commentaries

Are you, as a heterosexual person, be willing to take a job in a state that doesn't acknowledge your marriage as legal or valid? Why should our gay neighbors have to face that possibility?

Why are conservatives so hell-bent on codifying discrimination? Why do the rules of the "sanctity of marriage" apply to the people you don't approve of, but are not followed by your own set? (See Amy Koch, John Ensign, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Bill O'Reilly, Tom Coburn, Mark Sanford, Nikki Haley, David Vitter, Norm Coleman...you get the idea). And don't bother saying that the democratic party has its own set of politicians with a long list of peccadilloes. We understand that. But they don't claim to be the party of marital sanctity, that's not their platform, and they do not feel the need to criminalize a person's sexual orientation. It may take a while, but the gay community will notice that they are in a state that, if this amendment is approved, has formalized and written into the constitution hatred and fear toward gays. Its effects will probably be felt soon, as we are bombarded with hateful political ads by groups that claim to be christian. How about if you focus on improving our state in the education, infrastructure, research, natural areas, and business sectors, rather than wasting time using shallow arguments to justify the fact that you are threatened by gay people.

Chuck - imagine how much BETTER our economy would be if gay marriage were legalized. The argument against gay marriage is not an intellectual one but a religious one, which crusaders such as you should not try to conceal. Surely an intelligent person such as yourself doesn't think the "institution" of marriage would be irreparably damaged by expanding the tent. Let's see... the marriages such as those of straight people like myself will be subtly undermined, resulting in divorce. Which even WITHOUT gay marriage is something like 50%. With gay marriage, one can easily see it shooting up to 90%. Lacking in reason, the appeal of arguments such as yours is to hatred and bigotry of people who fear anyone different from yourself. The same people who a generation ago appealed to base hatred and bigotry to uphold laws prohibiting marriages between people of different races. It took a Supreme Court decision to strike down such bans. Which in the view of bigots of that time was no doubt an "attack on the institution of marriage."

The author's opinion is based on the faulty assumption that hotels or other businesses doing well in a state with anti-gay/lesbian laws is the whole story. Far from the truth. The question should be would the states do even better if such a state had an open and accepting atmosphere to allow people of all walks of life to enjoy freedom from this bigotry. Face it, the term marriage is a sacred cow for the sanctity of marriage movement. Of course what really matters is the love and commitment between two people. Plenty of heterosexuals tarnish marriage by entering in and as easily departing from it, while homosexual couples with lifelong commitments and honor for each other are denied the legal status of marriage. I know several gay couples of which one is considering transfer with their company and a BIG part of what they are considering is the mood and acceptance of the cities they are considering for their next home. The argument that a company is doing well therefore the impact of a gay-marriage ban is moot is really a circular argument with diversionary tactics. When I told my kids that two people were married to each other it implied a togetherness and lifetime relationship, no matter what their sex, same or different. To argue that marriage is somehow a sanctity for man and woman is to hold on to the idea that by making marriage a taboo for a same sex couple will put off the acceptance of them as good citizens and good people for awhile. What all good bigots do, of course.

Chuck - Maybe the author of the article you reference meant GOOD big-bucks jobs at Carlson, not the guy who works at some Radisson in some state hauling up luggage for guests. She probably meant corporate jobs, you know, jobs that involve college degrees, performance reviews, bonuses, big cubicles or offices, meetings with donuts, networking, expense reports, client lunches, budgets, casual Fridays, TPS reports - those kind of jobs. The kinds that pay lots in income taxes.

Ignorance and intolerance is unacceptable. Something is illegal and you want to make it twice as illegal? You do not vote for discrimination.

I can only speak of my own experience, but a state's laws regarding family equality HAVE been a major factor in my partner and I making career decisions. We have been lucky enough that the legal costs to ensure the financial protection of each other and our two children are not out of our reach. When my partner was offered a job in a state considering banning gay adoption, after amending their constitution to ban gay marriage, it was an offer she turned down despite the financial advantages. The message was clear that our family was not welcome. We are homegrown Minnesotans and want to raise our kids here. That said we are both able to move and pick up our careers to a state offering more family equality. But we don't want to--we love it here. This amendment has nothing to do with our ability to be married in Minnesota--but it has a whole lot to do with whether or not we will be codified as second class citizens under out constitution. And that WILL impact gay couples who are considering a career in Minnesota--NY had it right when they said "Only second class states have second class citizens." Let's not go there.

Whether you agree with gay marriage or not (I'm voting no next November), the arguments around it should be logical and stick to marriage; the idea that gay people will leave or arrive in droves after next November is absurd. There's a lot more to a gay friendly city/environment than the marriage issue.

The fight against gay marriage is a Republican-generated wedge issue. The tawdry behavior of so many of their politicians shows that they don't really care about marriage--they're just taking on an issue that a certain segment of the population gets uptight about because it's a way of gaining power. They have to, because thirty years of Republican and Republican Lite ("moderate" Democratic) economic policies have led to the deindustrialization of America, a financial system run by crooks, and an overgrown and over-reaching military-security apparatus. Their only hope is to appeal to the bigoted pseudo-Christians, who think that issues that Jesus never once mentioned are a huge deal.

Chuck, it should be this simple for you, shouldn't it? If you don't believe in same-sex marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex.