In just over a month, Minnesotans will be asked to amend our state’s Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. Minnesota has become afraid that prohibiting same sex marriages will be found to be unconstitutional by what proponents of the amendment declare to be liberal activist judges. The bulk of the message to sway support to amend our Constitution lies within the confines of protecting marriage. But I ask, protect it from what? Love?

First, we want to protect marriage, this vote should make divorce unconstitutional. No one is arguing that we should protect marriage from divorce. Perhaps we should constitutionally provide harsh penalties against adultery? I believe adultery and divorce are the true enemies of marriage, not love.

I too once took the un-informed stance that it was wrong to be gay. Then I realized if people “choose” to be gay, then people choose to be straight. I am happily married to a wonderful woman, and am lucky that I could marry the person I love. So many do not have that opportunity.

No one has yet to make an argument to me how my personal life is going to change overnight if two men or two women were to exchange vows and commit to one another for a lifetime in front of their friends and families. To me, if you are opposed to a gay person getting married, don’t marry a gay.

I am personally ashamed that the Minnesota Legislature has taken this stance. I am saddened that we have taken a document that guarantees us basic rights and freedoms, and are now going to use it to prohibit equal rights. We are taking from the LGBT community, the right to the pursuit of happiness.

For some, this is a moral, religious vote. Those people have a right to their morals and beliefs! But so do the people they are trying to ban the opportunity of marriage from. One thing that is muddied in this debate is the fact that our state’s laws do not allow same sex marriages, and if this amendment proposition is defeated, the law won’t change. The LGBT community will still have to fight for equal rights, this vote is whether we will allow them the pursuit of happiness. People also must understand that the state cannot force any church to perform same sex marriages. Today, a minister can decide to perform a wedding ceremony. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the churches will still have that right.

You will see letters and ads intended to scare you into voting yes on the amendment. The idea that defeating this amendment will open the door to multiple partner unions or incest unions is preposterous. When marriage was re-defined to allow inter-racial partners to marry, did that ruin us? Not a single bit.

Our constitution should not be changed simply because the majority class believes it is wrong the way the minority class lives or believes. Join me in voting for love, and vote no!

Chris Reed

Deer River

(1) comment

lifetraveler
lifetraveler

Excellent letter. You expressed many of my thoughts. Thank you.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.