Straight talk about the marriage commitment

  • Article by: ROBERT FRANKLIN
  • Updated: February 24, 2012 - 1:03 PM
  • 94
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
minn12Feb. 23, 12 9:05 PM

Even for the Strib, this is a new low. I've never seen such a bunch of nonsense spewed forth concerning the marriage amendment. I'm simply stunned.

berrywiseFeb. 23, 12 9:29 PM

@minn12 It's called the opinion section. In that section the writer is allowed to express their opinion.

goferfanzFeb. 23, 12 9:32 PM

Yes, this column meanders in search of a point. The two minutes lost reading this column are two minutes I will never get back. Thanks alot, Bob!

davehougFeb. 23, 12 9:35 PM

So who SHOULD decide what society approves of? A judge or society????

sjhuotFeb. 23, 12 9:42 PM

Also @minn12: I would assume that from your comment, you are for the amendment and against gay marriage. Please tell us how gay marriage will negatively affect marriages of heterosexuals. Please tell us how allowing gay marriage is more dangerous than "letting" Newt get married three times, or Liz Taylor eight times, or "letting" Britney Spears marry someone for a few hours. Be specific, if that is possible.

mnpls1234Feb. 23, 12 9:44 PM

Good thing that activist judge is no longer on the bench!!

kd5757Feb. 23, 1210:05 PM

Mr. Franklin is absolutely right. To believe that same-sex marriage actually threatens heterosexual marriage is simplistic and irrational thinking. There is no scientific evidence to support such nonsense. If people were allowed to vote on interracial marriage, it would still be illegal in some states. Thank God for educated judges who can discern fact from fiction and who work to ensure that all of our citizens are treated equally under the law.

pinky1933Feb. 23, 1210:20 PM

"I'm simply stunned." It's the OPINION section! And I'm "stunned" that the same people continue to misspell "a lot" and I'm "stunned" that people have such a queer problem (no pun intended) with two tax-paying adults seeking to define/live in a marriage, as they choose, in a constitutional republic. Stunned!!!

my4centsFeb. 23, 1210:29 PM

Just as conservatives fight to uphold the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman, they also uphold other principles that would lessen the divorce rate and out-of-wedlock births. We don't need more laws to make more things illegal. If you want to get divorced three times and have kids with three different spouses, you go right ahead. The conservative solution that would make marriage more lasting? Get rid of ALL government subsidies for parents who can not support their kids. Whether you are single or you decide to divorce your spouse, you will NOT receive government help. Welfare and other government interference has made marriage too easy of an option for parents.

furguson11Feb. 23, 1210:32 PM

The point, for those that wen't straight to writing in the comment section: "Marriage is, after all, a wonderful institution, its legal benefits aside. At best, it fosters love, commitment, companionship and, for many of us, the joy of children. It's good public policy, too, promoting family stability, health, child well-being, educational achievement, career advancement and economic self-sufficiency. So it seems ironic that there's so much emotional debate about several hundred thousand gay and lesbian couples who want to get married but can't -- and so little about millions upon millions of straight couples who, by traditional standards, should get married (or stay married) but don't."


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