You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
A proper debate has a decorum: No last-minute argumentative ambushes.
Amy: I appreciate your insight but I believe our liberal media has already done a good job of distorting the current situation. It is straightforward, either you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman or you don't.
How exactly is pointing out that schools will teach a five year old child that a man can marry another man any of the following: "Irrelevant"? This is very relevant to those of us who want to protect our children from such novel, destructive ideas. "Unfounded"? It has already happened in Massachusetts. "Illogical"? Hardly, schools will be compelled to promote this new definition of marriage at least under the catch-all notion of "tolerance" if not simply to actively promote that notion to promote what they call "equality".
The plain fact is that the author doesn't like his tactics because they work. So she writes an article to stir people up with a sense that what this man does is not fair. What the author here assumes is that Minnesotans are stupid, that we can't form our own opinions apart from the media forming them for us. Writing as if Minnesotans are as stupid as the author of this article suggests is insulting to Minnesotans and has no place in Minnesota.
I cannot find the words to express my feeling about this. To me this is horendus to do this to a small group of our citizens.that work and strive to live a happy and full life as we all do. and mean no harm to anyone VOTE NO!!! and ride this guy out of town on a rail.
Since when did Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights jump into this issue? What a shame. They have so many more important issues (e.g. protecting refugees, immigrants, and children--not to mention religious minority groups) to focus on. I guess I'll have to find a different immigration advocacy organization to financially support. I'm disappointed because they used to focus on other issues of great importance. I'm tired of seeing traditional "human rights" groups leave their roots to jump on this trendy issue when so many poor and vulnerable remain in much greater need.
From the article: "Schubert [Schuber?] acknowledges that his only 'mistake' in 20 years was to run [his tradmark emotional ads] earlier than planned. As the story relates, 'Opponents had time to air an equally powerful counterpunch and his side lost.'" One would think a person who's confident in the soundness of his/her argument would be anxious to defend that argument. As related in the article, Frank Schuber (Schubert?) has good reason to lack confidence in the soundness of his argument, so he resorts to unfair and dishonorable tactics.
Re: "What the author here assumes is that Minnesotans are stupid, that we can't form our own opinions apart from the media forming them for us." Quite the contrary, RalphMalph. It is Frank Schuber (Schubert?) who assumes that Minnesotans will allow our opinions to be swayed by his patented last-minute ad campaign. Why doesn't he give us his best argument against marriage equality now and allow the other side time for rebuttal? What is his argument in support of writing discrimination into our state constitution?
It's 2012. Vote no. Gay marriage has mainstream support on both sides. Let's move forward.
How does a guy whose own marriage ended in divorce have any credibility to speak on the subject?
As one who celebrated his 30th anniversary tray, I can say with authority that the idea of gay marriage has never been a threat to my marriage or that of my kids. Two adults can make that commitment without it being a problem for anyone else.
Seems to me we have actual problems in the world to deal with.
"It is straightforward, either you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman or you don't."
It might not be that staight forward. Maybe you don't personally condone gay marriage but don't think the constitution should be amended to legislate your religious morality on other people. Maybe you think the constitution should be used to protect rights -- and not just to make doubly sure to deny someone's rights. A vote no is not neccesarily a vote for gay marriage; it could also be a vote against big government specifically denying certain people's rights in our Constitution.
Schubert's disingenuous tactics exemplify the reason why these matters are eventually settled in court. There is no law against trying to sway people based on faulty reasoning or even downright lying. Schubert and his ilk know that their arguments wither in the light of day which is why he makes them in the 11th hour. When the matter of same-sex marriage is eventually resolved in the federal court system, it will be done in an environment that requires testimony be given under oath and be subjected to cross-examination. Proponents of same-sex marriage have the advantage in this environment and have the most reputable expert witnesses as evidenced by recent victories in court against Prop 8 and DOMA.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
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.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks