You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
We already do -- for a reason -- so those orange lawn signs are misleading.
Re: "[M]arriage is between one woman and one man for the procreation of children." Archbishop Nienstedt speaking in favor of the anti-marriage equality amendment called it "a positive affirmation, not intended to be hurtful or discriminatory to anyone." How can anyone view this redundant amendment (same-sex marriage is already illegal in Minnesota) as other than discriminatory and hurtful? Adultery, like same-sex marriage, is illegal in Minnesota--why not a positively affirmative amendment banning adultery? Cohabitation is not illegal in Minnesota--why not a positively affirmative amendment to ban cohabitation? Divorce is not illegal in Minnesota--why not a positively affirmative amendment to ban divorce? Deciding not to procreate is not illegal in Minnesota--why not a positively affirmative amendment to require procreation?
---The vital role of marriage -- in all times and places--has been to link men to women and the children produced by their sexual union, in order to create the optimal environment for rearing the next generation.--- I guess I need to go tell my Catholic Mother in law that her second marriage at age 62 after her first husband passed is irrelevant because she did not have any children with her second husband. What a narrow minded thought process Kersten has. If this is the bedrock then she should spend more time writing about how to reduce divorce but I am not going to hold my breath.
From the article: "It's misleading, then, to frame the debate over one-man/one-woman marriage in terms of 'limiting' the 'freedom' to marry of people in configurations that aren't consistent with the institution's mission." The primary non-discriminatory configuration consistent with the institution of marriage is two consenting adults promising to commit to one another in a loving relationship.
Concerning the photo which accompanies Ms. Kersten's commentary: Really? Where are the women?
What we have learned in the past decades is that sexual orientation is not a choice. That means for some adults if they are to have a committed, monogamous, and deeply loving relationship in their lifetime, it is going to be with another human being of the same gender. As more people begin to understand this, they begin to also realize the current definition of marriage just does not work for everybody. Forcing gay and lesbian adults into sham heterosexual marriages is not the answer. A humane society would allow government-recognized same sex marriages.
"The primary non-discriminatory configuration consistent with the institution of marriage is two consenting adults promising to commit to one another in a loving relationship." .... Amen. Apparently to Kersten if you choose not to have children or even if you're infertile, your marriage is less worthy because you aren't consistent with the institutions mission. And I find it disgusting that she equates two consenting adults committing to a loving relationship with incest, adultery, and polygamy.
The only aspect of traditional marriage that this amendment will protect is the idea that men are superior and that women are their property. We have ten thousand years of marital history to support that tradition. From the catholic church which refuses to allow women an equal place in the church to middle east culture that limits what women can do from restricting women from going to school to dening them the right to drive a car. This amendment doesn’t just say that gays and lesbians are second-class citizens, it enshrines the belief that women are inferior to men. It says, “Women know thy place, serve thy man”.
We are not voting on whether gay and lesbian adults can adopt children as that issue has already been settled (they can). There are currently gay and lesbian families that have children that would benefit from the legal, social, and financial benefits that marriage affords. Why does Ms. Kersten feel the need to punish these families?
From the commentary: "Our public schools face growing pressure to promote unisex ideology -- often under the guise of 'antibullying' education." Although it's difficult to decide which of the many inflammatory statements in Ms. Kersten's commentary is most provocative, there's none more insulting than the one in quotes. Anti-bullying education is not a "guise" for promoting any ideology, much less a non-existent unisex ideology. The goal of anti-bullying education is to create a safe environment for every child. Anti-bullying education is necessary because some children are taught by word and deed that they or some of their fellow human beings are less-than-human.
Hmmm, I think the world might be a better place if lots of kids were raised by mom & mom. Or dad & dad. Previous model, Mom & Dad, often just Mom, hasn't been a huge success now has it?
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