Marriage Amendment - a judge's tale

  • Article by: LLOYD ZIMMERMAN
  • Updated: November 25, 2011 - 11:04 AM

After writing about presiding over a dying man's marriage, I heard from a woman whose wish the law would not allow me to grant.

  • 286
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
skramsvNov. 24, 11 6:50 PM

Mr Zimmerman, I applaud what you are doing to promote marriage and basic human rights. When I was born, I was evidence in a crime. My white mother and black father dared to have sex. The Loving vs Virginia was a very important Supreme Court ruling to me. I still get racist comments from backwards people and I realise that that is just going to be a part of life. But inter-racial unions are legal. It is time for all Americans to be able to marry the people they love as long as they are of legal age. Gay and lesbians are not a threat to marriage.

ebfauvelNov. 24, 11 6:56 PM

Judge Zimmerman, as a gay man who has been in a committed, monogamous same-sex relationship for nearly 22 years, thank you so very much for this commentary.

susan_beth01Nov. 24, 11 7:36 PM

Amen brother! I was recently divorced woman and went on a trip with a bunch of people. One couple were men. After the trip, it dawned on me, "That is the kind of relationship I want." It didn't matter that they were men. They treated each other with respect, helped each other and supported each other and cracked the funniest jokes. I am happy to say I do have that relationship with my husband and partner Scott. Let's not put sexism in our constitution. Minnesotans are better than that.

stanjohnsonNov. 24, 11 7:53 PM

Judge Zimmerman, Thank you for your humanity, love and compassion. Reading your comments also make tears come to my eyes. I am very sad that we have the implicit, even blatant, prejudice that people of the same sex who love each other cannot have same privileges as "heterosexual" couples regarding marriage. I am also very sad that the Catholic Church in which I was raised supports the prejudice. Oh, for what it matters, I am a "straight" man.

thewordsmithNov. 24, 11 8:09 PM

Thank you for writing such a thoughtful piece.

wardnjuneNov. 24, 11 8:14 PM

First and foremost, we must educate people that the failure of this amendment will not legalize gay marriage. It does no such thing. We have to stop the panic. And until we do that, we will never be able to move forward and have a rational discussion about basic human rights. There is already a law on the books - gays just cannot marry in Minnesota. Period. We don't need a constitutional amendment. Can we just please leave the constitution alone?

halfback2011Nov. 24, 11 8:15 PM

As someone that is not originally from this state, and as a matter of fact not even from the USA, I still can't believe that MN is about to vote to limit rights on a group of their citizens, it is completly opposite of my expirience while living here and I know that if this ammendment passes we will look at ourselves in the near future in shame. I'm hoping I could stay proud of the place I call now home and I admire so much.

avidreader24Nov. 24, 11 8:15 PM

Thank you, Mr. Zimmerman! You're absolutely right, and you're doing to brave and righteous thing. As a straight man, I fully support gay marriage. Children in stable, married households can be better off than those who aren’t because both parents can handle decision-making and parenting without worry. Opponents of divorce often cite the negative effects on children; the same can be said against bans on gay marriages.

pinelakelindNov. 24, 11 8:22 PM

Thank you for your comments. I so enjoy visits to my nephew and his partner. They are both wonderful and caring men. They have a very long term loving relationship and they deserve to be married.

oglethorpieNov. 24, 11 8:37 PM

"I'm guessing that most of us wouldn't tolerate the government limiting our choices for spouses." Ah, but it does, judge. Ever allowed a man to marry his underage girlfriend? Or his sister? Or his cousin? I have as much government-imposed limitations on who I can marry as a gay person does. And we put those limitations on who can marry whom in an attempt to maintain a civilized and moral society, as it has been for thousands of years.


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