Marriage Amendment: It might mean Constitution is amended, as intended

  • Article by: GREG WERSAL
  • Updated: May 11, 2011 - 10:04 PM

A possible solution to our constitutional debate over gay marriage can be found in Minnesota's constitutional history.

  • 14
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
SelfMay. 12, 1112:13 AM

What a bunch of un-composted manure. Does the author have no insight, no understanding? Does he even realize that he is defending rank bigotry by referencing past rank bigotry? This is supposed to show the action of the Legislature in a good light? Shame on them, and shame on this author. The only positive in all of this is that all Minnesotans who did not vote for the author in 2010 can congratulate themselves for a very fortunate and wise action. This lack of mental acuity could have been on our state Supreme Court. Yikes!

21
6
ammunraMay. 12, 11 1:56 AM

Nice history lesson. However, your entire argument falls apart when we examine your quote form our Constitution: ". . .right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good." There is no 'public good' that has been empirically proven from banning gay marriage. Only the sanctimonious "as it should be's" from the self-righteous.

17
4
medas2005May. 12, 11 6:10 AM

I spent significant time in CA during the runup in their amendment to repeal the court ordered right to marriage. We can expect months of TV ads bashing gay people who insidiously threaten the rights of normal people. I think we should also consider an amendment to ban people from marriage after divorce. They should wait until their former spouse is dead. That view runs throughout the Bible, the same reason why we should reject gay marriage. Ah, that would be an inconvenience to those who push for these amendments.

15
6
chefboyrdeeMay. 12, 11 7:46 AM

Liberals would want us to believe that this is a conservative versus liberal issue to further their divide among groups of people. Yet, they convienatly ignore and refuse to acknowledge that the majority of Hispanics and African Americans oppose gay marriage and those folks are predominantly Democrats. This is not a Republican versus Democrat issue it is a moral issue supported by the majority of Americans from all walks of life.

7
17
chefboyrdeeMay. 12, 11 7:56 AM

Apparently, many posters need a history lesson. Marriage was a religious ceremony until the 1500's when the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva became law in Europe. In the USA the government began licensing marriage in the mid 1800's. Get our government out of religion! You want separation of church and state? This would be a good place to start.

8
6
my4centsMay. 12, 1110:11 AM

I agree with most of what the writer states, although I do not understand this last line: "The solution is that we need an easy way to amend our state Constitution -- just like we had when Minnesota became a state." Requiring a simple majority, even when it is needed in congress and a vote by the population, seems like a pretty easy way to amend the constitution. Agree or disagree with any of the proposed amendments, I'd say this is a very wise move by the Republicans. They are proposing amendments that seem to place their views along side the majority of people in this state.

6
10
nasethMay. 12, 11 1:40 PM

my4cents - "...I'd say this is a very wise move by the Republicans. They are proposing amendments that seem to place their views along side the majority of people in this state." No, the GOP is very UNWISE to put such short-sighted political gains above the values of our stated, lawful convictions. The word you're looking for is, shrewd.

7
5
donny01May. 12, 11 2:03 PM

This commentary appears to be missing an opinion, as if it is a historical account of how amendments came to be. Does the author want no votes to be considered as exempt instead of "no," thus helping the Repubs? Is he suggesting that counting non-votes as "no" will help the Democrats? Is he supporting the amendment process because a simple majority in the future can add another amendment to the next election? What is the actual opinion of this commentary?

5
0
GCRILEY100May. 12, 11 2:21 PM

chefboyrdee -- you must have a limited exposure. Most people i know nad have talked to think the whole thing is bigotry at best. By the way, the majority of thee people are from my Catholic Church and are disgusted with the CD theat was sent out.

5
4
my4centsMay. 12, 11 3:12 PM

naseth - Yes, I think shrewd (showing sharp powers of judgment; astute) IS the better word. And while I expect most politicians to be short-sighted, that hardly fits in this case. To allow the citizens of a state the opportunity to affirm (or reject) a law or definition of marriage that has existed since before we were born can hardly be called short-sighted. The short-sighted view would dictate that our leaders avoid the controversy and leave these decisions in the sole hands of future judges and legislators.

3
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT