What does "Vote No" mean?

In a few days, Minnesotans will vote to amend the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. I have had at least six conversations with people who think that this amendment is about the legalization of same-sex marriages. Which in a way it is, but this particular vote will not…. I repeat… WILL NOT directly legalize same sex marriage.

This topic has been the center of many debates across the country for years, and many are calling for change. One could easily say “VOTE NO!” and think that you are making a HUGE difference for the LGBT community. I myself have been talking to friends and family, and even posted a few Facebook status’ urging my friends to vote no. Well myself, and many others across the country are drastically deceiving ourselves. I think it is really important that voters have a full understanding of what voting no, or if you so choose to vote yes, will mean.

Minnesota’s constitution currently states that marriage is a civil contract between a man and a woman. In reality, if this amendment passes, literally all that will change is two words. “A man, and a woman” will become “one man and one woman.” How does this really change LGBT rights? Well to be frank… it doesn’t. Same-sex couples in Minnesota will still be refused the rights that married heterosexual couples receive.

What voting no WILL do is show support for marriage equality. The fact that this amendment has even been brought to the table is insulting. The fact that religious zealots are so threatened by the LGBT community that they would push something like this to stall for time is crazy to me. “One man and one woman”? Seriously? Is bigamy really that much of a problem in Minnesota?! Doubtful. The only reason this has been brought up for a vote is to stall any pro-equality legislation.  

Federal law grants more than 1,000 rights to married couples. These rights include things like claims to a deceased spouse’s social security, work leave to care for a sick spouse or a spouse’s family member, granting citizenship to a spouse of a U.S. citizen, hospital visitation and parental rights.

So the question we should be concerned with is not the wishy-washy wording of Minnesota's constitution, but rather what we are going to do to about the issue of inequality.

As I sit here, thinking about the supporting arguments for marriage equality, I find myself spitting out the same arguments we have all heard a thousand times. I thought about sparing any potential readers the boredom of reading the argument about the first amendment for the 10 kabillionth time, but I feel that this is a valid argument which is not being taken seriously. So I’m gonna make like Selena Gomez and repeat-peat-peat-peat-peat.

The first amendment to the US constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The reasons same-sex couples are denied these civil rights are due to the religious beliefs of many political leaders. I believe this is unconstitutional. No… THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

The second portion of the religion clause in the first amendment states that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion. Legalizing same-sex marriage will not prevent the free exercise of religion.  Two men signing a legal document will not prevent someone from going to their religious service.

Pause for ridiculous fantasy.... By some miraculous turn of events I meet, fall in love with and get married to Tom Daley tomorrow afternoon.

Damn, back to reality.

Let's be completely honest, if that scenario were true, Sara Palin would still go shoot an elk for Sunday dinner with her pastor. Given the obvious fact that Sara Palin has no idea who I am, she would not be phased my hypothetical marriage to a man.

As the great Margaret Cho once said, “ People who hate gay marriage would never even know if gay people got married… Because they don’t know any gay people!! Let’s just not tell them.”

Unfortunately the inventions of radio, television, the internet and social media make that an impossibility. 

Now, I wouldn’t be me if I didn’t add a touch of pessimism to this post. I am an incredibly impatient person and am ready for a BIG move to be made for the LGBT community. I just don’t feel like this vote is that move. The realist in me realizes that vetoing this amendment is a very minor step for the community. As with any vote, you must make the best decision for you. I believe this vote will not make or break same-sex civil rights movement in the state of Minnesota. If the amendment passes, we have to fight against it. If the amendment does not pass, we have to fight against the current constitution.

Vote Yes or Vote No…. just know this fight is far from over.