Pastor from Woodbury Shares Marriage Amendment Opposition With Congregation

Edwin DuBose, of Golden Valley's Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church, says Minnesota's marriage amendment would only "hurt a select group of people."

On Sunday, Oct. 28, Spirit of Hope United Methodist Church Pastor Edwin DuBose took a risk.

Out of thousands of sermons, DuBose for the first time shared how he will vote on a particular issue. DuBose told his congregation that he's voting “no” the proposed amendment to the state constitution that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“Before I preached my first sermon, the head pastor said, ‘Ed it's a little bit like walking on thin ice,’” DuBose told church-goers. "He was right. Over time I got comfortable and found the safer spot. But today I'm going to go out again where the ice is thin."

For DuBose, who lives in Woodbury, walking on thin ice meant talking for 15 minutes about why he feels it’s so important to vote, and to vote “no” on this particular issue.

On Nov. 6, Minnesotans will decide if marriage should be solely between a man and a woman. DuBose hopes that voters will think about the potential harm the amendment could do to a select group of people.

“If you're voting ‘yes,’ I respect that. I can understand that,” DuBose said. “And I pray that you can respect those who disagree.”

       Related: Marriage Amendment Discussion Comes to Woodbury

In 2002, Spirit of Hope made a decision to become a reconciling congregation. This means that the church openly and explicitly welcomes people of all sexual orientations.

“For over 30 years I've stood at the pulpit and said the same thing every time an election has come: It is your Christian responsibility to make an educated vote, so vote.” DuBose said. “But today I've been challenged by one of our young people to say more.”

Dubose told the congregation that passing an amendment that limits marriage will not protect marriage, and it won’t turn back time.

“The reason I'm voting ‘no’ is because I agree with those who are voting ‘yes’ on one main point: Marriage is important,” DuBose said. “Marriage is big. It’s not something to be taken lightly. This amendment will not make marriage stronger. It will hurt a select group of people.”

At the end of the church service, DuBose provided attendees with a three-page article that he wrote explaining at length his reasoning for voting “no.”

“I respect your choices and I understand if you disagree. If that’s where you are, this congregation respects you,” DuBose said. “Whatever you do, take your soul with you to the polls.”


Like Patch on Facebook | Follow us on Twitter | Sign up for our free newsletter

garret November 02, 2012 at 06:41 PM
Frederick, I have been letting this simmer and saute in my head. I agree. This may be the only conceivable win-win-win. I will say it is a fine line between having the government protecting a freedom and restricting freedom on the other side. As a simple example I learned; Your rights stop where mine begin. This can be a very hard line to draw and this may be one of those lines.
Laura B November 02, 2012 at 08:10 PM
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.
garret November 02, 2012 at 11:08 PM
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.
Frederick Hess November 02, 2012 at 11:42 PM
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.
Kris Janisch November 06, 2012 at 04:12 PM
Got the letter from Pastor DuBose posted here. Sorry for the delay on that.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »