The Miseducation of Minnesotans

BODY:
It's clear that many people do not understand or do not want to understand what the Amendment to end domestic partnerships, and ban civil unions and same-sex marriage in Minnesota means. I've been reading this site for the past few days after a post that criticized the move to block the floor vote on Thursday:

"They rejected the bill, SF1691 that would have allowed Minnesotans to vote on a constitutional ammendment[sic] deciding whether or not marriage should be limitted to one man and one woman. That's it. It has nothing to do with gays or gayness." and "This bill will not take away some one's 'right to be gay'. It is inteneded[sic] to pretect[sic] the 'right to be straight' for the rest of us."

Huh? Not about gays? Could he be serious? And to clarify in the next post:

"This bill is about marriage. It is not banning gay marriage. The bill is being misrepresented by folks all the time. The words gay or homosexual aren’t in the bill."

I'm not intentionally picking on this particular blogger, because a lot of people think this way, unfortunately. This is a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. It doesn't matter if it doesn't say gay or homosexual in the text. It's very clear that there is one purpose for this bill: to prevent same-sex relationships from being recognized in any way by Minnesota. In fact, it's intended to take away recognitions already afforded through local municipalities, ie. domestic partnerships.