NFL's Matt Birk: Let's protect marriage -- and speech

  • Article by: MATT BIRK
  • Updated: October 2, 2012 - 11:10 AM

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children.

  • 687
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
cfultzSep. 29, 12 6:04 PM

Well said!

mn_cameraSep. 29, 12 6:06 PM

Would you feel the same if one of your children was gay and wanted to get married? Would you tell them that because it would do some abstract sort of harm, solely in your mind, they would have to be prevented from it?

jercoreySep. 29, 12 6:09 PM

Like so many others opposed to marriage equality, Birk fails to substantiate his opposition with anything real, instead making comments like this: "Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society." Still pretty vague, pretty unclear on how same-sex marriage would actually harm society. His use of "same-sex attraction," rather than "gay" or "lesbian" is telling as well.

bearclaw500Sep. 29, 12 6:12 PM

Bravo-Bravo, well put Matt. Come back to the Vikings!

ddellwoSep. 29, 12 6:18 PM

Amen! The Left has succeeded in spinning the conversation of most cultural issues to the point where if any one dares question their view of the matters of the day, it must be rooted in some sort of deep-seeded hatred or paranoia. I have no malice towards the homosexual population and know and interact with many of them on a personal level, but in my opinion, definitions have meaning and marriage is (and always should be) defined as the joining of a man and a woman.

ChachiSep. 29, 12 6:18 PM

Glad he is a "former" Viking and not a current one.

themightybSep. 29, 12 6:24 PM

Well put Matt. I applaud your candor and find your reasoned tone welcome, even though I fundamentally disagree with your view of the issue. It is my opinion that same sex couples can also provide a nurturing, loving and supportive environment for children. The legal protections that come with civil marriage are important to protect those couples and the families that they may create together. I do whole heartedly agree that the flippant attitude that some people apply to marriage hurts us all. I hope that if same sex couples gain the legal protections of civil marriage that they are not as cavalier as many of their heterosexual neighbors.

Earlybird39Sep. 29, 12 6:25 PM

I definitely respect Matt Birk, and he absolutely has the right to free speech, but nothing he wrote convinces me that gay marriage will do anything to harm children, or future generations. That exact same argument was used to oppose inter-racial marriage just a couple of decades ago. People were absolutely positive that children born from inter-racial unions would be doomed to a life of discrimination and harassment. Here we are in the 21st century and multi-racial families are so commonplace no one but the most bigoted even notice any more.

hillratSep. 29, 12 6:26 PM

Matt what is your argument? You don't say why same sex marriage is bad, you don't give reasons. What are your facts, what are your sources of information? It seems that you are just uncomfortable with it and think it will further bring down society? Do you know of anyone raised by same sex couples? Are those children bringing us down? Are they so confused that they commit crimes and go around forcing themselves on society? I don't think you have a clear argument because you really don't know anyone raised by same sex couples. Instead you are using your "gut" and not those Harvard brains.

movebak2mplsSep. 29, 12 6:29 PM

One of the problems with Matt Birk's argument is that he believes that marriage is the government's way of encouraging a "stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids". The reality is that while marriage for him and many others is a great foundation for doing just that, for others it means something different. For many people its simply to be able to publicly recognize the love they share for their partner. Many if not most gay people do not want to have children. They simply want the legal benefits that are provided by the government to two loving partners. If Mr. Birk truly thought through the logic of his argument, he would see that his definition of marriage does not recognize the value in recognizing married people who chose to not have children. Marriage, while being about providing a stable foundation for children to some, has a different definition for others. Preventing gay marriages by a change to the MN constitution will not prevent gays from being parents and being married in other states and in gay-friendly churches, etc. Let gay people share in the joys (and pains) of marriage and start worrying more about your own marriage Mr. Birk.


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