Marriage Laws

I am not one who cares to share political views publicly on Facebook very often, but this year there is one issue that has been making headlines in Minnesota for months.  On November 6, 2012, Minnesotans will be asked to vote on a Minnesota Constitutional Amendment regarding Marriage.  The amendment is in regards to whether the State shall recognize only the union of one man and one woman in marriage.  The proposed amendment reads as follows:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 88--S.F.No. 1308

An act

proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution; adding a section
to article XIII; recognizing marriage as only a union between one man and one
woman.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

    Section 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the
amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article XIII, to read:
Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a
marriage in Minnesota.

    Sec. 2. SUBMISSION TO VOTERS.
(a) The proposed amendment must be submitted to the people at the 2012 general
election. The question submitted must be:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?

		Yes .....
		No ..... "

(b) The title required under Minnesota Statutes, section 204D.15, subdivision 1,
for the question submitted to the people under paragraph (a) shall be "Recognition of
Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman."
Filed with the Secretary of State May 25, 2011

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=88&doctype=Chapter&year=2011&type=0

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 As to how I intend to vote on this ballot, I am not going to divulge my decision.  What I do want to share with you is my opinion of the ballot itself.  I have always been a very strong supporter of the U.S. Constitution, and feel the ballot is a violation against the "Separation of Church and State" phrase within the U.S. Bill of Rights First Amendment.  As you know, the text of the Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  If you go back and read the first part, it says, "...or protecting the free exercise thereof..."   Although the U.S. Constitution is in regards to Congress, I do believe the "Separation of Church and State" refers to the separation between religion as a whole and individual states.  In other words, Minnesota (and other states) violate this clause when they propose and/or pass legislative issues related to church and/or religion.  I believe Marriage is a sacred act that is passed down through centuries as a religious act, and is an issue that should not be legislated by our state or national government.

I would like to close by sharing part of a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist group in Massachusetts in 1802.  He very eloquently shared his views on what is now known as the "Separation of Church and State" clause:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

......Just a Thought.........