Do you have a copy of the document he passed out to his congregation? Or a link to it?

Good question Kathryn, let me contact Val about that.

Pastor DuBose--Thanks for sharing your story. The Minnesotans United for all Families is a coalition of citizens, organizations, businesses and religious communities that believe this is about love and relationships and families. They believe that to defeat this amendment we must engage in conversations and talk to each other about what marriage means to us. I am sure your position is helping other talk about this important issue. I remember when I first came out the closet 35 years ago and people would say that gay people need to be more like the straight people. To not be promiscuous and settle down and commit to another person in a stable relationship like straight people do. Well we have done that. We are in long term relationships, raising families, running our homes, working and paying taxes. Just like everyone else. And we do this without the benefit of marriage. Just think how much more wonderful our relationships might be if we could stand in front of others and take vows with our community as our witness. You are right, marriage is important. It is something that should be encouraged and everyone should be able to participate, not just some of the people. Thanks for making your position known. As Christian and active member in the United Church of Christ I solute your courage.

My question to "no" voters; can we define an institution of marriage? What do you say about polygamy? Consensual incest? Those who feel their pet or animal is their soulmate?

The law in MN already defines marriage as between one man and one woman. It has been defined by previous legislative process. Putting it in the constitution will make it difficult should legislators revisit the issue and want to change the definition. Times change, peoples views change. Just like when the right to vote was changed to allow women to participate. I do not know what crowd you hang out in but if incest and bestiality is what you are interested in I hope you are not a father or own pets.

Simon, I'm not speaking from personal experience.

Fredrick,
Curious as to why you left out polygamy in your jab? Incest is still quite popular around the world and is a common practice for 1st cousins to marry. I spoke of no bestiality... however, a Montana woman wanted to marry her horse because she felt that it was her soulmate. That article dug up hundreds of accounts of people wanting to marry or unite with their pets or animals. Tell me why that is wrong if what they are feeling is love? Why is Marrying multiple women (or men) is wrong if it is love?

Simon, It has nothing to do with the Tax ramifications for polygamists to marry. In 1890 it was outlawed because it was deemed "unnatural." The LDS went on abolish it for the rule of the land was more important than their tradition. Several times it has been revisited in the US and Canada. Canada last year revisited the topic on grounds or religious freedom. Barna estimates 80-130,000 polygamist families in North America. That number is increasing as Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world with sects that practice polygamy. Let me be clear, I am NOT a supporter of polygamy. However, I feel this marriage amendment issue is similar. The freedom to love. Tell me why Polygamy is wrong if same sex marriage is ok.

Garret and Simon- Thanks guys for the lively discussion. My earlier point to Garret was marriage eligibility should be left to the legislature to determine. It does not belong in the constitution. You both just proved that defining marriage is about conversation and relationships of between consenting adults. I am not taking sides on all the other marriage possibilities. But as gay man wanting to protect my family I will stand up and voice my opposition to the amendment.

Thomas, you seem to be blurring the line between marriage as a sacred act in a church versus marriage as a legal act as far as government should be concerned. When you get married in front of a judge, you are entering into a legal contract, one that has benefits to both parties concerning taxes, inheiritance, etc. In a church marriage, participants are vowing to remain a family unit until they day they die. This pledge is a public promise to their god and the community, and is considered a holy contract with their god. Unfortunately, most people nowadays renege on this oath. Its certainly taken some of the fire out of that particular sacrament. This current legislation has nothing to do with solemn oaths to a deity. It really has nothing to do with love. The government should have no role in either of those things. This legislation is about a majority trying to enforce a morality on others that it does not even observe itself.

Garret, why do you believe it is our government's role to be involved in protecting "a 2500 year old holy covenant between 1 man, 1 woman, and God?" Isn't that exactly what the seperation of church and state is supposed to address? Additionally, I don't think anyone would really have opposition to just labelling it a "civil union" in the eyes of government, as long as the government refers to ALL legal marriages as "civil unions." Why would the government need to differetiate a difference? To do so would be the very definition of sexual discrimination. As long as we are on this topic, are there any other ancient, holy rites our government needs to "protect" or is this really just an excuse to enforce your ancient morals on everyone?

