Sierra Club opposes anti-gay marriage amendment

The Sierra Club North Star Chapter, the environmental group that might be expected to be concerned about mating habits of wolves or muskies, says it opposes the anti-gay marriage amendment to the state Constitution that will be on the Minnesota ballot in November 2012.

The proposed amendment would define marriage as an institution between one man and one woman, effectively banning gay marriage in the state.

The group says it is the first environmental organization in Minnesota to publicly stand “against enshrining discrimination in the state’s constitution.”

According to a statement from the group:

“To achieve our mission of environmental protection and a sustainable future for our planet, we must attain social justice and human rights at home and around the globe,” said Margaret Levin, the state director of the Sierra Club North Star Chapter. “The Sierra Club North Star Chapter has a long history of working together to protect our communities and our planet. We do not tolerate injustice, and we will not stand by and allow our state constitution to be used as a means of dividing communities and harming families.”

Comments (6)

  1. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 11/14/2011 - 12:10 pm.

    Well that’s a bit anti-climactic. I thought sure they were going to declare that homophobia was a leading cause of Global Warming.

  2. Submitted by Wm. Sweeney on 11/14/2011 - 01:54 pm.

    I suppose every organization has the right to make a statement on any public issue. The need to do so in this instance seems to be less an interpretation of the Sierra Club’s mission and more of a statement of the personal beliefs of Board members and their director on this issue.

  3. Submitted by John Prusak on 11/14/2011 - 02:52 pm.

    I happen to agree with the opinion that the Sierra Club has taken, but disagree with whether this is news or, more importantly, if this is a topic an environmental organization should be commenting on. It’s so typical of the Sierra Club to be overreaching like this. Even if 95% of their membership agrees with this opinion — and again, I happen to agree with their opinion on this topic — they are not and should not be a part of a debate that is so far from their core role. I would feel the same way if the NRA, the American Motorcyclist Association or the National Bowling Association took a stand on this or any unrelated topic — Do what you do and stay true to your purpose

  4. Submitted by James Hamilton on 11/15/2011 - 09:21 am.

    While I agree that the Sierra Club went beyond its charter in taking a position on this issue, I can’t help but wonder if its executives and board members don’t harbor some nascent fear of Dominionism and its potential impact on environemental matters. Mr. Farrell is correct i saying saying that the marriage amendment is the thin edge of the theocracy wedge, though I’d venture to say it threatens more than civil liberties.

  5. Submitted by Neal Krasnoff on 11/16/2011 - 07:07 am.

    Mr. Farrell commits the sin of using the Pastor Niemöller’s famous statement to suit his own purposes. The Pastor was referencing totalitarian Nazi oppression. There is no application here, Mr. Farrell. It’s a sin to use the Nazi analogy for purposes of your argument.

    The marriage amendment restates current law, Anglo-American jurisprudence, cultural traditions, biological fact, and will prevent some postmodern court from imposing an edict upon civil society.

Leave a Reply