Capitol View: October 1, 2012 Archive

Minnesota for Marriage releases TV ads

Posted at 7:51 AM on October 1, 2012 by Tom Scheck (6 Comments)
Filed under: Marriage Amendment

Minnesota for Marriage, a group working to pass a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, announced today that it will start running TV ads in support of their efforts. The group said the two ads are a part of a series of ads that will be run during the final weeks of the campaign.

The first ad focuses on the history and tradition of marriage. The second ad warns that the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is under threat by the courts and the Legislature.

Both ads focus on giving the voters a say on the definition of marriage.

"It determines that only voters can determine the definition of marriage in the future," one ad says.

"Everybody has the right to love who they choose but nobody has the right to redefine marriage," Minnesota for Marriage Spokeswoman Kalley Yanta said in the other ad.

It isn't yet known where the ads will run or how much money the group intends to spend on the campaign.

The state already has a state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman but supporters of the marriage amendment say the constitutional amendment would forbid the courts from throwing the law out on constitutional grounds.

Frank Schubert, the campaign manager for Minnesota for Marriage who has designed ads for several marriage amendment votes across the country, issued a fundraising e-mail to supporters emphasizing that voters should be the ones to define marriage.

"The amendment secures our historic definition of marriage as one man and one woman in the Minnesota constitution where it will be protected from tampering by state judges and politicians. That means that the only way to alter it in the future is to present the issue to voters for a decision," Schubert wrote in the fundraising e-mail.

Schubert also noted in the e-mail that Minnesota for Marriage has not raised as much money as opponents of the constitutional amendment.

"Right now we have very little cash left, because we've spent funds needed to get these initial two TV ads on the air," he wrote.

Groups working to defeat the marriage amendment say defining marriage in the constitution would end the conversation as to who has the legal right to be married. They say a constitutional amendment would make it harder for younger generations to determine how marriage should be defined in the future.

UPDATE:

Minnesotans United for All Families, which opposes the amendment, released this statement from its Campaign Manager Richard Carlbom:

"The proposed constitutional amendment would limit the freedom to marry for some Minnesotans just because of who they are it permanently singles out and excludes gay and lesbian couples from the love, commitment and responsibility that marriage brings. We all agree that marriage is important, which is why we wouldn't want to deny this basic freedom to any loving, committed couple. There are churches on all sides of this debate. This amendment mixes religion and politics in our constitution. The best thing to do is to take government out of this debate. In fact, passing this amendment would permanently end the conversation for the next generation of Minnesotans.

"By voting no, Minnesotans are practicing a deeply held value of treating others as they would want to be treated because no one wants to be told it's illegal to marry the person you love."