Independence Party speaks out against anti-gay marriage amendment
Friday, June 03, 2011 at 9:49 am
- 9 Comments
The Independence Party of Minnesota is the latest political party in Minnesota to oppose a proposed ballot initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota Constitution, and it’s the second party with major party status here to oppose the measure.
IP leaders released a video explaining their opposition to the amendment, and the chair of the party released a statement urging Minnesotans to vote “no” in November 2012. Already, the DFL and Libertarian Party have called on voters to reject the amendment, while the Green Party of Minnesota has long supported full marriage equality for same-sex couples.
IP chair Mark Jenkins cited the party’s platform: “We oppose having the government impose state-sponsored morality or values on people of good conscience with differing views.”
“This is why I oppose legislation or a constitutional amendment that puts any government imposed definition on a religious sacrament.”
The Independence Party, always seeking the middle ground, spelled out the reasons why the “radical right” and “liberal left” are not being reasonable on the issue of gay marriage.
“If we can focus our attention on the issues of civil rights instead of marriage, we may extend the rights all of our citizen’s deserve without threatening the sacrament of marriage,” wrote Jenkins. “I’m pretty optimistic that this could work. I hear that individual rights have a big following in conservative circles. If conservatives stay true to their beliefs, gays may just find conservative allies in the pursuit of their individual rights.”
Jenkins said, “I ask members of the Independence Party, and all Minnesotans, to oppose and work to defeat an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that outlaws same sex marriage.”
The party also put out a video opposing the amendment:
The DFL has come out against the amendment and the party’s chair, Ken Martin, released this video promising the DFL would fight the amendment “with everything we have.”
While the Green Party of Minnesota has not yet weighed in on the amendment, it has a meeting this weekend. Its platform has traditionally supported marriage equality for same-sex couples: “We support legalizing marriage for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons by applying the same standards, requirements, privileges, and responsibilities as applied to different-sexed couples.”
The Libertarian Party of Minnesota came out against the amendment during the heated debate in the legislative session.
“The proposed Gay Marriage Ban would expand government control and restrict the freedom of consenting adults to live their own lives as they choose. Libertarians believe that marriage is a private matter between individuals,” the party wrote. “We believe that marriage is a fundamental human right, and that all personal relationships, including marriage, should be at the sole discretion and agreement of the individuals involved, as well as any family, friends, or religious institutions they may choose to involve.”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter9 Comments
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 10:03 am
Under law two humans of differing sex can apply for a marriage license. For a nominal fee they get something like 515 legal rights. Roughly half of these marriages will end in divorce.
The amendment issue comes down to who can legally enter into this licensing?
Limiting it to just differing sex parties means contractual rights are denied to same sex applicants. It is a legal matter solely. Some human parties get tax deductions and some human parties cannot apply.
On the religious front there are large church groups that believe Eden was in Missouri, or that the space ships are coming back for the saved, that the mother of the Christ was a virgin etc. Under law religious belief is protected.
Licensing, in this case marriage licensing, is a legal, not a religious question.
Remember the refrain when you vote… “with liberty and justice for all.” It’s the constitution in question here, not a religious tenet.
Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MN
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 11:55 am
Legally, there’s no reason to consider it anything other than basic sex discrimination, of the same sort as allowing only men in some occupations and only women in others.
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 2:48 pm
Boy, our Taliban members at the State don’t have many friends these days do they?
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 3:48 pm
It’s good to see the Independence Party taking a stand, but why can’t they do it without a “pox on BOTH your houses” dig? They are taking a position that the so-called “liberal left” would probably agree with. I know that the Independence Party has founded itself on “we’re not Democrats or Republicans,” but that doesn’t mean both parties are always equally wrong.
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 5:09 pm
its obvious from so many blogs that the USA is close to following virtually every west european country and about 20 other major westernized countries in granting gays full equality under the law.
Its just the extremist “anything but ” christians whose forbears gave us slAvery, the KKK and segregation who now have a new group to demonize and dehumanize.
And the catholic church (not the catholic people who do support marriage or civil unions 3 to 1 for gay) who are sttill living in the dark ages of ignorance and superstition.
tje catholic church which babble about morality while it hid for God only knows how long, endless molestation of children all over the world. Even including moving many known molester priests to new locations. So the priest could continue to molest children, but also continue to get the collection plate filled.
the same church which in 2009 UNexcommunicated a Bishsop Williamson, He had been kicked out of hte church of england for denying the holocaust.
Not surprised> RATZinger was born and brought up in Nazi germany. Teh lessons of ones youth stick with most people for a lifetime
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 6:03 pm
I have said it before, and, i will say it again, “too many christians, not enough lions”
Comment posted June 3, 2011 @ 7:57 pm
Democrats, Indies and Libertarians are ALL on board.. Hopefully we can make the Republikan Party small enough to where we can Drowned it in a Bath Tub..
Pingback posted June 5, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
[...] From the Minnesota Independent: The Independence Party of Minnesota is the latest political party in Minnesota to oppose a proposed ballot initiative that would write a ban on same-sex marriage into the Minnesota Constitution, and it’s the second party with major party status here to oppose the measure. [...]
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
