Marriage amendment: 'No' is the helpful vote

  • Article by: PAT FALLON
  • Updated: June 25, 2012 - 8:24 PM

It would be self-defeating for the state's economy to wave a "You're not welcome" sign by supporting this exclusionary amendment.

  • 166
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bruceyokJun. 25, 12 8:58 PM

Recognizing real marriage, and denying the fallacy of same-sex "marriage," will be better for business in the long run, since only real marriages result in children, who are the future of society. Same-sex "marriage" does nothing for the common good, let alone business.

jpcooperJun. 25, 12 9:02 PM

"Yes is the moral vote

ratsenubirtJun. 25, 12 9:14 PM

How is the question even worded? I haven't seen it yet myself to say weather I am voting no or yes. If the question is do you support same sex marriage my answer would be NO. If the question is should marriage be defined as between a male and a female only my answer would be YES.

ottlukkJun. 25, 12 9:37 PM

"as powerful & sacred as the Catholic church"? You have it correct on "powerful", where for centuries they have attempted to push their dogma on non-believers. Up to the present day. "Sacred"? not so much, if you are preaching the doctrine of "love your fellow man". The dogma of one church should not be jammed down the throats of people who do not subscribe to the beliefs of that church. Vote "No!" on this loveless, judgemental and Godless amendment.

liora51Jun. 25, 1210:17 PM

I believe the author has a good point. I go to Pride just for the sheer fun of the event. I notice which businesses have a presence there. And, while I don't actively boycott businesses, I do proactively seek out services and products that are associated with diversity, openness.

halfabubbleJun. 25, 1210:51 PM

It may be difficult to understand when you're not gay. I'm not gay either. But the reality is, people often move to where they are welcomed and move away from places they are not welcomed. What this means for Minnesota is that, as the economy recovers, more and more jobs will need to be filled, and as the labor pool gets closer to full employment (MN is at 5.6% unemployment now) the competition for good employees will grow. Employees who no longer feel welcomed here, but do feel welcomed in other states will eventually pick-up and move. Why is this a bad thing? Because if you're not growing, you're dying, and the last thing I want to see for this state that offers so much is to see it go backward and not forward.

maddog4680Jun. 25, 1210:55 PM

Way to go, Pat! (May I call you "Pat?") During my time at Fallon it was always crystal clear that everyone at the organization, from the top down, expected every employee to contribute to the creative energy and the productive spirit by being themselves without shame or reservation. Trust me, I've worked at places that expect employees to transform into robots once they enter the elevators (including, sadly,'s hoping you can extricate Fallon from those jaws someday), and not only does morale suffer, but productivity hits the skids, too. Thank you for reinforcing your commitment with this editorial. I hope all Fallonites, present and former, join me in recognizing its authenticity.

halfabubbleJun. 25, 1210:55 PM

The sad part about this amendment is that in about 20 years, it will get over turned by the voters, but we will have this stain of discrimination in our constitution for all eternity.

my4centsJun. 25, 1211:02 PM

Mr. Fallon is describing the meaning of this vote incorrectly. He states that approving the amendment would be like waving a "You're not welcome" sign in front of gays and lesbians. How can this possibly be the case when the amendment changes nothing. It does not demand a change in our attitudes towards gays and lesbians, and it does not demand that they not be hired or accepted. It simply says that we choose to keep our definition of marriage as it is. Gays and lesbians are still welcome - and businesses can still hire them and offer them whatever benefits they choose. Congress can even pass a law that extends legal benefits to same-sex couples if they choose. We will not be saying "Not welcome" in any way.

KarencheyneJun. 26, 12 1:13 AM

First of all, the Catholic Church only has dominion over its own adherents; it does not have the religious right to attempt to sway the moral (or political) decisions of non-Catholics. That constitutes evangelism... and politics. The Church and state were asserted to be separate stated publicly by the same Jesus Christ in whom the Catholic Church places its beliefs. God did not intend for people to love Him while, at the same time, denouncing their fellow man. His love for man was universal and inclusive. He was a fisherman, by trade, not a psychologist. 2012+ years ago, there was no such word as homosexual, transgendered or any other such terms. God just cared that we love each other as He loved us. Voting for an admendment that is discriminatory and exclusive will not fulfill God's wish for His children...rather, hefty portions of the populations of towns and cities will be made the overt symbol of societal rejection. What would Jesus do???


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