Traditional marriage is not bigotry

  • Article by: JEFF DAVIS
  • Updated: May 9, 2011 - 8:23 PM

It's outlandish to call same-sex marriage a 'civil right.'

  • 85
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
davehougMay. 9, 11 8:49 PM

I have a problem with a judge using the word "equal" in a constitution to say "well, now instead of amending the constitution I will just change what the founders meant". I don't think I am a bigot for saying changing understanding of marriage since the dawn of history should be done with more than a new interpetation of the word 'equal'. There are valid reasons on both sides, but let the people learn and debate.

ebfauvelMay. 9, 11 8:55 PM

For someone who claims that the Star Tribune offered "a regurgitation of tired talking points from activists who favor homosexual marriage," I would have expected more than a regurgitation of tired talking points from opponents of marriage equality. This piece reads like it was written by Maggie Gallagher. While it is true that "only the sexual union of men and women can produce children," marriage is not required for procreation, and procreation is not a requirement of marriage. Mr. Davis wants to claim that same-sex marriage is not a civil right. Is opposite-sex marriage a civil right? The United States Supreme Court has ruled many times that marriage is a "fundamental right." Marriage is the *only* way to access over 1,000 rights, benefits and privileges. Some of those are monetary and are funded by the very tax dollars of same-sex couples whom Mr. Davis would deny marriage. If that isn't discrimination, I don't know what is.

LakeliverMay. 9, 11 9:45 PM

If we're talking about the "sanctity of marriage", perhaps we should be voting about a far more destructive element than same-sex marriages would ever be: the ease with which nearly 1 in 2 couples break their so-called life-long bonds of marriage with so easily obtained divorces. There is actually nothing very permanent or sacred about marriage in this country in the first place. Furthermore, if you're speaking of the good of the children is there anything more traumatic and upsetting for them than their parents' divorcing? If we're voting on what actually is a moral and religious issue far more than a civil matter, where does this correlate with conservatives' always extolling the purity of our Constitution and what that document tells us about separation of church and state? It's remarkable how conservatives scream about keeping government out of our lives until it comes to matters of personal morality or partisan ideologies. The same thing applies to the bogus issue of voter identification. Blatant hypocrisy and double-talk.

alafair1May. 9, 1110:14 PM

Oooh boy. So is the point of this commentary that "Hey, look, OTHER minorities don't think gays are a minority"? I guess "Minnesota Majority" is telling, eh? No reason to accept people who aren't defined in your "majority", nosirreebob. And marriage isn't a civil right, okay. So accepting that as a fact, what makes it a civil right for the folks who God didn't make "homosexual"? Where exactly is your civil right to marriage defined as exclusive?

orpheus90May. 9, 1110:58 PM

So, the question is, simply: is marriage a civil right? Yes or No. And by the way, folks, no equivocating. YES or NO

gobigblueMay. 9, 1111:22 PM

Geez they freeze me out for calling a spade a spade. Lets try again. What is the definition of a bigot? My definition: Disliking a person or groups of persons based on some aspect of their personality, and or lifestyle, or what have you without any cause beyond said item. Not because you've gotten to know them, not because they've wronged you, just because of what you think about that aspect of them as a person. So does the view of the antis fit this profile? YEP. If marriage is for procreation only (talk about social engineering!), where is the constiutional amendment barring sterile folks from marriage? If marriage is so divine, where is the ban on atheists being married? Surely since marriage is a sacred contract from god almighty itself such people as atheist cannnot be allowed to enter into it. What? no answer? Frankly, I think someone should start a religion, one which has as its core tenets the belief that same-sex marriage is an ideal arrangement in the eyes of god. At the very least, it will force a debate on religious freedom grounds that will take this issue out of the churches, and into the secular, civil sphere where it belongs. Not to mention putting a colossal bee in the fundies' collective bonnet. OR maybe someday people will realize your relgion is yours, my religion is mine, and neither one belongs in the business of marriage, or in the public sphere period. I'll start stocking up on parkas to ship down below for when that happens.

alafair1May. 9, 1111:32 PM

Orpheus90-thanks for boiling it down to what the argument is--IS marriage a civil right?

vorenusMay. 10, 1112:06 AM

What's even more outlandish is the arrogance of Mr. Davis thinking that he should able to vote on another persons civil rights.

jdcarlinMay. 10, 1112:43 AM

Mr. Davis makes the false choice that somehow supporting equal rights deprives rights for others, like allowing blacks the right vote to live in your neighborhood deprives the rights of whites living there, or allowing women the right to vote deprives the rights of men, or that somehow allowing same sex couples the right to marry takes away anything from opposite sex couples. In each case, each of these were actual fears trotted out by the opposition that the expansion of freedoms would somehow take away from the majority, and in each case they were wrong. In fact, our republic has only become stronger as a result.

pdxtranMay. 10, 1112:46 AM

In most of the developed world, marriage is a civil contract, and countries require a civil ceremony to make a marriage legal. Couples may have a religious ceremony if they wish, but they MUST have a civil ceremony, too, or the law considers them to be just living together. It seems that those countries have an easier time accepting gay marriage then the U.S. does, where a religious ceremony can be the only ceremony.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters