This week’s edition of the Chaska Herald features an editorial indicating the paper’s opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on this November’s ballot to limit the definition of marriage to be one man and one woman.
Here’s a key passage from the piece:
The United States has a long tradition of debating our rights, namely measures that would limit freedoms. The public has largely argued against things that would limit rights – to bear arms, to worship, to free speech.So it’s alarming that the state Legislature would ask the public to enshrine in the State Constitution a law that would strive to take away rights – the right of two Minnesotans to marry.
Traditionally, we know that marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. We also know that customs and laws have changed for the better since the founding of the United States, providing equal rights for women and minorities. As a result, our country has grown stronger.
The Herald joins three other Carver County newspapers — the Carver County News, Waconia Patriot, and Norwood-Young America Times — in opposing the amendment. Their editorial, which ran last week, echoed many of the same themes:
America was not founded on the principle of oppression. America was founded on the principle of freedom.
Passing the amendment would place limits in our constitution on the freedom of same-sex citizens. It would erect a barrier to continuing the discussion of same-sex marriage, for today’s voters and for future generations of Minnesotans who might want to reopen the debate.
Voters would, in fact, be making choices for those future generations. Voters would be telling many of their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren that marriage won’t be an option for them.
That’s not freedom, that’s oppression, and we are concerned what message that sends the world about our state. What kind of Minnesota do we want to present to the world.
The implications of that message may reach farther than we realize. We believe the marriage amendment, if passed, would limit the ability to recruit and retain top talent. Minnesota companies such as General Mills and St. Jude Medical have spoken out against the amendment, saying it would hurt their ability to recruit and hire a diverse group of employees.
The papers are right on this issue. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in this state based on statute, there is no need to make it doubly illegal by enshrining such language in the Constitution.
(On a snarky note, is it possible to have Carver County Commissioner candidate profiles retroactively removed from the Herald? Asking for some friends.)