I’ve been having discussions on Post Bulletin concerning the Anti-Marriage Amendment.

This is the comment I was responding to:

On Nov. 6th a huge silent majority will close the voting booth curtain and exact revenge against months of hate-filled vitrolic insults they have endured from liberal militants. On Nov 7th, we will have a Constitutional definition for marriage that will endure as it has for centuries. Game over.

I fear you are correct, Skink.

However, I don’t think the people voting “yes” will be voting out of revenge for perceived slights.

There will be people voting “yes” that actually do hate gays and want to hurt them, but I don’t think that is the majority of those that will.

I think a great many will be voting “yes” because they don’t understand what the amendment means.  They will think that it is the right thing to do and that voting “yes” will further their ideal concept of marriage where a man and a woman join together to produce and care for children.  They see a “yes” vote as strengthening marriage as an institution.

However, the result of a vote “yes” will be something different.

They will be telling other families that the law itself should deny them civil marriage and that their families are not deserving of the legal protections that others enjoy.

They will be telling folks like my friends who have adopted five children from an unfit drug-addicted relative, a family I admire greatly – that only by virtue of being men, and no other reason whatsoever – that their family is less deserving, not only of recognition of a particular church group (which is that group’s right), but of recognition by the state constitution that everyone is compelled to live by through civil governmental law.

I hope that Minnesota votes “no” and we are able to show that Minnesota, unlike other states, did not give into our fears, but instead voiced fundamental respect for our neighbors.