by James Glaser
March 22, 2005

I attended the State of Minnesota's Committee on Civil Law and Elections meeting in Grand Rapids, Minnesota last Friday. The meeting was called to decide if there should be a vote on a Gay Marriage Amendment to the State Constitution that would stop all same sex marriages. I should have known that they would be there, but I was surprised when I saw all the protesters on both sides of the issue with professionally manufactured signs, blocks before I got to where the meeting would be held.

The meeting was like all government meetings, the politicians got the floor first and used up the most valuable time. The time before the subject was talked to death. Politicians always get to talk before citizens have any say.

Both sides thought they were right and all the speeches were things I had heard or read about before and as expected the Committee voted to put a State Constitutional Amendment on outlawing Gay Marriage before the voters.

After the meeting I had a talk with three Ministers. One was a Catholic Priest, one a Baptist Minister, and a Lutheran Minister. They all had "NO" buttons and were against a law against Gay Marriage. This surprised me and I asked what their reasons were.

Here is what they told me. They we sick and tired of State and Federal Governments telling churches what they could do and what they couldn't. The three of them felt that "marriage" is a religious sacrament and government has no right to say if it is right or wrong. Also, they felt that "civil unions' were something that government could regulate, because it is a secular union.

I like this. I believe all through history, a church priest of some sort officiated at marriage ceremonies. It didn't matter if the country was a Christen nation in Europe or just some jungle tribe's area in South America, a priest or a shaman of some sort was there to "bless" the marriage vows.

So... I guess I would agree with those three minister... Marriage is a "sacrament of the church" and government should stay out of it. I don't know if that is right or if that is wrong, but it is a new way to look at this issue.

Another way to look at this issue that was brought up, is that this amendment would not only outlaw Gay Marriage, but also civil unions and "significant other" agreements that give employment benefits like medical insurance for a live-in partner, be them same sex or of the opposite sex. It was thought that insurance companies were behind this push to stop any benefits except for those given to "legal" marriages. This could save maybe billions of dollars in claims brought by live in partners with HIV. I don't know if this is true, but I would not be surprised at all if it was.