Just so you understand the historical side of this civil rights issue you are arguing for, yours is the side that tried to deny civil rights for women. Yours is the side that tried to deny civil rights for black people. Yours is the side that is currently trying to deny civil rights for homosexuals. The far right has always energized its voting base by stirring up these issues around election time. You might win this battle, but you won't win the war. And in 20 years when we talk about the discrimination that used to exist, you will be the ones who claim you were on the side of equality all along. Too bad nowadays there is such an easy to follow electronic trail of online posts so it won't be so easy to hide your bias after its no longer shared by a majority.

Thomas, judging by your disconnected sentence structure and inability to translate seperate points, its no surprise you don't understand the logic. The 200lb woman example was just a random example of the many old fashioned laws still on the books that were enacted at a time when hate and discrimination were used as a basis for creating laws, and are considered ridiculous now. The fact you can't see a correlation between this current civil rights issue for homosexual rights and previous civil rights oppressions in this country just solidifies the evidence of your close-minded bias.

Thomas, your "little Simon" comment shows how little your potential is for clever insult. My drawing of comparison between old fashioned moral laws is not confusion on my part, though it seemed to confuse you. The one point I do tip my cap to you for is your recognition that you are certainly overmatched in your ability to argue intelligently.

My take away from this back and forth banter is that the government should get out of the marriage business. Let the churches, synagogues, mosques, temples or any other religion or spiritual groupings perform whatever ritualistic ceremonies that goes with their beliefs. They can marry those that qualify to do so under their belief structure. Then the government can issue civil union licenses that gives folks legal structure and protection. It would require replacing a few words here and there in the current statutes. Being united in a religious ceremony could be totally independent of the civil union granted by the state. Some people might choose to do both. The congregation I belong to no longer performs marriages in a civil state-sanctioned capacity. The pastor may perform a commitment ceremony for couples but without civil authority. I would be happy to head to the court house/city hall and be united under a civil union if it were recognized as giving the legal protections as found under the current marriage laws.

I chomping at the bit to comment... And I will later when this workday decides to end.

Perhaps the more logical question is, 'Why does the state have the assumed right to define a label on a relationship between 2 consenting adult(humans). '? Does a gay marriage harm you or infringe upon any of your constitutional right? Live and let live.

Garret, why do you think the word marriage is sacred? The term marriage is a Middle English word derrived from the Old French "marier", and before that from Latin "maritatis". None of these terms were ever used in the Bible, but have been added for ease of translation into Modern English that we understand. The best literal translation for the relationship you describe is a holy union. Marriage, as defined by Old Latin, refers to a social union and legal contract between two parties. It does not specify the sex of the participants, nor the number of participants. How about you leave the word marriage alone and refer to your "holy union" or your "sacred union" instead of trying to deny the civil rights of others?

Again Simon you fail to realize I'm for the Civil rights. You seem to have a disdain for those who have faith, not sure what that's about but you really need to stop projecting a judgement on me. Your etymological search on marriage is also lacking. The V. Latin maritaticum means for 2 to become one. So... there is that.

Lets say a large group of people wanted to have a sex party. A consenting of adults (of legal age) to have an annual party that was sweeping the nation and they wanted to call it a bar mitzvah. There is nothing to prevent this naming convention, yet the Jewish community would feel disrespected and a special thing to their culture now has a bastardization attached to the "mere name." You may claim I'm hung up on words, but this word has described for us the Union of 2 into 1 with their God.

Garret if you think marriage is only about religion then maybe you should try to ban non-Christian straight couples from getting married too then.

I think they should also be put into the category of civil union. And this isn't just a Christian thing. It is supported by the Jewish and Islamic communities as well. And in those communities we even have differing opinions like the one this article shows. The reformed Jews are in support of gay marriage were the Orthodox Jews do not. Like wise for Muslims, there are some sects who want to see legislation also include polygamy. I believe that Marriage began as 1 man uniting with 1 woman ordained by God. Why then, would those who don't hold those beliefs want that? Culture. Many still get married in churches and vow and swear to things that they don't even believe.

I tell myself to disengage in this conversation then I feel compelled to jump back in. I have often wondered why to "protect marriage" that the constitutional amendment is not this, "Marriage is defined as a permanent sacred union between two individuals that may not be dissolved by civil action in the form of divorce or annulment." So once you make the decision to marry you better be pretty sure of what you are committing to. Gay or straight.

Got the letter from Pastor DuBose posted here. Sorry for the delay on that.