Case to challenge straight marriagePublished 9:53am Monday, October 29, 2012
On Oct. 18, on WCCO’s 10 p.m. news, Pat Kessler’s “Reality Check” segment featured the most recent Minnesota for Marriage ad about the marriage amendment. Kessler’s neatly crafted statements conveniently shape the content of the ad to suggest that the consequences of redefining marriage were either false or only partially true. He also noted that same-sex marriage is illegal in Minnesota. Had I not recently heard Professor Teresa Collett from the University of Saint Thomas describe the consequences of redefining marriage, I may have been swayed by his statements.
What Kessler didn’t tell the viewers is that although same-sex marriage is currently illegal in Minnesota, a Hennepin County case, Benson v. Chapin (formerly Alverson), is knocking at the door of our Minnesota high courts attempting to redefine marriage, and, if by chance, that doesn’t work, John Marty (Roseville) and Gov. Mark Dayton are just waiting for their opportunity to push a redefinition of marriage through legislatively, first chance they get. The purpose of the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment is to protect the traditional definition from being tampered with by judges and politicians, ultimately requiring that any redefinition of marriage be determined by the vote of Minnesota citizens. The amendment is not about discriminating against anyone. The amendment is about protecting the traditional union-between-one-man-and-one-woman definition of marriage. Mr. Kessler needs to get his facts straight.