Oh, so when it's marriage, they object

  • Article by: JASON LEWIS
  • Updated: May 14, 2011 - 8:38 PM

Look, this wouldn't be the state's first recent constitutional question, but there's reason to believe that it might be one of the more necessary ones.

  • 177
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
ollie3May. 14, 11 9:00 PM

Of course, we could just turn the headline around and say "Oh, so when it's marriage, Jason Lewis likes big government". anyhow, i do get a kick out of a person who wants to narrowly define how people can live calling others "elitists"

105
19
xenonimusMay. 14, 11 9:06 PM

I think you are wrong on this one Jason. As a libertarian, I'm not a fan of the government sticking it's nose into anyone's private affairs, but when it does the laws do indeed need to be equal. As you noted, the differing tax brackets are inherently unfair. We could instead have a tax code that treats everyone exactly the same by adopting a sales tax based system that excludes food and primary housing. Everyone would benefit from the exclusions, but the poor would benefit proportunately more because most of their money is spent on food and housing. There would be no issue of fairness, only a debate on the exact percentage. Similarly, the state should be agnostic with regard to marraige. In fact, the state should only provide for civil unions for all couples, with all the same benefits and responsibilities currently associated with marraige. The various churches could then conduct marraige ceremonies with whatever rituals and/or restrictions they want. That way everyone is treated the same under the law, and seperation of church and state are strictly maintained. I could provide many other examples that would demonstrate the benefit and the need for laws to be equal, but a little bit of critical thinking should lead most any reasonable person to the same conclusion.

75
15
aviendhaMay. 14, 11 9:23 PM

The law discriminates against smokers, drug users and loan sharks because smoking, drugs and unregulated usury all cause severe harm to both the people who engage in those activities and the surrounding community. There are countless studies supposedly demonstrating that marriage is the ideal state for the nuclear family, and that gay marriage has no negative impact on society and that children who grow up in families with gay parents are just as well-adjusted as kids who grow up with straight parents. The ONLY argument for banning gay marriage is that a minority of the population thinks it's against their personal religious beliefs, which is clearly against the UNITED STATES Constitution (First Amendment) and thus should not be included in the Minnesota Constitution.

102
18
aviendhaMay. 14, 11 9:34 PM

By the way, a brief Google search brings forth a PDF listing all the Minnesota Constitutional amendments. You will see from this list that every one of these amendments is to preserve our infrastructure, our natural resources and make our laws more efficient. These are all good and necessary things that benefit all our citizens or reward those who have served. OF COURSE WE OBJECT to a Constitutional amendment that only hurts citizens and benefits no one! Here are the last 10 in reverse chronological order: 2006 - To dedicate the motor vehicle sales tax to highways and public transportation. 1998 - To abolish the office of state treasurer. 1998 - To preserve hunting and fishing heritage. 1998 - To extend use of lottery for environmental trust fund. 1996 - To provide for recall of elected state officials. 1996 - To authorize a bonus for Persian Gulf War veterans. 1994 - To permit off-track wagering on horse racing in a manner prescribed by law. 1990 - To dedicate 40% of the state lottery proceeds to the environment and natural resources trust fund until the year 2001. 1988 - To permit the legislature to authorize a lottery operated by the state. 1988 - To allow the use of juries of fewer than 12 members in civil and nonfelony cases.

72
9
iluvminnMay. 14, 1110:14 PM

The attack from the left is on the IDENTITY of Marriage. If identity is declared illegal, there are no longer men:women, young:old, or dogs:cats. If the left wants legal standing for homosexual relationships, they could ask. Instead, they join a growing list of activists doing a great job tearing America down. Seems everybody has plenty of reasons to hate the nation that gave so much peace, prosperity, and freedom to a world population that doesn't seem to be suffering.

14
94
dbsdbsMay. 14, 1110:18 PM

Lewis says the law discriminates against smokers, drug users and loan sharks -- but that discrimination is a result of choices those folks have made. They only have to make different choices to avoid "persecution." No law should place limits on people's rights and no law should limit people based on how God has created them.

68
11
gop4darkagesMay. 14, 1110:45 PM

Say what? Did Jason Lewis say something? Is anybody listening? Is there any rational reason why they should?

79
12
a6699fMay. 14, 1110:50 PM

My guess is that if you were to add the phrase "and of the same race" to this amendment and you'd get the same results.

60
6
efleschMay. 14, 1111:13 PM

All of the current amendments being pushed by the Republican party are for more government and less freedom. Why are these socialist elitist Republicans always pushing for more government? Why are these socialists against freedom?

69
8
logician88May. 14, 1111:30 PM

Why does the Strib publish this guy?

66
13

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