Read their full argument here.

1. Point 1 – This type of vote protects people from the will of judges and legislators. 

“The marriage amendment puts the definition of marriage to a vote of the people in an attempt to protect it from judges and legislators. It will embed in the constitution the current legal definition of marriage in the state of Minnesota.”

This argument gets it backward. The reason we have 3 branches of government and don’t simply put everything up to a vote by the populace, American Idol-style, is to protect the rights of minorities. Voting essentially means the majority rules, thus minority interests tend to lose out in this process. It’s just math. This has largely been ignored in all of the states putting gay marriage up for a vote.

2. Point 2 – Even though gay marriage is illegal in Minnesota, this amendment is still necessary.

“The argument that the amendment is unnecessary because the current law is not and will not be at risk is misguided, as evidenced by Iowa, where the state supreme court has already overruled the legislature’s definition of marriage.”

This amendment is only necessary if you believe that there truly is a historical definition of marriage. Marriage has existed in many cultures and has included all kinds of fucked up stuff, have you read the Bible? Men would have sex with their wives’ “slave girls” because their wives were barren and this was supposedly the will of God. This is about making marriage about love for the first time.

3. This debate isn’t about equal rights at all, it’s about gay people wanting ‘marriage.’

“As it turns out, the debate isn’t exactly about equal rights and privileges. Opponents of the measure are clear that they do not want to settle for a civil union status that would guarantee the same rights and privileges to same-sex unions that are given to traditional marriages. It is “marriage” that they want. In effect, a union by any other name is not as sweet … Arguments based on sameness, or business climate are attractive but perhaps too simple. Some people who argue for sameness when it comes to same-sex marriage are selective about the use of sameness, and are not so keen on the idea when it comes to taxation (they like it progressive) or college admissions (they support preferences).”

You are essentially arguing for segregation. Don’t cloud that by riling people up about taxes or bringing up affirmative action. It seems as if you don’t remember  the malice inherent in the idea of “separate but equal.” This idea hurts minorities, whereas affirmative action and high tax rates for millionaires only mildly inconvenience people who already in relatively powerful positions in society.

4. Changing marriage from a traditional biological family institution to something between two consenting adults is not in the best interest of the state.

“Supporters of the amendment claim that marriage properly understood is an institution to promote and protect the stability of a biological family unit — mother, father and their children. Their position is that traditional marriage is child-centered and that the state has a special interest in promoting the biological family. They claim that marriage is the most pro-child institution we have — and the only institution that connects children with their parents. They hold that moving to a consenting-adults model and away from the child-centered model will damage the society in which we live in a significant way.”

How does the state have an interest in promoting the biological (or reproductive) family over other types of families? I would like some proof of that statement. It could be that the government at one point wanted to encourage population growth but we live in a time of looming global overpopulation, which includes many children looking for loving homes. Shouldn’t the government support families who may prefer to adopt children as well as “biological” families?

Beyond that, should the government discriminate against couples that don’t want to have children? That seems difficult to execute. Should it be illegal for me to get married if I do not plan to have children? Because that also has implications on just what a woman’s role should be in the eyes of the government. Let’s just not go there, hm?

And the idea that marriage is “the only institution that connects children with their parents” is just funny. If my parents were not married would I just float away from my parents because I have no other logical reason to interact with them? The parent-child bond, even if not biological, needs no government sanction to exist.

5. Current pro-gay marriage sentiment is hurting many people by causing certain people who are against gay marriage to feel castigated, or even sometimes, to get fired.

“Already in the course of ordinary reporting on this amendment, the Pioneer Press has encountered traditionalists who withhold their names for fear of the possible consequences of addressing the issue. None of which is to suggest that we do not support free speech and the right to protest and transparency in the political process. The point is that the story would be incomplete if it left out any mention of the consequences.” [Read the whole thing for more fun points about people in the corporate sector getting fired.]

People who hold power positions in our society are getting so good at reversing the dialogue to somehow appear to be the ones who are truly oppressed. The government acknowledging gay marriage might kinda suck for people who like to openly declare that “God hates fags” because the triumph of civil rights tends to make being openly intolerant go out of style. During the 60’s people probably got fired for discriminating against black people when doing so started to become less and less acceptable. Do we really want to be feeling bad for our era’s intolerant people above everything else?

Conclusion

Yes, this is an editorial in a newspaper, and it is allowed to be political, to be biased and to not necessarily represent how many other staffers feel about an issue. But during a political season, an official endorsement (or pitiful lack of direct endorsement) is looked at with much more gravity by its readers. They are looking for the guidance of a whole editorial department on how they should feel about an issue. Is this really what you want to go into the records that people will look back on in 30 years?

My parents have been subscribing to the Pioneer Press since I was a child, a period of time in which they’ve become aware of the many gay people in our lives and have only become more and more compassionate and educated about this issue. This print newspaper, in a time when print is already suffering, has now lost another subscription.

–Becky Lang