Your party’s move to put to a statewide vote a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is unnecessary (we already have a state law on the books that defines marriage as such). It is also a political ploy, attempting to fire up the conservative base, bringing them to the polls in hopes of defeating Barack Obama. I hope it backfires on you (and, if today’s poll is correct, it will).
What this amendment campaign will do is flood our state with outside money from groups that thrive on an embittered and polarized electorate.
But, most tragically, it will send a message to my friends (and your constituents) like Rachel, that she is not a valued citizen of our state. I’d like you to take a moment to read Rachel’s post and reconsider your support of this amendment; Rachel writes,
In more than 515 ways (and more than twice that federally) our marriage is inferior to that of my opposite gender counterparts.I am not asking anyone to bless what Karen and I have. God has, and will continue to do that. What I am asking is for our marriage to not be constitutionally banned. I am asking that the state in which I live and love and have my being to not put my right to ever be married to Karen to a vote.The proposed amendment protects absolutely no one. It does not create jobs or attract visitors and would be Minnesotans to our state. It does hurt, a lot, being vulnerable, unprotected. I can’t lie and say “please just leave us alone and let us live life as we have it now” because that is not what I want either. I wish it were enough.
It isn’t. I don’t have a gay agenda, I have a love agenda. I have a are-you-kidding-me-I-am-not-a-threat-to-your-marriage-agenda. I believe that by allowing Karen and I equal protection under the law, we can be more beneficial, more productive, more honest members of our community, our society and our world. May it be so.
Read her whole post and answer me this: How is Rachel’s marriage a threat to yours, or to our state?