Dear conservative-leaning friend

  • Article by: ROBERT SAXTON
  • Updated: September 28, 2012 - 9:04 PM

Let me clear up for you what a 'yes' vote will and won't accomplish.

  • 273
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mwellcomeSep. 27, 12 6:44 PM

Interesting article ... but who says you have to lean conservative to vote yes?

ivehaditSep. 27, 12 6:59 PM

Best article ever on why a NO vote on this amendment is the kind, caring thing to do for a better Minnesota.

stottle32Sep. 27, 12 7:38 PM

I am very conservative and plan to vote no. Please don't group a group of people into one category. Thats how racism/sexism/any other ism gets rolling.

pumiceSep. 27, 12 7:49 PM

Three excellent statements from the commentary: The stated reason [for spending time and money on the amendment question] is to protect marriage from the scary, deviant gays who will surely do something terrible to the institution by, well, honoring it." When will Minnesotans realize that the primary argument reflected in this statement defines cognitive dissonance?

"Gay marriage is already illegal in Minnesota -- meaning that the state doesn't recognize a family when it sees one." When will Minnesota recognize the right of two consenting adults to express their love and declare their commitment to form a family without discriminating against them because of their sexual orientation? As Robert Saxton concluded, "[N]ot only should you vote no on the amendment, you should begin to consider the family-friendly thing: giving same-sex couples the 515-plus rights that they deserve."

ies0716Sep. 27, 12 7:56 PM

Actually, virtually every health insurance plan allows you to cover your domestic partner and domestic partner's children. State and federal laws already allow domestic partners to have virtually every right that a married couple has. This amendment isn't about legal rights; it's about what we want society's definition of marriage to be.

bizsmithSep. 27, 12 8:01 PM

What has conservative got to do with it? The amendment is just wrong.

ztwoodsSep. 27, 12 8:37 PM


erikj3Sep. 27, 12 9:08 PM

Voting yes would primarily and probably permanently enshrine hatred in our state Constitution. It will make a mockery of how Minnesota is viewed, as inclusive and welcoming of all. It will make it harder for corporations to recruit the best candidates. It will do nothing to stop the trend towards allowing gays to marry. In short, voting yes will accomplish nothing good and everything bad. I'm voting NO.

hotdigitydogSep. 27, 12 9:22 PM

A true conservative, who believes in limited government intrusion in our lives, would vote No.

goferfanzSep. 27, 12 9:25 PM

Of course, if we lived in a dream world, then this column might be relevant. Sadly, we live in an America with 40% illegitimacy rates due to easy divorce laws devaluing marriage and economic incentives to having kids out of wedlock. Redefining "marriage" will be the second blow to drive illegitimacy rates to/above 80% as marriage truly becomes nothing more than a joke, a lark. Advocates like this writer wont admit the truth--->gay households were all of 1% in the last census, aka almost 0%. If marriage were redefined, within a few short years the vast majority of "redefined marriages" would only be heterosexuals marrying for the benefits, not romance, and not the rearing of families. And as illegitimacy rises, America will go the way of Rome, and perhaps it is already too late. Hollywood, btw, was way ahead of the curve on this-- doing an Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie many years ago.....


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