May our debate about gay marriage be constructive

  • Article by: MARK OSLER
  • Updated: October 15, 2011 - 12:06 AM

We are a year away from voting on a constitutional amendment to bar gay marriage here in Minnesota, but forces are already gathering for battle.

  • 49
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
goferfanzOct. 14, 11 8:08 PM

Gosh, a nice column that thoughtfully addresses both sides of a difficult issue. Is this the Strib website? I have always been amazed at the irony of those who profess to hate bullying,,,,, then they seem to have a bullying, even hateful, tone to their comments.

owatonnabillOct. 14, 11 8:17 PM

Excellent article--and a difficult situation. As a Libertarian I'm not wild about this question even being brought before the voters. But since it is, questions about how well children raised by gay/lesbian parents do, financial implications regarding insurance, inheritance issues, etc., and other related questions will undoubtedly be raised. I hope that they are discussed on their merits rather than merely becoming topics for name-calling, as so often seems the case these days.

docgeddyOct. 14, 11 8:48 PM

A thoughtful appeal for moderation and good advice for a public conversation, to which I would add the religious freedom issue. This amendment would validate the doctrine of some churches (Catholic, Baptist, and Mormon, e.g.) while prohibiting a sacrament for Episcopalians and the faithful of United Churches of Christ. The amendment is asking the Constitution of the State to pick winners and losers in theology. We don't trust the gov't to pick winners in the market, and that's only money, not souls. Perhaps an amendment is a blunt instrument to govern such matters of personal conscience.

lorenpillerOct. 14, 1110:22 PM

docgeddy matters of personal conscience? Are you talking about marriage?

RF6700Oct. 15, 11 1:03 AM

Let's let the people decide if society is to redefine marriage, not liberal activist judges. And let's quit the name calling here as well. The democrat party recently had control of the Presidency, House and Senate for two solid years and could have passed gay marriage if they wanted to just like they rammed job killing ObamaCare through, but they didn't even try.

rolflindyOct. 15, 11 4:41 AM

Unfortunately, this substance filled article will fall on mostly deaf ears. In the final analysis, the proposed marriage amendment comes down to one religion aggressively mobilizing to force its views on the rest of us.

janiegirlOct. 15, 11 7:18 AM

Interesting that the Star Tribune is not allowing for comments on the front page story "Bishops begin fight for marriage vote." How many female bishops and female parish priests recieved the Archbishop's letter? Females are second class citizens in the Catholic Church. When females don't even have equal rights, I guess we can hardly expect the Catholic Church to consider granting them to the GLBT community. We have a problem when churches who operate with 17th century (or earlier) theology are trying to influence laws in the 21st century. If the Catholic Church feels it's imperative to affect secular law and side with a party that has decided to take a partisan stance on gay marriage, then they better be willing to pay taxes. Ironic that the Catholic Church that changed it's own stance on divorce, now sees gay marriage as the biggest threat to traditional marriage when over 50% of traditional marriages end in divorce. Why does organized religion get caught up in the details and not get the big picture of Christ's message. Jesus didn't hang out with the majority. He spent his time with those people on the fringes that the majority excluded ~ the poor, the sick, the tax collectors, the lepers and the prostitutes. Jesus was all about inclusion not exclusion. People who call themselves Christian should consider following the example of Jesus Christ and spend less time deciding who' in and who's out.

one4thepeepsOct. 15, 11 8:51 AM

Janiegirl's point is a key one. I've often noticed the Strib disallows any commenting on articles pertaining to issues of gay marriage. I would also point out that the bullying the article references goes both ways. Recently, after Kare11 ran an article about the upcoming gay marriage vote, I watched in consternation as posters on Facebook chastised those against the amendment for not "knowing the Bible." They even used such ugly, grade-school rhymes like "the Bible is about Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." When you are trying to engage someone with that kind of thinking in a higher theological or moral discussion, what are your odds of having a fruitful discussion? I'm tired of the Bible being used as a weapon of prejudice and hate toward GLBT families. When NOM, one of the major right wings advocacy groups supporting this amendment, compares gays to pedophiles, we need to call them out for their hate.

my4centsOct. 15, 11 8:53 AM

janiegirl - Reading a book right now by Philip Yancey that speaks of the numerous Chrisitan ministries that exist for the sole purpose of helping those who are trapped in prostitution. Not yelling in their faces like many Chrisitans get portrayed, and not using them and throwing them away, which seems to be more and more accepted by many. Instead, offering freedom and hope, which most of them have lost. There are even more Christian ministries that exist to help the poor and the sick. Not all Christians are involved, but many who are not support one or more of these organizations financially.

I am not involved with the Catholic Church, but I do know that many of these ministries - that are truly following the example of Jesus Christ - are led and supported by Catholics. Just because this might not be the side of the church that gets in the news does not mean that it is not happening. In addition, the example of Jesus was to be a friend to sinners (all of us), but he then invites us sinners to turn around and follow Him. That may be the part of the church you are fighting against, but it is still following the example of Jesus Christ.

mondaveauOct. 15, 11 8:55 AM

Rather than trying to ban same sex marriages we should try to ban government involvement in all marriages. This is a personal thing and the legal aspects can be dealt with through legal documents such as wills, etc.


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