Voters to determine the future of marriage, House decides

  • Article by: RACHEL E. STASSEN-BERGER, BAIRD HELGESON and ERIC ROPER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 22, 2011 - 5:05 PM
  • 635
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
goferfanzMay. 21, 1111:51 PM

Salute GOP! This is a big step for our society, and I will abide by the vote--->It is about not buying into the oxymoron known as gay marriage. It is accepting the fact that after milleniums of experience, society recognizes that children are best born and reared by biological parents consisting of one man and one women. That means accepting that formal societies will try encourage this behavior....... It isnt saying others cant often do a good job as they can/do-->one parent, a grandparent, adoptive parent, Hal and Al, etc but it is recognizing the basic tenet for broad success = children being reared whenever possible by their real mom and dad. Certainly, in recent decades with liberal divorce laws and 40% illegitimacy rates, America has seen the carnage in its youth be it record levels of truancy, suicides, depression, ADD, etc. We better right this ship soon, or it wont end well for America. Indeed, it may already to be late..........but tonite was a brave and needed vote. Salute!

100
370
gener7May. 21, 1111:53 PM

It's good to see the GOP has gotten their social agenda through. Too bad they can't spend as much energy on the budget and jobs. How about a constitutional amendment that says absolutely nothing else gets handled until the budget is finished.

266
66
rocket1May. 21, 1111:53 PM

This really sucks. Legislating discrimination, asking people to vote to take rights away from others? Why on earth to we need to write discrimination into the constitution?! Shameful legislating, social conservatives.

294
76
tired1May. 21, 1111:54 PM

I'd rather have the people of MN decide this issue rather than the courts.

93
246
elwher2May. 21, 1111:55 PM

I pray that enough people get out to vote to enforce the majority of people that would rather work on real issues and have government stay out of others personal lives. Kinda feels like the slavery issue of our times. Bald and poor people are getting anti-marriage laws next !

212
55
drichmnMay. 21, 1111:55 PM

"Those who want a 'No' vote, those who want a 'Yes' vote came about through the union of one man and one woman. And that union brings about the future of our society," he said." ... And how is the ability of heterosexual people to marry and have children affected by gay people getting married?

209
49
ronpaulbabyMay. 21, 1111:55 PM

""I do not believe it is up to judges or even this body, but it should be up to Minnesotans," Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud" I agree. Liberals and their GLBT friends will try to claim this is more government. It is not. This allows us all to have our opinion heard - what is wrong with that? I will vote YES!

62
266
rigoristMay. 21, 1111:57 PM

Time to get busy. The only thing that matters is votes on the amendment. Not scoring points on message boards. Not impassioned Facebook posts. Not outraged tweets. Just votes. Time to get busy.

130
20
mooseitMay. 21, 1111:57 PM

If we are going to have a ballot referendum on something, how about one on shutting down the Metropolitan Sports Commission and letting billionaires and sports fans finance their own obsessions?

179
36
qwertyyMay. 21, 1111:58 PM

I am embarrassed of our state. I know that when it's time for voters to decide, we'll decide "no" on discrimination, and to put new representatives in office who better represent us. SHAME.

147
35

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT