This is the same sort of totally illogical argument that right-wingers used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment decades ago. They argued that the ERA would “force” women to share bathrooms with men, among other absurd claims. These fanatics will resort to anything in order to achieve their goals.

Every Minnesotan, irrespective of sexual orientation or marital status, has the right to determine who will make a final determination of what happens to his or her body. Any law that prevents such voluntary action and agreement should be repealed.

On the other hand, the argument that benefits and privileges should not be extended to specific relationships without the attendant obligations is also valid. Extending benefits to same-sex couples without or before the legal obligations imposed by marriage is begging the question and side-stepping the issue of same-sex marriage rather than confronting it.

If the legislature doesn’t have the courage to propose and vote on legislation that grants full privileges and obligations of marriage to same-sex couples (which I would support) then it should confine itself to legislation that removes barriers to any two individuals, irrespective of sexual orientation, voluntarily contracting for all of the benefits automatically given to married couples. It should not automatically confer benefits on a “domestic partnership,” irrespective of sexual orientation, that has no legal standing.

Rule of law means requires doing the right things right. If same-sex marriage is the right thing to do, it should be implemented in a principled way.