Minnesota and Marriage

Marriage neutering advocates have a lot of time to send around videos, it seems. In apparemt lockstep, they champion the same snippets, usually featuring appeals to emotion instead of discussing what is good public policy and why. Liz Goodwin wrote about the popularity of a video out of Minnesota, where some people are looking to enshrine explicitly in the state constitution what is already law and, of course, socially natural, and what was the opinion of those who adopted the Constitution, and every great moral or civil rights leader in history, and every President up through this writing.

Though Minnesota politicians voted to put a gay marriage ban on the ballot in 2012 yesterday, the eloquent words of one of the measure's detractors have caught the nation's attention.

Or, at least this reporter's assignment editor's attention. I highly doubt the legislation is actually a "gay marriage ban" (haven't read it myself), but it is interesting to note the folks who don't want the people, on whose behalf state marriage licenses are issued, to have a say.

Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, gave an impassioned speech asking lawmakers on the House committee not to place a gay marriage ban in the state's Constitution.

It doesn't really matter how much emotion he used. The emotion is not noted in the law books. His job is to legislate, not get emotional.

"I'm Jewish. Eating pork or shellfish is not allowed in my tradition, but I would never ask the government to impose that on our fellow citizens," Simon said.

This is a bad analogy. It is marriage neutering advocates who are trying to impose something on others. It would be a better analogy to say that people who love eating shrimp wrapped in pork bacon want to force a change in the law so that the state will certify that combination as "kosher". You can change the law to say that shrimp wrapped in bacon is kosher, but it doesn't mean it is really kosher, and the meaning of "kosher" would be diluted.

Marriage neutering advocates want to change marriage law in a way that has an effect on everyone.

"We have to be careful about trying to enshrine our beliefs, however religiously valid you may believe them to be, in the Minnesota Constitution."

Marriage neutering advocates want to enshrine their beliefs in the law. All law enshrines someone's belief.

He then referenced a clergy member who testified to the committee that sexuality was a gift from God.

"I think that's true [...] and I would ask everyone on this committee [...] if that's true, if it's even possibly true, what does that do to the moral force of your argument?"

"How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants them around?" he asked to applause.

This doesn't follow. Assuming homosexuality is an inherent and God-given characteristic of someone, how does that necessitate the neutering of marriage, or more precisely, not taking steps to prevent a state judge from neutering marriage? Homosexual people can exist and engage in sex-like behavior without a state marriage license. They have been proving that for a long time, haven't they?

But I also note that God seems to want wildfires around, too, at least the ones started by molten lava, lightning, or other natural means, but that doesn't mean we should just sit down and let the wall of flames wash over us. And how many people are born with, or develop eyesight problems? But we still take steps to address those; would this guy say that God wants us to have poor eyesight?

I wonder what a lot of the people promoting this video would say if someone use the same argument against abortion? How many unplanned pregnancies does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether or not God actually wants those babies around? How many of the people promoting this video really believe in a Creator God, as opposed to insisting all of us (including homosexual people), are literally nothing more than accidents of natural processes, nothing more than the result of molecules purposelessly interacting? Consistent and wholistic worldviews don't seem to be hallmark of a lot of these popular marriage neutering advocates.

"I frequently hear that the marriage amendment is needed to support and protect families. I ask you today, why isn't my daughter's family worthy of support?" Bruce Ause of Red Wing, who has a daughter in a same-sex relationship, asked the committee.

Your daughter's family is not entitled to support at the expense of supporting what is of more interest to society – sex-inclusive unions that create a microcosm of society and are the kind that can naturally perpetuate society. You, and others, can support your daughter's family in many ways.

"If this amendment passes today, how will I explain to my grandson that in the eyes of Minnesota, his family is worthless?"

Wait, they don't have a marriage license right now. Are they worthless now? How about explaining to him the truth – that in the eyes of Minnesota, it isn't a marriage if there is no groom? I think there's a larger problem that man has, which is explaining to his grandson why his mother apparently thinks fathers aren't important to children. Why should this boy ever feel compelled to raise his own children?

It is reasonable, moral, practical, Constitutional, and often necessary to treat different kinds of associations differently.

Given how many states have relatively recently explicitly codified it in state law, I’d say explicit support of the bride+groom requirement in state marriage licensing has gone viral.