BLOG: Momentum Grows to Defeat Amendment Limiting Freedom to Marry

Memo from Minnesotans United for All Families on the growing momentum to defeat the amendment.

Editor's Note: This post originates with Burnsville Patch, but given the fact that it addresses a statewide issue it has been cross-published across Patch's Minnesota sites. If your organization also wishes to blog about a statewide issue, please contact the editor of the nearest Patch.

In the past week, momentum to defeat the proposed Constitutional amendment to limit the freedom to marry has intensified, with thousands of Minnesotans across the state joining our campaign, hosting house parties and preparing to defeat this amendment in November. This campaign is truly the most energetic grassroots campaign Minnesota has ever seen.

Last week’s vote in North Carolina approving a similar amendment has galvanized Minnesotans against the amendment in our state. People from across the state are coming out in droves to get involved in the campaign. President Barack Obama made history Wednesday when he came out in favor of the freedom to marry for committed, same-sex couples. His decision reflects the fact that, more and more, Americans from all walks of life and across party lines are reaching the conclusion that we should not limit the freedom to marry, and that doing so rejects the values of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In the wake of President Obama’s statement, the conversation about the freedom to marry continues to spread across the state. Minnesotans are on a journey when it comes to their opinions on marriage for gay and lesbian couples — and the more Minnesotans have these important conversations about love, commitment and responsibility, the more likely they are to agree that marriage is for everyone.

This weekend, Minnesotans United for All Families will host One Day United, an event featuring more than 200 house parties across the state, bringing together thousands of people to discuss what marriage means to us here in Minnesota and how its critical that we defeat this freedom-limiting amendment. 

Momentum is growing rapidly, and with just over five months until Election Day, Minnesotans United for All Families is confident this will be the first state to say no to limiting the freedom to marry.


• STAR TRIBUNE LAUDS PRESIDENT OBAMA FOR LEADERSHIP, ENCOURAGES MINNESOTANS TO DEFEAT AMENDMENT IN NOVEMBER. In this weekend’s Star Tribune, the editorial board opined that President Obama’s voice on marriage should be heard in Minnesota, and said, “Now that Obama has announced his position, we hope he'll be a leader in ending discrimination against gays. Perhaps he can start by encouraging Minnesotans to defeat the same-sex marriage amendment when he campaigns here next month.” [Star Tribune, May 13, 2012]

• NEW POLL SHOWS CLEAR MAJORITY OF MINNESOTA VOTERS BELIEVE THAT SAME-SEX COUPLES SHOULD HAVE FREEDOM TO MARRY. A recent SurveyUSA poll conducted for KSTP showed 52 percent of respondents agreed with President Obama that same-sex couples should be able to get married, and only 42 percent disagreed. This poll suggests a growing number of Minnesotans are changing their opinions: a November 2011 Star Tribune poll showed 48 percent of Minnesotans supported the amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, with 43 percent opposed. [KSTP-TV, May 13, 2012]

• MINNESOTA REPUBLICANS TO VOTE ON DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. Demonstrating that the conversation on marriage is happening all over the state and across party lines, delegates to the GOP State Convention this weekend will vote on “whether to change the party’s platform to eliminate the definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman.” [Minnpost, May 10, 2012]

• PRESIDENT OBAMA AFFIRMS FREEDOM TO MARRY. On Wednesday, May 9, President Obama made history when he became the first sitting president to say publicly that he supports the freedom to marry for all couples. President Obama said his opinions on marriage for gay and lesbian couples have evolved over time and he has now come to the conclusion that “same-sex couples should be able to get married.” [ABC News, May 9, 2012]

• LONG-TIME MINNESOTA REPUBLICAN AGREES WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA. Following President Obama’s statements on Wednesday, Minnesotan Republican Wheelock Whitney, a board member of Minnesotans United for All Families, released a statement saying this amendment would limit the freedom of Minnesotans and conflicts with the state’s “strong tradition of practicing the golden rule, of rejecting too much intrusion into our personal lives, and of not mixing religion and politics. There is not a bone in my conservative body that tells me that we should limit the freedom to marry for committed, same-sex couples.” [MN United, May 9, 2012]

• FOURTH MINNESOTA ELCA SYNOD OPPOSES AMENDMENT. On Saturday, the Northwest Minnesota Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, which represents more than 107,000 members, became the fourth group to pass a resolution opposing the amendment. The Northwestern Minnesota Synod is the fourth in Minnesota this year to vote to publicly oppose the proposed amendment that would limit the freedom to marry. The Minneapolis Area Synod, the Northeastern Minnesota Synod and the Southeastern Minnesota Synod have all passed similar resolutions. The Saint Paul Area Synod is expected to pass a similar resolution at its annual assembly in Burnsville this week. [MN United, May 12, 2012]


Kate Brickman

Press Secretary

Minnesotans United for All Families

cell | 815-343-9299

office | 651-330-6852

twitter | @katebrickman

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

rob_h78 June 12, 2012 at 05:11 PM
You can bet that freeing slaves, giving women the vote, giving black people the vote, letting black people ride in the front of the bus, not making 7 year old children work in dangerous factories, allowing mixed race marriage, etc... were all considered by many to be the decay of society, crazy "liberalism" run amok, etc... For people who decry change they always will say "But this time its different" and they will state many reasons why but when you look back through human history every time there is change people who fight change will say "But this time its different" and will cite many reasons why... Nothing changes, the fight is always the same, its just different issues that are fought over, but as with issues in the past, eventually gay marriage will happen, people will look around and realize that in fact the country continues on, their lives are not impacted at all, and then a few years later only the most bitter of people who lack enough of life to move on will still be fighting and complaining - and yet the vast majority of people will be asking "Now what was the big deal about that issue again?" and the younger generations will look back and shake their ends in wonder at how people could act so horribly towards another group of people.
James Warden June 12, 2012 at 07:07 PM
Since we've had several questions in this post and others about what speech should be allowed, I wanted to let y'all know that we posted a new article specifically addressing that question. http://hopkins.patch.com/articles/how-would-you-keep-conversation-civil-without-cutting-off-debate We want to know what you think. When does speech cross over from an attack on an issue to an attack on a group of people? How would you balance the need for civil dialog with vigorous debate on key issues? How would you allow diverse opinions and still keep the conversation polite? What speech, if any, should be off limits? Check out the article and let us know what you think.
ABSG June 13, 2012 at 12:07 PM
I am all for Freedom of Speech and Non-Censorship. It's not a debate, news story, opinion, a comment or fact if you are restricitng people on what they can or can not say. In reality there are just way to many weak people in this world and we allow people to be weak by protecting them. Censoring "swearing or cursing" for example, are modes of speech existing in all human languages. They are simply descriptive words to express an emotion, feeling, thought, etc ... I am not "offended" by swearing in a conversation and hate it when an entire comment is censored because of one descriptive word. Free Speech = Honest Debate
Debbie Parrish July 24, 2012 at 07:43 PM
While I agree that the government should not have the right to deny ANYBODY from marrying who they love and want a commitment with....I believe this should be extended to include ALL groups....regardless of race, creed, religious beliefs, gender AND relationship by blood. I think that ideally what hurts nobody else personally is nobody else's business!
Tom Kent September 09, 2012 at 03:24 AM
Veda that presentation is very one-sided and misleading. Google lists over a dozen critiques of it which make good reading, eg http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »