A Constitutional amendment regarding marriage was debated in the Senate last week. I did not support the amendment because I believe marriage is an institution created by God, and thus, belongs in God’s domain. Accordingly, I believe that the established religions and their leaders, not government, should have authority over marriage. To maintain our Constitutional separation of church and state, the government should adopt a different term for the rights, responsibilities and protections which are now called “marriage.” Under the equal protection clauses in our Constitution, every adult citizen should have the equal right to enter into that social contract with one other adult. I believe that this kind of resolution would enhance our social harmony and our common humanity, unlike the divisive debates in Congress and state legislatures under the Constitutional amendment process. They would incite ugly prejudice, invite mean-spirited demagoguery, and inevitably lead to more intolerance, discrimination, and abuse against gay and lesbian Americans. This country was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It took more than 140 years, however, before amendments to the Constitution extended those rights, fully and equally, to all American citizens. Even those amendments marked only the beginning, not the end, of the paths to full equality in all aspects of American life for everyone. Although social changes have been slow, difficult and inconsistent, most of them have marked progress toward tolerance, acceptance and understanding. The proposed marriage amendment, however, would be a step in the wrong direction. It would be the first time our Constitution has ever been amended to discriminate against certain Americans. It would be the first Constitutional amendment to create inequality rather than to expand equality. Respecting the God-given identity of every citizen and allowing people’s differences are what distinguish democracies from dictatorships. Even dictatorships permit those human beliefs and behaviors which conform to their ideas and ideologies. Only democracies allow their citizens the freedom to believe and behave differently from the norms of the majority. Nevertheless, in 1996 Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act to define and protect the institution of marriage. This federal law states that the word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife. The law also says that no state need recognize a same-sex marriage enacted elsewhere. That is the unchallenged law of the United States of America. The proposed Constitutional amendment would not have added any legal protection to what that federal law already provides marriage, and no additional legal protection is necessary. So why are the amendment’s proponents misleading Americans about the need for one? It is no coincidence that the marriage amendment was brought before the Senate in this presidential election year, or that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, another presidential election year. This Constitutional amendment is not necessary to protect marriage, but rather to protect some politician’s jobs. Some of those politicians claim support from God, Jesus Christ, or the Bible. I recently reread the New Testament and could not find a single instance in which Jesus referred to same sex marriage. His principal instruction was to love thy neighbor as thyself. It was His second Great Commandment, which superseded all the others. He also warned several times to beware of false prophets, who spread hatred rather than love. I refer to the Bible, because it is being used, or I believe misused, by some politicians in support of this amendment. They cite one paragraph in Paul’s Letter to the Romans to claim that the New Testament condemns same-sex relationships. That claim persuades many devout Americans to support the Constitutional amendment on marriage, even though it violates this nation’s founding principles. Our country’s founders, most of whom were also deeply religious, considered Jesus’ Biblical teachings the basis for every citizen’s unalienable rights. They also followed His instruction to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and render unto God that which is God’s, by establishing the Constitutional separation between church and state. They did not want a country free from religion; they wanted a country free for religions. They knew that religious freedom depended upon all religions being independent of government, so that all citizens could worship freely according to their different religious beliefs. My proposal would honor that separation and place marriage under the authority of religions. I believe it would be the best way to protect the sacredness of marriage, while preserving the principles of equality and nondiscrimination, all of which are Minnesota and American values. I can be reached toll-free in Minnesota (888) 224-9043 or in Washington D.C. at (202) 224-3244, or by e-mail at http://dayton.senate.gov
