Vote in 2012 will be on gay marriage amendment

[w8liftinglady]

http://www.austindailyherald.com/2011/10/24/vote-in-2012-will-be-on-gay-marriage-amendment/

An amendment proposed for the Minnesota Constitution will be presented to voters in November 2012. It is really a simple matter, although some forces are working hard to exaggerate and distort it. Minnesota already has a law that defines marriage as that of one man and one woman. All the amendment would do is to incorporate existing law into the state constitution. If a person disagrees with the existing law, he or she can be expected to vote against the amendment. If a person agrees with existing law, he or she can be expected to vote for the amendment. It is really as simple as this.

Thirty-four years ago the Minnesota legislature enacted the marriage definition law. Last May the legislature voted to put the proposed amendment directly before the people of the state for our vote. The motivation for the constitutional amendment is to protect existing law from non-legislative abrogation. Those who proposed it, and the majority in the legislature who voted for it, reason that strange things are happening in courts and they could happen in Minnesota. Some courts have ruled that their state constitutions do not make specific provision to define marriage as of one man and one woman. Therefore, any law that so defines marriage is unconstitutional by default.

snip

But let us be honest about the meaning and effect of the proposed amendment. It will not change anything, just ensure this law is not changed. It has been cartooned as banning same-sex marriage. This is not only nonsense but blatantly dishonest. Same-sex marriage is already banned and has been for 34 years. Yet, the focus of neither existing law nor the proposed amendment is not anti-gay but pro-marriage as historically conceived and defined.

Granted, some arguing for the amendment are anti-gay indeed. They are repulsed by homosexuality and hostile toward gays and lesbians. I would never argue for them. This, however, is their problem but not a problem of either existing law or proposed amendment. The immoral attitude of some cannot logically or morally be used against the amendment. If this attitude should be adopted, it could easily be turned around to bite those who attempt to use it.

In November 2012 we will not be voting about a ban on same-sex marriage. We will not be voting on a law. We will vote on a proposed constitutional amendment. However we vote individually, we must all know what we are doing and why we are doing it. Then vote according to your own convictions.

[zbdent]

1. so ... the RWers want to make something that's illegal more illegaler?

I thought that RWers were all against all these extra regulations and "new laws" and such ... oh, wait, that's for corporations ...

anything moderate or liberal is to be outlawed outright ...