Yes to marriage
Yes to marriage
On Nov. 6 you will be asked to vote on the proposed constitutional Marriage Protection Amendment.
So why is our Minnesota government concerned with marriage? The primary business of the state is justice. The essential “public purpose” of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, as opposed to “private purposes” for getting married such as love, etc. Because children are not autonomous and able to defend their entitlements, adult society has an obligation in justice to provide institutional structures that protect children’s interests. Marriage is that institutional structure that protects children’s identity and relational rights. Without this public purpose we wouldn’t need marriage as a distinct social institution.
Same sex couples and opposite sex couples are obviously different with respect to this essential public purpose of marriage. Attempting to create one legal institution that treats same sex couples identically with opposite sex couples is inconsistent with the state’s purpose for marriage law.
Children’s needs and rights are to be raised in a society whose legal, religious, and cultural institutions intentionally promote, and do nothing to compromise the principle that children should be raised, as nearly as possible, by the parents who conceive them. Redefining marriage disregards the needs of children, brushes aside a large body of social science data that demonstrates the benefits of children being raised by their biological married parents, dismisses human flourishing and offends social justice.
Law and government must regulate marriage, but they do not create the meaning of marriage anymore than they create the meaning of education or business. Government is not interested in who you love or who you marry. They are interested in the perpetuation and stabilization of society through attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.
Vote yes Nov. 6.