You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Those who'd go constitutional would cross a carefully crafted boundary.
As for the men who wrote the federal Constitution-- would they have approved of gay marriage itself? Probably not - - - So instead of changing the constitution via ammendment, we just redefine a word???????
Thank you, Mark Osler! How refreshing to see commentary like this from a UST professor!
This OpEd is surely going to get the Christian Taliban's undies in a bunch...
Thank You Mark! Through all your commentary on this subject - and in every media format where your opinions have been shared - You have been true to your request printed in these pages last October 15th.
"May our debate about gay marriage be constructive." That morning, you ended your remarks with…
“…Raising these points -- gently -- over Thanksgiving dinner may do more to create change than all the poster board signs in the world.
Our hearts open and beliefs are reconsidered when our own interests are valued, respected, and appealed to through logic or story. That is the kind of dialogue that is good for us, and good for the world.”
Marriage is sacred and should be reinforced, not redefined.
This OpEd is surely going to get the Christian Taliban's undies in a bunch... There cannot be a Christian Taliban. There can be Catholic taliban, Baptist taliban, Luthern taliban, Mormon taliban. To be Christian is to be Christ like. When one uses violence or hatred they are not being Christ like so they are not a Christian.
"Americans of all political views revere the collective intellect that created our longstanding democracy. Part of what those men did was decide, crucially, that the U.S. Constitution needed to protect against an overreaching government, rather than dictate social policy. We are not wiser than they, and should not pretend such wisdom by putting an express limit to individual freedom into our state Constitution."
Rep Steve Gottwalt, who wrote the bill to change the constitution, is wiser than the founding fathers. Just ask him....
DaveHoug, Once again you make the mistake of thinking the framers of the constitution were all Christian when the facts show otherwise. Many were humanists or theists who believed that once God created the world "he" stepped back to lead us to our own devices. It is entirely believable that they would have been vehemently opposed to constitutional interference in such a personal issues as marriage - do you really think there were marriage licenses when they were writing this document? Go back for another history lesson. Heck it took a lot of argument just to decide the Bill of Rights needed to be added.
I could see a constitutional amendment prohibiting something if it infringed significantly on the rights of others. But despite claims from those opposing gay marriage that such marriages marginalize their own marriages, that's a pretty hard claim for me to believe. I can believe gay marriage makes people uncomfortable, but do we really have to be comfortable with the decisions others make?
Marriage is sacred to some. The government has no business deciding what is sacred. To the government marriage should be a legal contract freely entered into by any adults. Leave sacred stuff in the churches where it belongs.
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