Minnesotans United For All Families
Against Marriage Amendment
Minnesotans across the state are having a conversation about what marriage means and who has the freedom to participate in it. By voting no on this amendment, we are saying that marriage is about love, commitment and responsibility and that committed, same-sex couples want to get married for similar reasons as everyone else.
What's more, a No Vote says that here in Minnesota, we do not want to mix religion and politics in our constitution and that this amendment represents too much intrusion in our personal lives. Voting no says that this amendment would put a one-size-fits-all government mandate on religious institutions.
By voting no, we are upholding Minnesota's long-held values of freedom and fairness, because in this state, love is love, and freedom means freedom for everybody.
Minnesota For Marriage
Supports Marriage Amendment
A NO votes denies the importance of marriage, takes the dialogue about marriage out of the hands of the people, and rejects the proven consequences of redefining marriage.
First, a NO vote repudiates the centrality of marriage, an institution that the United States Supreme Court recognized as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race." For thousands of years, marriage has protected and nurtured generations of children. Indeed, many studies have confirmed this fact by showing that children raised by both of their biological parents are statistically the most healthy and successful. A NO vote denies these facts and places the desires of adults ahead of the needs of children.
Second, a NO vote removes the debate about the purpose and importance of marriage from the hands of Minnesotans and instead empowers activist judges and legislators to force Minnesotans to accept the demands of special interest groups. This occurred in both Iowa, where the state Supreme Court decided that the interests of children are unimportant to marriage, and in New York, where the state Legislature narrowly voted to redefine marriage.
Third, a NO vote minimizes or accepts the visible consequences of legalized same-sex marriage. Although there has been much talk of same-sex unions peacefully coexisting beside traditional marriage, states that have legalized same-sex "marriage" have suffered negative consequences. For example, in Massachusetts, parents of second-graders objected to their children being forced to read a book about a prince who marries another prince. The school refuted the parents' protests, and the parents eventually lost their lawsuit against the school when the Massachusetts courts ruled that parents have no right to prior notice of same-sex friendly curriculum and no right to opt out their children from such instruction. In New Mexico, a photography business was successfully sued for $6,600 because they refused to photograph a same-sex couple.