Minnesota Lutherans Divided Over Proposed Marriage Amendment

June 20th, 2012 Post by

Here in Minnesota, we will be voting in November on the “Marriage Protection Amendment” to our State Constitution. If passed, this Amendment will give our state a constitutional definition of marriage as being between ‘one man and one woman’. (On the ballot, voters will be asked: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”)

At current count, the Constitutional Amendment is being opposed by five Minnesota Synods of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (postbulletin.com). (Whenever I listen to the news on my radio, I seem to hear that yet another Lutheran Synod in Minnesota has come out against this Amendment.) The opposition from these ELCA Synods comes as no surprise. If you have paid any attention to recent ELCA history, you will remember the historic change in which that body decided to make provisions to allow its clergy to openly practice homosexuality (albeit, those who do so are required to practice monogamously…).

While my radio keeps broadcasting the opposition to this Amendment, I am also aware of support from both Minnesota Districts of The Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. This year, both Districts in Convention passed resolutions that favor the State Constitutional Amendment with its definition of marriage as being between ‘one man and one woman’ (twincities.com).

At the Minnesota North Convention (which I attended as an Advisory Delegate), the resolution passed unanimously. The Convention encouraged the District’s “pastors, congregations and their members to actively pray for, support, promote, whenever and wherever possible, and vote for the passage of the Marriage Protection Amendment”. The Convention also directed the District President and the Mission and Ministry Facilitators to “provide encouragement and information through current District Publications regarding the Marriage Amendment to pastors and congregations of our District”. Finally, “all District pastors [are to] be encouraged to preach and teach on the purpose and importance of marriage and the need to protect the institution of marriage.”

I see that quotations from this Resolution have been relayed by President Fondow (Minnesota North) to the “Minnesota for Marriage” website (http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com). Quoting the resolution, Fondow says:

In states where marriage has been redefined, it has resulted in town clerks being ordered to solemnize same-sex marriages or be fired; Catholic Charities decided to abandon facilitating adoptions because they would not abandon their teaching in order to comply with state rules; a court ruled that parents were not entitled to be notified that their second grade children were being taught that boys can marry other boys and girls other girls, ruling as well that parents had no right to opt their children out of such instruction and marriage licenses have been changed to ‘Party A’ and ‘Party B’ rather than ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ (4th Whereas).

Marriage is a foundation of society that aids the state in carrying out its role of providing order and stability in society; and societal evidence establishes that children do best when raised by their married mother and father (6th Whereas).

For my part, I personally have passed along a press release to my local radio station. Hopefully, whenever the opposition makes the news, the newscaster will also say: “Yet, the Marriage Protection Amendment is being promoted and supported (not only by the Roman Catholic Church, but also) by the two Minnesota Districts of the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod.”


Categories: Steadfast News Tags:

Rules for comments on this site:

Engage the contents and substance of the post. Rabbit trails and side issues do not help the discussion of the topics.  Our authors work hard to write these articles and it is a disservice to them to distract from the topic at hand.  If you have a topic you think is important to have an article or discussion on, we invite you to submit a request through the "Ask a Pastor" link or submit a guest article.

Provide a valid email address. If you’re unwilling to do this, we are unwilling to let you comment.

Provide at least your first name. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example.  If you have a good reason to use a fake name, please do so but realize that the administrators of the site expect a valid email address and also reserve the right to ask you for your name privately at any time.

If you post as more than one person from the same IP address, we’ll block that address.

Do not engage in ad hominem arguments. We will delete such comments, and will not be obligated to respond to any complaints (public or private ones) about deleting your comments.

Interaction between people leaving comments ought to reflect Christian virtue, interaction that is gracious and respectful, not judging motives.  If error is to be rebuked, evidence of the error ought to be provided.

We reserve the right to identify and deal with trollish behavior as we see fit and without apology.  This may include warnings (public or private ones) or banning.

  1. Pastor Ted Crandall
    June 20th, 2012 at 16:57 | #1

    “Whenever I listen to the news on my radio, I seem to hear that yet another Lutheran synod in Minnesota has come out against this Amendment.”

    Ah, yes… the biased press. To listen to them, you would never know that 30 states (30 out of 50) have passed similar constitutional amendments to ban homosexual marriage. When North Carolina recently joined the other 29, the press led us to believe that the people of that rural state were obviously just a bunch of rustic rubes. All you hear about on the news are all the states that have “joined the 21st century” and legalized homosexual marriage. Six. Only 6 states have done so, and 4 of them are clustered in New England. That’s 6 out of 50 compared to 30 out of 50. Six is only 20% of 30.

    A handful of states have legalized it, but five times as many states have gone out of their way to stop homosexual marriage. Yet the press is creating the impression that most Americans want to embrace sodomy…

    And we’re supposed to believe that the press merely reports the facts?

  2. Telemann
    June 20th, 2012 at 18:43 | #2

    But much of the press does report the facts. We just have to get away from the “old” press–those that keep cutting-and-pasting AP and Reuters articles. Please go to the blogs where the “new” press is growing fast. The real trick is to optimize which combination of blogs to tune-in for news. I’m just learning myself, with a little bit of a boost from hanging out at the RightOnline convention in Las Vegas this last weekend. RealClearPolitics is one blog that I’m taking a serious look at these days. It looks promising.
    The growing threat however, is that the “old” press and its allies may be threatening the “new” press with “SWAT-ting,” and other intimidation tactics against bloggers who recognize their vocations as citizens. Government Operated Broadbands (GOB) are another growing threat to the ability of citizens to pass real news to each other within the US. GOB’s were begun with the lie that it would assist the most rural-communities with broadband services that they would not otherwise have. To-date, none of the GOB’s in operation now are for the most rural-communities. The only other GOB’s in the world are basically totalitarian in nature.
    I suppose those who frequent Steadfast, should be amongst the first to know about the “new” press as an alternative to “official” mouthpieces of different influences.

  3. Telemann
    June 20th, 2012 at 18:59 | #3

    As I mentioned RealClearPolitics, an interesting link in there is the story of how ABC “old” press selectively edited what a certain “funambulist” said–to be confused with “fundamentalist?” There’s a new word for the day.
    Luther addresses vocations in “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved.” Can funambulists be saved? :-)

  4. Norman Teigen
    June 23rd, 2012 at 08:50 | #4

    I am asking my fellows Minnesotans to vote ‘No’ on both of the amendment questions. The other amendment deals with voter ID.

    Norman Teigen, Layman
    Evangelical Lutheran Synod

  5. Rev. Paul T. McCain
    June 23rd, 2012 at 16:05 | #5

    I would still like to hear from Norman Teigen on exactly where he stands on moral issues. I’m confused by his remarks.

If you have problems commenting on this site, or need to change a comment after it has been posted on the site, please contact us. For help with getting your comment formatted, click here.
Subscribe to comments feed  ..  Subscribe to comments feed for this post
Anonymous comments are welcome on this board, but we do require a valid email address so the admins can verify who you are. Please try to come up with a unique name; if you have a common name add something to it so you aren't confused with another user. We have several "john"'s already for example. Email addresses are kept private on this site, and only available to the site admins. Comments posted without a valid email address may not be published. Want an icon to identify your comment? See this page to see how.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.