Monday, October 08, 2012

The Minnesota Marriage amendment debate - Vote No

With the election season getting extra dirty and divisive now that we are a mere month away form election day, I felt the need after seeing one too many divisive political ads and obnoxious lawn signs to share with you my one long-winded stance on politics this year - let's see what my thoughts are on the "One Man, One Woman" Minnesota Marriage Amendment.
I am so grateful that our City Council voted, overwhelmingly, not to publicize our mayor's (and others) opposition to the marriage amendment! I happen to agree with the marriage amendment wholeheartedly and will vote a resounding "yes". My city does not speak for me, nor should they put the entire Shakopee community under only one political umbrella.

So by the logic of commenter "mary" it's not right for a city government to make a basically non-binding vote resulting in a statement that its council members agree or disagree with a proposed constitutional amendment but it is right for a slim majority of already biased voters whose own preconceived notions about what the "One Man, One Woman" type marriage amendment means to slam the door shut for future generations to (wisely) repeal a bigoted constitutional amendment that strips away the rights of a few out of fear, misunderstanding and a lack of willingness to accept that which you don't understand or approve of (never mind that Minnesota already has a law on the books banning same sex marriage, this constitutional amendment would simply show future generations that their ancestors were flat out hateful bigots incapable of understanding something they are unfamiliar with).

I have seen hundreds of opinions spread across just as many online venues in the comments of how the "Vote No" side of this proposed Minnesota marriage amendment would lead to people marrying children, incestual relationships and people marrying dogs. Those are some of the most uninformed people whose only purpose on this Earth in the area of political discourse is to fear monger. A dog cannot consent to any sort of sexual relationship with a human, it is still illegal to have sexual relationships with a minor and incest is legally and morally wrong as well so those arguments are entirely null and void and only serve as a distraction from the real issue - same sex marriage.

While I doubt I will see same sex marriage (especially using the term "marriage") fully legalized in Minnesota within the next twenty years because money talks and with the strong backing of the Catholic church as they ask their parishioners to fund huge ad buys supporting the Minnesota marriage amendment, the voice of acceptance (Vote No) has a much harder time being heard.

Shakopee city councilor Jay Whiting seems to have the best statement on the Minnesota Marriage Amendment which was discussed at a recent Shakopee City Council meeting (read it here)

But the real debate here (to me, at least) is whether or not a state should ever get to decide who can or cannot do something which is already legal for a majority simply because they are a supposed minority. Are gay and lesbian Minnesotans any different in any areas of their lives outside of their sexual preference? Would it be acceptable to deny marriage rights to your African-American neighbor simply because they are African-American? Should your neighbors who secretly enjoy the fun they have in using their sex swing not be allowed to marry because of how they live their lives in their bedroom?

Maybe if you're one of those people who are uncomfortable with the behavior of a gay or lesbian couple you should examine how you or your straight friends behaved as teenagers. I bet you at least knew of that couple that was always making out in public. There are people who were offended or made uncomfortable by that behavior but it didn't end in a constitutional amendment barring public neckers from getting married. Why should gay and lesbian couples be treated any differently?

If it boils down to marriage being for couples who love each other, thing about that fact that just over half of all marriages end in divorce. Is there any sanctity left in marriage after looking at that statistic alone? Is it wrong that gay marriage, were it to ever be legalized instead of potentially banned twice as it would be if this amendment passes, could be seen as a huge economic stimulus? Marriages cost money. There's a cake to buy and decorate, flowers, a photographer, suits, tuxes, dresses, gifts, doves to release, a horse-drawn carriage, a reception with a dinner and a dance and either a band or a DJ. The money spent at a wedding alone makes the attempt to doubly ban same sex marriage in Minnesota seem un-capitalistic. Just remember that if you vote yes on the Minnesota marriage amendment that you are keeping people apart who truly love each other. You are keeping loving couples from property rights in the event of death. You are keeping loving couples in a supposedly accepting state (Minnesota) from being able to easily make important life and death medical decisions in times of crisis. And if you're thinking that marriage leads to paying fewer taxes, you need to go back and look at your income tax returns because there's no such thing as a tax break for being a married couple.

In the end, all that both the Minnesota Marriage Amendment proposal and the Voted I.D. proposal have done is to drive a deeper wedge between political parties in Minnesota. Two votes no just make sense this November.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

To the lady who is voting a "resounding" yes, I hope I have the chance to destroy your freedon one day. You can be pround of yourself.