Calif. gay marriage ruling's effect in Minn. is mainly as a symbol

  • Article by: KEVIN DIAZ , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 7, 2012 - 10:46 PM
  • 77
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
minn12Feb. 7, 1211:03 PM

Sorry, Minnesota needs to join the 30 other states and have a constitutional amendment affirming marriage between a man and woman. Many claim there is 'already a state law', but as we have seen, unelected radical judges don't care what the millions of California voters wanted. Minnesota needs an additional wall of protection by having our state constitution be amended. It will be more difficult for judges to try to overturn as 'unconstitutional' what is actually IN the constitution. And by the way, there is NO PLACE in the US Constitution that even remotely confers any 'right' to marriage whatsoever. And where there is no 'right', a right cannot be 'taken away', since it doesn't exist in the first place. It is up to the states to determine their societal values regarding marriage, NOT the federal government or unelected federal judges.

wolveinsocalFeb. 7, 1211:29 PM

It is sad that Minnesota, one of our most progressive and open-minded states, would support such a discriminatory policy. In the rest of the country we still don't understand how Michelle Bachmann has any credibility there. What is clear is that the looniest and most irrational wing of the Republican party has taken control. Eisenhower, Ford and Rockefeller must be spinning in their graves. However, Obama's decisive re-election victory next November 6th should give Republicans a reality check for the future.

steavis61067Feb. 8, 1212:10 AM

I find it strange that all the blame is placed on republicans, although Obama has never endorsed it. As a matter of fact, he has stated he's for "civil unions", as he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Ultimately, the 9th judicial liberal bias notwithstanding, this will come down to an argument in from of the supreme court on 14th amendment grounds (section one - equal protection clause, for those who don't know the document, read the last sentence). Personally, I don't see the big deal with two people of the same gender getting married. I have no business in their marriage, as no one has any business in mine. And, as Jay Leno said, "let them suffer like the rest of us." ...........................And, @wolvesinsocal - You're counting chicken before they hatch. How come you don't call out Obama for his stance on gay marriage?

slocufFeb. 8, 12 1:06 AM

I don't know which is more egregious in Minn12's post - its shoddy logic or shoddy legal analysis. It is NOT the job of the courts to automatically rubber-stamp the voters' wishes. The will of the people OFTEN can go into effect, but not always. When the popular will tramples minority rights, courts have a DUTY to intervene. The Constitution never mentions marriage, but that does NOT mean there is no right to marriage - it means the Constitution is silent on the matter. The Supreme Court has ruled (Loving v. Virginia, 1967) that marriage is a fundamental freedom. The Court also ruled (Romer v. Evans, 1996) that voters may not single out gays and lesbians and strip away equal-rights protections from them while still conferring those protections on everyone else. The 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause says government may not deprive individuals of the equal protection of the laws. That means ALL individuals, not just heterosexuals or those the Religious Right wants to bestow moral favor on. I frontally challenge Minn12, or anyone else, to concoct and justify a constitutional interpretation that allows gays and lesbians to be singled out under the law and consigned to second class status - which is EXACTLY the Religious Right's goal - in military service, adoption, foster parenting, marriage, civil unions, hate crimes protection and even basic sexual privacy (recall the Religious Right's incessant yowling, led by Rick Santorum himself, after the Supreme Court overturned state anti-sodomy laws in 2003).

jdcarlinFeb. 8, 12 2:13 AM

Yes minn, "unelected judges", i.e., exactly as the founders intended.

jdcarlinFeb. 8, 12 2:15 AM

14th amendment: "No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Read your constitution.

ammunraFeb. 8, 12 2:34 AM

minn12 -- My mother used to have a saying that she liked: "If a hundred people stand up and say something stupid, it's still stupid." The same principle applies; voters in California may have voted to approve something unconstitutional, but that does not make it constitutional or right.

hodgie999Feb. 8, 12 4:48 AM

And California is a state we would like to pattern ourselves after why???

notadumdemFeb. 8, 12 5:38 AM

wolveinsocal, I want you to read what you wrote at 11:29 PM and then tell me how you're any different than those with a differing opinion that you rant about.

kd5757Feb. 8, 12 6:18 AM

We need to oppose those that would write their religious beliefs into our public laws relegating a sector of our society to second-class citizenship. We cannot allow ourselves to be subservient to the religious rule of those who believe God has granted them the right to oppress other human beings. There are far too many examples in history of the tyranny of religious rule. If history has taught us anything, we need to stop those zealots whose goal is to have the rest of us live according to their religious beliefs.


Comment on this story   |  


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