Thanks for the many volunteers and hosts for this past year!
Thank you all for your help in getting the message to Minnesota this past year! Glenn Gruenhagen and Kevin Petersen met many people across Minnesota. It was good to see that everyone is not only serious about this issue but that we're now united in our understanding of keeping traditional marriage in Minnesota.
The pointed and well informed questions we received showed that many of you were already acquainted with the issue and the arguments against traditional marriage. Your work and knowledge helped others to understand the importance of keeping our current marriage definition in our culture.
Please Be Prepared
As we said in our October Newsletter, whether the amendment passed or not, this issue will not go away any time soon. So, please be prepared. Even though the current Minnesota law defining marriage as "one woman/one man" is STILL the law, changes will start immediately either by the state legislature or by the courts.
So, we must prepare for the months and years to come and not give up our fight to preserve traditional marriage! As news develops, we will contact you with more information. And please keep Kevin and Glenn in your prayers and on your "rolodex" in case you'd like to contact them about any other related issues. They’d be happy to help out in any way they can.
Secretary of State Ritchie wanted to write his own title to the marriage amendment: “Limiting the Status of Marriage to Opposite Sex Couples.” But the MN Supreme Court told Ritchie that he must keep the original title of “Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman.”
"In an appearance on 'Capitol Report,' Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie spoke with Julie Bartkey about the recent Minnesota Supreme Court rulings that affirm legislative control of the constitutional amendment process in Minnesota. Ritchie offers historical context for the rulings and urges voters to educate themselves about the amendments before casting their votes in November.”
So please, contact us to get yourself and your group informed about the marriage amendment before you cast your vote in November. Even if you plan on voting “yes” on the amendment you need to be able to educate others to do the same.
“And to anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better – no place better. Because ultimately, these are not just political issues – they are moral issues.”
First Lady Michelle Obama
At the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s General Conference June 28, 201
Some believe that government really shouldn't be in the "marriage business" anyway and should just leave it up to the churches. Besides the Constitutional case history we site below*, we've included a favorable argument (top/left on our navigation menu) for keeping the state involved in maintaining the current definition of marriage.
"Marriage; The Authority of State, Not Church" is an article by Allen Quist, a former Minnesota state representative from Saint Peter. In it, Rep. Quist explains why "...recognizing marriage is the most fundamental level of government."
*In 1885, polygamists challenged a federal law that required Utah voters to certify under oath that they were not a bigamist or polygamist before they were allowed to vote. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court upheld the law:
For certainly, no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth… than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in… the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. (Emphasis ours)
Conclusion: because marriage is promoted by society to fulfill important fundamental functions of a civil society, marriage, therefore, may be an individual bond, but it has never been an individual right. To be sure, there are many men and women married couples who either can't or don't want children, but their marriage does change the very deffinition of marriage itself.
WATCH OUT FOR POLLS LIKE THIS!
From the Feb. 9 KSTP TV News web story: “Of the 542 respondents registered to vote, 47 percent said they would vote for the amendment and 39 percent said they would vote against it. Ten percent of respondents said they would not vote and 4 percent said they were unsure.” Though it shows the amendment is favored 47 to 39 it also showed 10% who will NOT vote either way. Because a "non" vote is counted as a "no" vote, then the numbers change to 47 to 49! So, GET THE VOTE OUT! Tell that brother-in-law of yours to show up to vote "YES"!
The most influential secular thinker in the history of Western thought: