This letter to the editor in the StarTribune shows the misinformation campaign by our opposition worked. This individual thought the Marriage Protection Amendment would deny "financial and health protections" to same-sex couples, when all it would have done is place Minnesota's definition of marriage beyond the reach of activist judges and politicians:
"My heart sank when I learned that a movement to legalize recognition of same-sex marriage is gaining steam. I voted against the amendment, feeling that we should not deny state protections to same-sex couples, especially financial and health protections. At the same time, using the term "marriage" is so emotionally laden that it begs to be fought long and hard by those whose view is "traditional." Can we not just agree to provide legal protections to same-sex couples without calling it marriage? I believe there is enough support within the state that this could be accomplished without the amount of bloodshed we saw this last election. What do you think, Minnesota? Can we all agree to civil unions, and let the emotions have a chance to heal?"