Marriage amendment ad battle kicks off

  • Article by: BAIRD HELGESON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 2, 2012 - 6:19 AM

Group backing amendment releases its first TV advertisements.

  • 78
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mgs5150Oct. 1, 12 8:43 PM

Is there one proven case where these adds have changed anyone's minds? It's like the Facebook meme that's say thanks for you constant political Facebook posts, you've changed my mind...things you've never heard anyone say.

martytoilOct. 1, 12 9:21 PM

I still cannot understand the bigotry that is being propagated by the vote yes crowd.

kisawyerOct. 1, 12 9:29 PM

I hope Mrs. Yanta is making a good salary because she probably won't be a news anchor again. She's poisoned her broadcasting career.

ebfauvelOct. 1, 12 9:36 PM

"...people can love and respect gays and lesbians, but still vote for the amendment."

Is that like saying people can love and respect blacks but still vote for slavery? Anyone voting for this amendment professing love and respect for gays and lesbians shows a condescending and patronizing attitude that is beyond disgusting.

paige7Oct. 1, 12 9:39 PM

"The group has more ads in the works, but campaign manager Frank Schubert declined to reveal details of the upcoming ads." I'm pretty sure what the details will be: watch for ads that prey on fear. Fear of gays, fear your kids will somehow be vulnerable, fear, fear, fear. It's their SOP.

imichelleOct. 1, 1210:11 PM

People wishing to marry are not evil, have no agenda of evil, and don't deserve to be dehumanized by a group that wishes to embed their religious views in the constitution. My heart sinks. This is not about a definition of unions, this is only about limiting who can make the union, no matter what it is called. Voting Yes to preserve a definition of the word marriage will not allow a the words civil union to be used in the future.

BABloomOct. 1, 1210:15 PM

Vote Yes commercials keep stressing that defeat of this hurtful amendment would lead to a redefinition of marriage. Allowing more Minnesotans access to civil marriage does not redefine matrimony; it simply ends exclusion of some of our friends and neighbors. Similarly, when Kalley Yanta went from having 5 children to parenting 6 children she did not redefine family but simply allowed another member to join. Currently our Constitution allows both the Yanta family and same sex couples to organize their families in accord with state law. There is no need to change the Constitution so that it denies freedoms to any Minnesota families. Vote NO in NOvember.

theokoOct. 1, 1210:46 PM

"The ads also reflect what is emerging as the central message from amendment proponents -- that people can love and respect gays and lesbians, but still vote for the amendment." You can't love and respect people you keep as second class citizens.

thehoffersOct. 1, 1210:53 PM

When the Lord created a suitable helpmate for Adam, he didn't create another of the same sex for him. Scriptures are clear about this. Homosexuality is wrong in ways so very similar to other behavioral failings.

sjhuotOct. 1, 1211:03 PM

The Vote Yes group simply cannot cite any examples of how allowing gays and lesbians to marry will harm either children or straight marriages. Their argument is hollow.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters