“Mind what people do, not what they say for deeds will betray a lie.” – Terry Goodkind
The LPMN’s previous article discussed our principled position against the proposed gay marriage ban, which we hope will convince libertarians, liberals, and conservatives alike. Here is an additional op-ed piece by Executive Committee member Tylor James Slinger, intended to counter some of MNGOP’s arguments:
The MNGOP’s so-called “marriage” amendment doesn’t pass constitutional muster, but more importantly, it clearly violates the free-market and limited-government principles they claim to hold. Republicans seem to think that they can continue to call themselves “strict constitutionalists” so long as they can pass a dozen or more amendments to make the document look the way they want. Conservatives are paying lip service to our founding documents and the principles of freedom that were codified in their pages, but the MNGOP’s disingenuous actions are no better then the nonsensical theories proposed by progressives like the “Living Constitution” or “Spirit of the Times” amendments. Both conservatives and progressives alike fail to acknowledge that our government was intended to have clearly defined powers which are strictly limited, and the State of Minnesota has no legitimate interest in how we run our personal lives, especially regarding who we marry.
If we review Federalist Fifty-One, Alexander Hamilton clearly lays out the the proper functions of government as being limited to; first, protecting people from harming one another and then preventing the government from harming the people (checks and balances). The MNGOP’s amendment accomplishes neither of these functions. The marriage of same-sex couples harms no one, and the amendment does nothing to protect the people of Minnesota from the overreaching arm of government. Additionally, if you take seriously the idea that the federal and state constitutions limit the legitimate power of our government, like the Republicans claim to believe, then it seems odd they would be pushing an amendment that extends the power of the state to an area that neither the U.S. Constitution nor the Minnesota Constitution ever mentions. As we know those powers not granted to government are retained by the people, so the State of Minnesota should have nothing to say on this matter and the Republicans ought to know better. In fact, the word “marriage” doesn’t appear in either constitution, not even once. Lastly, the U.S. Constitution was amended following the Civil War to put an end to Southern tyranny and as such, the Equal Protections Clause under 14th Amendment was established to protect individuals against arbitrary laws passed at the whim of state legislatures. Specifically, this section reads “Nor [shall a state] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The “marriage” amendment doesn’t equally protect the interests of homosexuals, and to make the lame assertion that the law would allow these individuals the opportunity to marry, as one man to one woman, clearly goes against the Reconstruction Founders’ intention for the amendment. It wouldn’t be constitutional to propose an amendment defining a marriage as being between two “white” persons, and it’s not constitutional to limit the liberty of another set of individuals.
A marriage can be viewed as a personal contract between two consenting adults, who make an agreement to live their lives together. Under this view, the terms of the contract are set (by vows; to have and to hold, to love and cherish, till death do you part) in front of witnesses and depending on your faith the contract is also conducted in the presence of or in conjunction with a divine being called “God.” If you take the proposed amendment authors’ word at face value (and I try to), then this amendment has nothing to do with establishing a specific set of religious values based on the Christian faith. Additionally, both our federal and state constitutions strictly limit the ability of legislatures to draft laws regarding religion. Specifically, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” and on the state level, “The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed; nor shall any man be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship.” Plainly put, neither the federal government nor the Minnesota legislature should have anything to say about the contract individuals choose to make with their God, period. With religion off the table, it leaves only the agreements made between consenting individuals. The MNGOP’s proposed “marriage” amendment clearly favors a specific type of “marriage” contract (heterosexual) over those entered into by homosexuals. There is nothing free-market about privileging a specific type of contract, be it labor or love. Moreover, the Declaration of Independence and our own state constitution both claim to protect Life, Liberty and Property from violation. Yet Republicans seem to be perfectly fine with violating our natural right to contract with others as we see fit, in the name of their family values.
Among the many sloppy arguments offered by the MNGOP is this amendment is “protecting” marriage from so called active judges, never mind the state legislature before us. If Republicans were honestly interested in taking the subject of marriage off the table, they would have proposed an amendment that further limited the power of government to leave the defining of the word to individual citizens and our religious organizations. Such an amendment could have read as follows: “The State of Minnesota shall make no law regarding the marriage of any persons.” Alas, the limited-government principles that were talked about by GOP candidates on the campaign trail didn’t make it anywhere near the Capitol. Those who believe in the freedoms that were codified in our founding documents are again given a reason to doubt the motives of the MNGOP. Advocates for liberty and constitutionally-limited government should reject this massive expansion of government influence into our personal lives, and while we’re at the ballot box we should remember to “throw the bums out.”
Tylor James Slinger
LPMN Executive
https://www.lpmn.org