The gay marriage bill passed the House yesterday and will now likely become law - now is the time to contact your State Senator.
House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt rightly said that this is not the time. But instead of “continuing the conversation” as DFL leaders promised, Republican alternatives like civil unions and reciprocal beneficiaries were not seriously considered, and Minnesota will no longer debate “if” gay marriage but “how”.
Republican Legislators will need to be vigilant, and not because sincere gay couples will receive marriage licenses, but because the underlying principles of the legislation are profound and the implications are yet to play out.
How will this impact religious liberties, government funded programs, school curriculums, parents volunteering in schools, government employees, state contracts, and other protections not specifically addressed in the legislation?
Even greater are the long term effects of the premises undergirding the law...
...If marriage equality is paramount, what then when people in other types of relationships demand their freedom to marry?
...If the previous definition of marriage was egregious because it discriminated, can there ever be a definition that won’t discriminate against someone, and what then?
...If we accept that the founding principle of “equal protection under the law” necessarily includes “equal treatment for everyone within the law”, we have embraced a very liberal notion of the purpose of law, and where does that lead?
...What is the future of freedom of conscience and religious liberty if sexual preference is elevated to the same status?
Without the DFL affording a substantive debate of these issues, it appears we have lost far more than the traditional definition of marriage in the process. Republicans now have the obligation to make sure we have not.