Statement on Proposed Constitutional Amendment

A statement issued by the Human Rights & Relations Commission reads as follows:

It is the public policy of the City of Edina to “secure for all of the residents of the City freedom from discrimination because of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, status with regard to public assistance, familial status or national origin in connection with employment, housing and real property, public accommodations, public services, credit and education” and to “support the home, family and human relations in the City.”  In furtherance of this ordinance, the Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission recommended, and the Edina City Council unanimously approved, a resolution opposing the proposed constitutional amendment limiting marriage.  In doing so, they joined a rapidly growing list of cities, businesses, religious congregations and civic leaders in opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment.

We urge a no vote for the following reasons:

Individual Liberty. Our nation was founded on a principle of individual liberty—the freedom of individual citizens to pursue happiness on their own terms, without restriction by government, provided they do not harm or interfere with the rights of others. One of the most cherished freedoms in our society is the freedom of each person to marry the person he or she loves.  The proposed constitutional amendment on marriage would, if passed, set an unhealthy precedent of using our state constitution to restrict rather than guarantee individual freedom.

Religious Freedom. Our nation was founded on a principle of religious freedom. Some religious faiths oppose gay marriage—and we respect their rights to practice their beliefs.  However, many religious faiths do not oppose gay marriage, and they, too, should be allowed to practice their religion and recognize marriage as they see fit.  We believe it is inappropriate to use the Constitution as a means by which one religious faith forces its doctrines on people with different beliefs. Many religious groups agree; religious organizations including the United Church of Christ, five Minnesota Lutheran synods, Minnesota United Methodists, and several Jewish synagogues have adopted positions against the proposed constitutional amendment. The respect for religious differences is a fundamental aspect of American democracy.

Equality Under the Law. The proposed constitutional amendment would embed in our constitution unequal treatment for gay and lesbian citizens with respect to their right to marry the person of their choice.  Since more than 500 Minnesota laws provide rights, benefits and obligations linked to martial status, denying marriage equity also deprives gays and lesbians of important economic and social rights married couples enjoy such as the right to spousal coverage under a health plan, to inherit in the absence of a will, to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse, to receive workers’ compensation death benefits, and to sue for wrongful death of a spouse.

Economic Competitiveness.  The proposed amendment limiting marriage would make Minnesota a less welcoming state for gays and lesbians compared to states that do not constitutionally restrict marriage.  Potential employees from states such as Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington D. C., and from countries like Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands, where same-sex marriages are recognized, may not want to move to a state that constitutionally does not recognize their marriages.  Perhaps this is why the leaders of major corporate employers such as General Mills, St. Jude Medical, Medtronic, Thompson Reuters, and RBC Financial have taken positions against the amendment restricting marriage.  Constitutional Inflexibility.  Constitutions are basic documents that, by design, are costly and difficult to change.  The campaigns for and against this proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage have already spent millions of dollars.  State law already prohibits same-sex marriage in Minnesota—but it can be changed if future legislatures prefer different laws.  Attitudes across the country are changing. In addition to the states that already allow same sex marriage, Maine, Maryland, Washington, and California seem to be on the verge of recognizing same-sex marriage.  This generation of voters should not use the Minnesota constitution to bind the hands of future generations to make laws they deem appropriate.

Inclusiveness.  Minnesota has a reputation for fairness and inclusiveness, and the proposed constitutional amendment, if adopted, would tarnish that reputation.  That is why some of our most respected civic leaders have spoken out in opposition to the proposed amendment on marriage. These include: former Vice President Walter Mondale, former Governor Arne Carlson,  former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Kathleen Blatz, former Senator David Durenberger, and many more. This is not a partisan issue, it is a fairness issue.

Edina strives to be a progressive, tolerant community that respects individual differences and welcomes all residents.  The City has been a leader in developing local ordinances to further these goals. The HRRC urges you to continue that tradition.

The decision on whether or not to amend the state constitution is now up to you, the voters.  We urge you to vote no on the proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage.

This statement was adopted unanimously by the Edina Human Rights & Relations Commission.