Victory: Marriage amendment going to the ballot in Minnesota

Voters in the North Star State now have the chance to ratify a Constitutional amendment declaring marriage as a union of one man and one woman. Late last night the Minnesota House of Representatives approved a measure placing the question on the ballot in November 2012. The Minnesota Senate had already approved the measure.

This development represents a dramatic turn of events and underscores the importance of making sure pro-family voters show up on Election Day. In the run-up to last year’s elections, pro-family activists in Minnesota were worried that Mark Dayton would get elected governor (which he did, narrowly). A Dayton win, combined with a Democratic-controlled Legislature would likely mean an effort to redefine marriage in Minnesota.

And yet, marriage activists didn’t rest. They re-doubled their efforts and elected candidates to the Legislature who supported marriage. This hard work flipped the Legislature into Republican hands (a shock to this Minnesota native) by a mere 357 votes!

Now, instead of a vote redefining marriage, the Legislature is giving the people of Minnesota the chance to enshrine marriage as a union of one man and one woman into their state Constitution. And so far, marriage has been placed before voters 31 times and marriage has won 31 times.

But that doesn’t mean that Minnesota Catholics should take this vote for granted. After all, last year proved that every vote counts.



  • Davide

    Thank you for this post. It is true never a time in America–>scratch that. Never on earth has same-sex ever been approved by the voters. But we should not gloat to much. In the last year or so much has changed in gay advocacy..such as now claiming same-sex marriages are “marriage equality” and the constant push claim same-sex “marriages” is a basic human right. Even though courts have disagreed most noticeably the courts in Europe (shocker I know). Anyways gay advocacy groups will dumps hundred of thousands of dollars or millions (just like what is happening right now in NY) and those of us who support TRUE marriage and families will not even come close to raising this kind of money. Even though gay advocacy is moving at a snails pace, much slower than anyone ever imagine. Us Christians and other people must recognize it is coming and with this gay advocacy and special rights given to couple of the same-sex with come christian persecution. Look at Holland, Canada, Spain and Mexico it is happening and most of the Christian world remains silent. My friends the homosexual bully pulpit does not scare me in the least-i am not afraid to be called a “self-loathing queer” a “homo-homo-homophobe”. You should not be afraid either-always defend TRUTH and democracy.

    • DavidB

      Would it be sufficient for you if the government had no hand in “marriage”. The government/laws simply spoke only of “civil unions”? Then you’d be free to call/not call things marriages as you see fit (& others would be free to do the same).

      Why do you believe the government has to take a role in defining marriage for other people?

      In what way are homosexuals bullying you or anyone else? You don’t have to consider homosexual couples married if you don’t want to, really. (yes, the law’s all use the word “marriage”, but really once we started providing governmental rights to marriages, it became more than an issue of how you perceive marriage. Just as laws have adjusted (well, are adjusting) to handle gender identity, etc.)

      • Bruce

        The state does not define marriage anymore than it can define an orange or an apple tree. Marriage is what it is because of what it is, not because the state says so. It is an institution that predates the United States, western civilization, and Christianity. It can be defined and defended on the basis of natural law and reason alone, and to attempt to redefine it another way will have disastrous consequences. For more information, please refer to Dr. George’s (Princeton) article on marriage:

  • Michael B

    As a Minnesota myself I am very happy about this amendment passing the Minnesota Legislature and look forward to voting in favor of it in about 18 months.

  • tz1

    So baptized christians after their 3rd or 4th divorce won’t need an annulment anymore – their marriage will be perfectly valid?

    I only support things like this weakly, as the lesser evil – it concedes the authority and competency to define “marriage” to the state and AWAY FROM THE CHURCH. We worry about priests refusing to marry gays, but what happens when someone sues over a non-annulled spouse?

    Was Henry VIII’s only mistake not to put it up to a plebiscite to put it into the constitution?

    What did Thomas More lose his head over again?

    The state should stay out of the sacraments. Entirely.

    • Bruce

      The state has an obvious interest in the common good of children and families, for it is from there where society springs. By protecting and fostering the union of males and females, the state looks out for the best interest of children who have a right to a mother and a father and a stable home. It also looks out for the stability and security of men and women as well. This is good for society, and society benefits from couples uniting for life and raising children. The Church understands the role that the state has in a teaching manner (by setting up an ideal for which its citizens should reach for). This has been gone over time and time again, and if you want the definitive answer, please refer to Dr. George’s (Princeton) article defining marriage. He answers your concerns clearly and concisely.



Receive our updates via email.