A Minnesota Senate committee today approved a state marriage amendment which is widely expected to be approved by the entire legislature next month. The amendment will then be put on the 2012 ballot for approval by the state’s voters.
There’s just one problem, and it’s a big one: the proposed amendment will be useless. Why? It has no effect on the various marriage counterfeit arrangements for which homosexuals advocate, like civil unions and domestic partnerships.
Sadly, the bill only protects the eight letters in the word “marriage,” while doing nothing to protect the institution itself. The text of the proposed amendment reads: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”
This is incredibly weak legal language, and will only open up the future possibility of a rogue judge declaring that homosexuals can receive the same rights and benefits of marriage, albeit under another legal name like “civil union.”
Homosexual activists know this, and many have openly advocated for weak marriage amendments, knowing that they can still get everything they want under another name. And, they say, once homosexuals have all the rights and benefits of marriage for a period of time, people will begin to forget why they wanted to protect marriage in the first place.
Click here to read FPN’s policy paper on weak state marriage amendments: http://familypolicy.net/papers/state-marriage-amendments
After hours of passionate and often poignant testimony, a Minnesota Senate committee on Friday for the first time approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Judiciary and Public Safety Committee passed the Republican-sponsored bill on an 8-4 party-line vote, putting it on course for Minnesotans to vote it up or down on the 2012 general election ballot.
Same-sex marriage is already banned in the state under a decades-old law upheld by the state Supreme Court. But the bill’s chief sponsor, Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, said defining marriage is such an important issue that it should be decided by a public referendum.
Read the rest of this news story here:
And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our God have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this, should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor?(NKJV)