LTE: Vote No on Amendment 1 to Continue the Conversation Regarding Marriage Equality

To the Editor:

The conversation in Minnesota regarding marriage for gay and lesbian couples is complicated, emotional and, more often than not, uncomfortable. But it is beneficial. Both sides share the hope for a Minnesota that guarantees our right to religion and protects and recognizes our families. We just disagree on how we get there.

There is an important distinction to be drawn between changing “ordinary” legislation and amending a constitution. While our national legislature has passed thousands of laws, for instance, it has only amended the federal Constitution on twenty‐seven occasions, ten passed shortly after ratification as the Bill of Rights, and three of which – the 13th, 14th, and 15th – took a civil war to enact. This was a deliberate aspect of our democratic system envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Intentionally difficult to amend, constitutions function as an overarching structure that designate broad areas in which Congress can and cannot act. When we amend our Constitution, it is the final word, the discussion ends. Our legislature, for example, need not debate women’s suffrage, slavery, and the freedom of speech and religion. We therefore passed constitutional amendments to ensure they are never again questioned.

But we need to continue having a conversation about marriage. This proposed amendment does us the great disservice of preventing our democracy from working as it was designed. In contrast to constitutional amendments, ordinary laws allow Minnesotans to formulate and test legislative solutions so that we can respond to new information and meet changing conditions in our state. By voting “no” to this ballot measure, we choose continued deliberation and evaluation of the existing laws on marriage already on the books. 

These existing laws, according to Professor Anthony Winer and others at the William Mitchell College of Law, deny same‐sex couples 515 legal recognitions associated with civil marriage covering everything from healthcare to inheritance. More specifically, these cover routine issues from tax credits to property management that many may not immediately associate with marriage. Most people that do not support same‐sex marriage still recognize the right, the humanity, of allowing same‐sex couples to visit their partners in the hospital. The proposed constitutional amendment, however, would nix that automatically and take that conversation off the table. Have we already reached a consensus to permanently deny the ability of same‐sex partners to make funeral arrangements for their deceased loved ones? Is the jury really out when it comes to withholding benefits for the partners of service members and veterans? I don’t think so, and I don’t think most Minnesotans are ready to stop compromising on these issues for gay citizens that fall outside the religious realm.

The area of religious liberty is another area that calls for thoughtful action. Nearly 120 faith communities and houses of worship have publicly supported same‐sex marriage during this campaign. Next week, are we going to deny these churches and synagogues the ability to recognize unions they deem holy? Let us instead support a solution that respects places of worship on both sides. 

Voting “no,” doesn’t mean that you support gay marriage, which is already illegal in this state. Nor does it mean that we will suddenly agree, or that this debate will become less charged or messy. But voting “yes” does mean that the conversation ends by permanently denying gay couples any social space whatsoever in Minnesota – there is no legal civil union option to go to in this case ‐‐ hurting their families and the businesses that employ them. Voting “no” means that you don’t think its ok to dispose of an entire class of rights, all 515 of them, wholesale for any segment of our population without further debate. Let’s not deny ourselves the chance to have this discussion and to find the areas of compromise that do exist.

Barbara Allen, professor of Political Science at Carleton College
Cameron Combs, graduated summa cum laude from Carleton College who now works in international affairs in Washington, DC.