For those of you that know me, this may come as a surprise for you: I care very deeply about the freedom of religion in America.

Why is that, you might ask. I do not believe in any god. I do not attend any church. I do not worship any higher power. I am not religious. Why would a non-religious person care about the freedom of religion?

I am an atheist, and the main reason I am free to say without fear of persecution is because of the Constitution’s First Amendment protection for the freedom of religion.

Now, the reason for this post is not to go on and on about my own religious beliefs or lack thereof. That would be a completely different article, one that would probably be more fun to write.

However, this post is necessary, because the freedom of religion, which guarantees your right to believe in whatever religion you choose and my right to believe something completely different than you, is under attack in Minnesota and several other states across the country. And here’s the kicker: a lot of people don’t even realize it and are actively promoting it by supporting an amendment to the constitution that would define marriage as strictly between one man and one woman.

Background

The proposed Constitutional amendment would add the following words to the Minnesota Constitution:

Article XIII, Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.

Same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota. According to Minnesota Statute 517.01, “Lawful marriage may be contracted only between persons of the opposite sex.” Further Statute 517.03 explicitly prohibits some marriages, including “a marriage between persons of the same sex.”

What this amendment does is make sure that it is almost impossible for the state to change their minds on this issue later on. Since it is already illegal, it would not change the current status of same-sex couples in Minnesota, but it would make the state’s position on their relationships essentially permanent.

This is important to realize. A NO vote does NOT legalize same-sex marriage. A NO vote simply says “let’s not decide the issue for every single generation that comes after us.”

The Effect on Freedom of Religion

I am a very firm supporter of the freedom of religion. I think it is absolutely crucial in a civilized society to allow people to decide for themselves what beliefs make sense for them, as long as it does not harm others in the process.

Chances are, if you support the idea that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman, your opinion stems at least partially from your religious beliefs. I do not have a problem with that, and neither should anyone. However, we are allowed to have different religious beliefs in this country. There are many equally religious individuals and non-religious people who do not believe marriage needs to be restricted in such a way. Their religious beliefs, or lack of religious beliefs, are just as valid as yours in the eyes of the law.

By making same-sex marriage illegal, and permanent under the Constitution, the State is essentially telling everyone that we need to live our lives under a certain group’s religious belief, that their belief is somehow more just or more valid than anyone else’s. If your particular religion does not condemn same-sex marriage, it does not matter to the State.

I have met with several Christian pastors who have told me that they would love to welcome same-sex couples into their church and let them marry at their altar. They do not believe that God has a problem with homosexuals. These people are not less Christian or more Christian than someone who believes differently. They just have a different interpretation of God’s Word, and in this country, that is okay. In fact, there are hundreds of churches in Minnesota opposed to this amendment.

Now let’s consider an example:

A) Church A believes marriage is between one man and one woman.

B) Church B believes marriage is between two consenting adults, regardless of sex.

When same-sex marriage is illegal, only Church A is allowed to perform all of the marriages it wants to perform. Church B is not allowed to perform same-sex marriages, even though their church doctrine does not ban it. Church B’s freedom to practice their religion has been restricted.

When the government stays out of it though, and allows same-sex marriage, both churches are allowed to perform as they wish. Church A can continue to only perform marriages between opposite-sex couples, and Church B can perform those as well as same-sex marriages. Both churches are able to practice their religion freely.

Conclusion

This is just one quick example of why I think voting yes on this amendment is wrong for our state. My argument shows one reason why I think same-sex marriage should not be restricted. Even if you don’t agree with me on that, if you can see the reasoning in the argument, you can understand the dangers of making such a law permanent by putting it into the Constitution.

Remember, the Constitution was made to protect people’s freedom, not to restrict it.

Please VOTE NO on the Marriage Restriction Amendment.

For more information on how you can help fight against the amendment, please visit mnunited.org.