Same-Sex Marriage Amendment
Disregarding the merits of this amendment, which both sides are passionate about, let me go off on the proponants of this amendment. I’m getting sick and tired of Sen. Bachman et al. saying one thing and then doing another!
What am I talking about? Ask a supporter (like Bachman) what the purpose of this amendment is for. An honest person will stick to responses like “ensuring the preservation of the concept of marriage”. Unfortunately, Bachman and her compatriots in St. Paul, in an effort to endear their position to middle-of-the-road Minnesotans, try telling us that the purpose is to ensure that the courts won’t overturn the State law. Now, while I do not believe that the current Supreme Court nor any in the near future will likely overturn the law, it is a valid concern. Judicial activism (gotta love over-used, trite, buzz-words) is alive and well in the United States (for about 200 or so years…) and the law has that possibility to be over-turned.
To protect the law and the belief of proponants, yes, you need to have a state amendment. But here’s where I take issue. If that be truely what you wanted; if that really were the intent, the amendment you would adopt would be the amendment adopted by Hawai’i. That amendment stated that the definition of marriage is the sole purview of the Legislature regardless of any other clause in the state constitution.
Instead they have introduced a very broad amendment that, in effect, takes away the power to define marriage from the state legislature. The purpose of this amendment is to lock in this idea of marriage and make it as difficult as possible to change our minds (as a state). Furthermore, while not likely as threatening to current benifits as opponents are suggesting, it is very uncertain on how far reaching this amendment would be. To someone who absolutely opposes such relationships, they have no problems with this, but most Minnesotans are somewhere in the middle. They don’t want same-sex marriages, but yet they feel same-sex couples should be granted certain rights. These are the people who should be concerned about such an amendment.
The mis-representation of the courts in this matter is that they are accused of imposing their will upon the people of Massachussets. The first Supreme Court under John Jay heard the matter of Chisolm v. Georgia. A case that shocked the nation when they said that the Constitution gave them the power to try the case even though most of the people said they did not. This was in 1793. Lawyer’s for the state of Georgia were so incensed that they didn’t even show up! So the court ruled against the state and the will of the people in ruling in favor of Chisolm.
Was their will imposed on the people? Absolutely not, for in this nation the people have the last say in everything. As a result of the Court’s decision, the Eleventh Amendment was ratified. The people over-ruled the decision of the Supreme Court. Massachussets had a choice. They could accept the court’s ruling and create laws that conformed to their ruling or they could over-rule the court and amend their Constitution. They chose to accept the ruling of the court.
We are not left impotent by the decisions of any court in this land. We as the people have the final say of how we should be ruled and let no fear-monger lead you to believe otherwise. This amendment proposed is probably not necessary, but it is our choice as a state. If we are to head down this path, let us head down it with clarity and honesty. This misrepresentation of purpose, solely intended to lull middle-of-the-roaders into a false sense of security, is reprehensible and is more destructive that either passing (or not passing depending on your pov) this amendment.