Marriage Amendment in Minnesota is an Abomination which All should oppose

I have voiced opposition to amending the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit same sex marriages prior to today's blog (see this blog for the entry of November 11, 2011).  In good conscience and after much soul searching, I oppose this so called Marriage Amendment as ill conceived and mischievous in its intent and dishonest in terms of the discussions which we the people of Minnesota actually need to have (in our families, in our religious bodies, and in our legislature about laws affording safe haven for the child). 

Is this amendment really about values or clarification of values by citizens?  That it serve such a purpose is a bit of a stretch.  Why?

Because it is about an exclusion of minority of persons being excluded from the benefits and sanctions of marriage if the two persons to be married be of the same gender. 

Because if this is about the child, then tax advantage should go to the parent, parents, or foster parents who provide housing, clothing, food, and nurturance (inclusive of course of education), not just to those who happen to fit Minnesota's current legal definition of marriage as between persons of the opposite sex. 

Because if this is about procreation as a sanction of the human sex act, give everyone a free pass.  There is a slight correlation under the best of circumstances for that portion of matching periods of fertility of male and female egg and sperm donors.  Donors?  Yes, a homosexual couple can have a fertilization occur to procure the birth of a live child.  Go figure.

Because if I opposed this amendment on religious grounds, it would be to say that I think homosexual couples may not covenant with God (or the Divine Sacred) to be faithful and exclusive in their sexual and whole life commitment to one another.  That's a tad bit presumptuous for me to assert over another fellow human being to say the least, since I'm not God.  In terms of retarding sexually transmitted disease that would be a truly moral outcome of legitimizing same sex marriage, not banning it.

Yet, I'd like to argue for the moral law of tradition, but while that informs public policy and debate, it is most helpful when identifying the sins, omissions and commissions, which offend God.  I'd also like to say that if the State were to back off in sanctioning any marriage, it'd be more to the point of libertarian views of gun ownership, abortion, and de-regulation in general.  Maybe that is where this is going.  Not today.  Why?  Because this proposed amendment is not addressing that issue. 

Finally, I for one believe that the atheists, secularists, as well as Hindu, Christian, Jew, and Moslem traditionalists under our Federal Constitution can sanction which marriages shall be blessed and even to be encouraged by religion.  That's a different argument and again for a different day (and audience).

We should all regret the expenditure of public funds, private donations, and rancor this proposed amendment has elicited.  Ill conceived and unwarranted.  The Republican Legislature of Minnesota should be embarrassed to say it emanated from its "wisdom."