Minnesota for Marriage releases TV ads

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.


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.”

  • Eric Jaffa

    “Minnesota for Marriage” should call itself “Minnesota for TRADITIONAL Marriage” or something like that.

    If they were for marriage in general, then they would want for two men who are in love and two women who are in love to be able to legally wed.

  • Benjamin W.


    If we say that marriage should be for anyone in love, then should a man be able to marry his sister or his mom or his daughter? Or can a woman have multiple husbands and wives if they are all in love? If they are in love, then why should we limit it, right?

  • BAB


    Over 100,000 gay people are married in the United States and even more have tied the knot in Canada and Europe. There is no evidence whatsoever that allowing these same sex marriages has led to any instances of legally sanctioned consanguineous or polygamous marriage. With that argument dispatched, you can safely vote NO in NOvember.

  • Wendy M

    Either you believe that God and the bible have Final Authority . . or you don’t. It doesn’t matter what You think or what your church thinks, or what your dog thinks. The only thing that matters is what God says. And the bible is very clear that He created marriage as a relationship between a man and woman. Vote YES to keeping marriage defined as it has always been for thousands of years. God doesn’t change.

  • Allen

    If you want to protect marriage, BAN DIVORCE!

  • Mpls Liz

    As a religious person, I am looking at Genesis very differently these days, because of the number of gay and lesbian people–and same-sex couples–I have in my life. G-d created a “suitable helpmate” for Adam… In Adam’s case, that helpmate happened to be the woman we know as Eve. But in my friends’ cases, the suitable helpmate created for them wasn’t a person of the opposite gender.

    What I appreciate about Quakers in this part of the country is that when we find that our personal experience about an issue conflicts with the authority of Scripture, we test with one another and through seeking G-d in order to understand what and where the fruits of the Spirit are, if there are any to be found.

    The families I’ve met that have two moms or two dads; the religious faithfulness of the gay and lesbian worshipers among us; and the love, commitment, and responsibility that same-sex couples in my Quaker community have shown one another: all these experiences indicate to me and to my religious community in Minnesota that God’s love is *abundantly present* in these relationships.

    In the states where marriage for same-sex couples is legal, I haven’t seen a single headline about sisters and brothers trying to marry; or about churches and synagogues being forced to marry couples they didn’t want to. Again, I’m looking for fruits of the Spirit: if the roots are spoiled (marriage for loving, committed same-sex couples) the fruits should be spoiled too… I’m not seeing it.

    I know some of my religious friends are conflicted by “what the Bible says” and by what their personal friendships tell them is true. Many of them are voting NO in NOvember because they don’t believe their religion should be put into this governing document. Others of my religious friends are planning to leave the question blank, so they can say they didn’t go against their faith, and neither did they go against their gay friends or family.

    I’d like to think of a blank vote as G-d’s giving us a “third way” between a Yes vote and a No vote.

    I realize that a blank vote helps the No votes, but– If we as a state are so uncertain about the whole issue, why risk putting it into the Constitution?