You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
I agree with Keith Ellison's campaign manager -- people of faith do not want to enshrine discrimination in our Constitution. And yes, the right to marry is a civil right and should be treated as such.
It appears the once oppressed are becoming the oppressors. How soon they forget.
If you want people to have the right to choose. Why don't you allow union workers the right to choose whether they want to be in a union or not?
Is it a civil right for a single man to marry another person or persons who are not a single adult woman? Until 20 years ago, I, an historian, had never heard of such a "right". Marriage had always been one single adult male could marry any single adult female if she agreed. What is being asked today is whether this precedent and law should be changed to allow another type of marriage. Should the law be extended in this way?
"Should the law be extended in this way?" ... There is NO law. It is called equal rights for ALL people not just a select few chosen by an antiquated fiction book that has no identifiable author.
""There is NO law. It is called equal rights for ALL people not just a select few""
So you are advocating the right to marry a sister.... marry a dog.... marry a horse.... marry a grandmother.....
Equal rights for what anyone wants to do...
It is quite obvious why there are so many people supporting this amendment!!!!
totaltruth....If the total truth were told, a dog and a horse have no way to consent, so it would not be a marriage between consenting adults. It's quite obvious that some people have no real reasons to support the amendment.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks