter suppression amendment is something I will be voting No to as well, but I'm not sure what the order is.
Yes, the wording is purposely making it confusing. The hate groups pushing for this try to make things as confusing as possible, by misnaming their groups and making the wording a double negative and such. It's worked well in other states, getting people to vote yes, who meant to vote no.
The title of the amendment is disputed right now. It was changed and there is a push to change it back, and I'm not sure if that will succeed.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 14, 2012 16:41:57 GMT -6
Part Three: Myths
There are a lot of myths that are flying around as part of discussions of this amendment. I thought it would be helpful to deal with them head on.
Myth: Marriage is being threatened and needs an amendment to protect it.
There is no “threat” to protect from – other than this amendment. No one is doing anything that threatens the rights of opposite-sex married couples. The proponents of this amendment, however, are threatening the marriages of couples all over Minnesota. Not liking someone who is different from you does not make him or her a threat in and of itself. Even if the mere existence of same-sex married couples in our state was somehow a threat to opposite-sex married couples, this amendment would do nothing to protect from that, since it has no power to mistreat same-sex married couples in any way beyond how they are mistreated now, other than making it more long term. It does not mean that all the same sex married couples in Minnesota have to leave the state. It does not make us not exist, even if that fact is upsetting to some.
Myth: The amendment protects heterosexual families.
See above. This amendment does NOTHING to protect a single family of any structure.
Myth: The amendment protects churches from being forced to perform weddings for same-sex couples.
Government does not have the power to force a religious house of worship to perform a wedding, whether or not the couple in question can get a valid marriage license. Synagogues are not forced to perform weddings for couples in which one person is not Jewish, even though the couple is eligible for a marriage license. Catholic churches can refuse to marry couples who are not Catholic, though those couples can get a marriage license. One has no bearing on the other.
Myth: We should have this amendment because children should have a mom and a dad.
Minnesota Family Council (a local hate group that advocates for homophobic laws) has said that the amendment would protect children whose family consists of a biological mother and father. While offering absolutely no way in which this amendment helps one child whose family is structured that way, they seem unable to comprehend the fact that there are children all over Minnesota whose families are not structured that way. Having and not having a marriage license effects parents and their children in various ways, but this amendment does not change any of those relating laws, nor protects a single child. On the contrary, refusing marriage licenses to same-sex married couples harms those couples’ children in many ways including limiting access to health benefits, Social Security benefits, sometimes even affecting custody and denying children access to one of their parents. Even if you believe that every family should be forced to consist of a mother and father and children, and that the adults in that family should have no choice in the shape and size of their family, this amendment does nothing to accomplish that goal. Perhaps think of how you might feel if someone told you that to be treated fairly you should abandon your spouse and child(ren) and go marry a stranger of their choosing instead.
Myth: It’s important to let the people of Minnesota vote on this because voting is an important civil right.
Voting IS an important civil right, but voting on which rights the majority gives minorities access to is not included in that right. Minnesota’s Constitution was written to ensure fair treatment for all citizens under law. This would be the first time in our history that the Constitution was amended in order to set aside a minority community and require discrimination against them.
By that logic, we would be outlining other marginalized groups to vote on basic rights for next. Shall we decide if those with disabilities should be able to have a job? Should women of color be allowed to get birth certificates for their children? Should non-Christians be allowed to vote in elections? Should the first amendment not apply to women?
Having a powerful moneyed organization that is bigoted against a certain group is not a justification for writing hatred for that group into the constitution. Our history – and our constitution - would be littered with amendments like this, if so.
Myth: This only affects city families. It doesn’t affect families in my part of Minnesota anyway, so why should I care?
The 2000 federal census found that Gay and Lesbian families live in every single county in Minnesota. Yes, every single one. So we are talking about mistreating families in every part of our state, including yours.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 15, 2012 20:55:05 GMT -6
Here is the wording as it stands now:
Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples.
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
YES NO
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 15, 2012 20:57:43 GMT -6
The Secretary of State changed the title to "Limiting the status of marriage to opposite sex couples" from what it was previously. My understanding is that there are some who are trying to find a legal path to forcing it to be changed back, so that part might change.
|
|
|
Post by ReneeW on Jul 16, 2012 9:25:30 GMT -6
Thanks for helping to get important info out, Sharon. I'm trying to understand the haters, but it's tough. Voting "NO" on this amendment doesn't hurt me or any other heterosexual person in any way, shape, or form. But voting "yes" would really hurt so, so many people, is discriminatory, will hurt families all around our state ... I just can't comprehend it.
I also read somewhere that all of this funding and the push for the amendment is coming from out-of-state groups that are trying to push this stuff all around the country. So Minnesotans didn't even WANT this, it's all big-money groups from elsewhere in the country who are pushing for it. This amendment is just a tactic being used by an out-of-state interest group. How sad is that?
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 16, 2012 14:48:07 GMT -6
It's true. The donations and coming through the Catholic hierarchy and a national hate group that ironically calls itself "National Organization For Marriage." The local hate group, "Minnesota Family Council," is a part of this effort too, although I don't think they have contributed money.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 30, 2012 18:49:22 GMT -6
Part Four: Why You Should Vote No
Why vote against it?
Well, for many reasons I think this is the wrong way to go, but, other than the obvious that of course my family would like to be treated fairly at some future point, here are some of my main ones:
It bullies our families. Since the amendment does nothing to change the way the law is now, and in fact we have no hope of having fair marriage laws in Minnesota with the current make up of the legislature, this amendment really does nothing but give a spotlight to those who wish to share their bigotry against GLBT folk and our families.
Speaking of bullying, homophobic measures like this increase bullying in schools and violence toward GLBT folk of all ages. Since homophobia and bullying are so closely tied, when homophobic laws are in the forefront, bullying in schools worsens. This is a pattern we have seen over and over, including several years ago right here in Minnesota when Michelle Bachmann was pushing for an anti-marriage amendment similar to this one. When adults put time and energy into conveying that GLBT folks are “other” and not deserving of basic civil rights that speaks loud and clear and echoes in our schools and on our streets.
Using the Constitution as a tool of persecution makes this patriot cringe. Our state’s founding document, just like the U.S. Constitution is meant to protect the rights of individuals, not be used to harm them. It goes against the basic principles of freedom that our country stands for.
This would lock us long term into a law that history will look poorly upon. In the long run, unfair marriage laws will be a thing of the past. Just as other groups have fought for civil rights and won, and we look back on laws that treated minorities unfairly with distaste, this type of law will be looked back upon similarly. It sends a message that Minnesota is a place of bigotry and than the people of this state approve of that. It is something that future generations will rightly view with shame.
Since this amendment actually accomplishes no legal change, it seems likely it is a tactic to get far right wing voters to the poles. Those pushing for it are banking on extreme right wing voters being motivated by homophobia to vote, and by the perception that will help them with re-elections. This may be an accurate perception or not, but it is a cynical and cruel reason to do an evil thing to families all over Minnesota. We are being maligned to gain votes, and that’s not OK with me.
This amendment helps not one family in Minnesota, when we have a LOT of families that need help and a LOT of important issues our elected officials should be putting their time and resources into. Rather than reward those who are wasting valuable time, money and energy on bullying families, we can send a strong message that we would like our elected officials to get back to work on doing something that will help our state.
|
|
|
Post by cakemakermom on Jul 31, 2012 10:04:43 GMT -6
Seems they are still arguing about if it should go to the ballot. The judge on the 5 news this mid day was saying that it would be a confusing question and should they really be sending such a confusing question to the public.
|
|
Back to the Top