Marriage vote: For the children

  • Article by: STEPHEN J. HEANEY
  • Updated: October 16, 2012 - 7:48 PM

Be grateful that the archbishop is defending society's cornerstone.

  • 179
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
smdentOct. 16, 12 8:03 PM

"It's for the children" the biggest lie of them all. Children raised by loving parents who protect, educate and create a safe environment for them are simply as happy and well-adjusted regardless of the make-up of the parents. This is fear-mongering at its most destructive. Why? Because most of us want our children to be happy and successful. And yet, those promoting the concept that somehow same-sex marriage will damage the children is absolutely ridiculous. Perhaps these people haven't listened to the testimonials of children raised by loving same-sex parents and seen how happy, well adjusted and "normal"...OMG - even straight they are. Please stop the fear mongering with this type of garbage. It's simply NOT TRUE.

roscoe2511Oct. 16, 12 8:13 PM

They say the amendment is for the children, but I notice they aren't doing anything to prevent gay people from having children. Gay couples have children through adoption, serogates, or maybe a lesbian seeks out an "unknowing donor". The amendment will not change that. Had the couples been allowed to marry, they would then have the same protections for their children as straight couples. Me thinks gay people just weird them out and give them the willies.

kieronOct. 16, 12 8:14 PM

It's for the children. Yes, and having working in social services for 20 years, I run into married couples who aren't fit to raise a tomato plant, let alone a child. And I have an aunt and uncle who are childless by choice-- should they be allowed to marry? After all, it's about the children. What about the 85 year old man and the 86 year old woman who met in the nursing home, after their spouses were long dead, and wanted to get married? Will they have kids? Unlikely. But they got married. Sure it's about the children. Sure.

Guppy35Oct. 16, 12 8:16 PM

Since when did the Catholic church get to decide how everyone else feels? And please don't give me the bit about being passed down from the Apostles. We're talking about men, who are fallible, and victim to prejudice of their time. If you are going to plead Christian, then remember that Jesus was all inclusive. He didn't divide to conquer.

Steve99Oct. 16, 12 8:20 PM

"This essentially is their argument. There is only one reason the community is interested in the friendships and sexual arrangements of human beings: When a man and a woman are united sexually, the natural (and frequent) result is children." Please explain the purpose of the 519 state laws and regulations with marriage as an entry condition please. How does having children, or not, affect the right to be at a dying loved one's bedside in the hospital, or to inherit when the spouse dies intestate? The antis have been backed so far into a corner by their lack of logic that throwing children into the ring is all they have left to try. It's a losing argument.

kisawyerOct. 16, 12 8:23 PM

"For the children"? Archbishop Nienstedt has written a lot of checks for the sexual abuse of many children at the hands of his clergy. The bishops of the church moved abusers to other parishes, destroyed evidence and accused children of lying. The Archbishop isn't concerned about children; he's forcing his opinions into the Minnesota Constitution.

okbruceOct. 16, 12 8:26 PM

This was the most intelligent and well-reasoned argument I have seen yet on the matter. Well done!!!

jkidd2624Oct. 16, 12 8:28 PM

So let me get this straight... In other words, the revisionists wish to impose their view on the rest of us. To this we say: Leave it alone.... So you refuse to accept one definition because you feel their view is being imposed on you, when in reality it has no restriction on you, yet are just fine with imposing a restriction on the amount of "love" gays can have by restricting their titles forever more being 'boy friends' or 'girl friends?' Oh yeah, why not? Your way is to "protect the sanctity" of marriage. Ya know, the institution that is as close to meaningless as possible with the number of divorces and single parents out there having kids while not married and never planning on getting married. But yes, it's to protect that. Remember a time when whites could only marry whites, and in the late 60's that was done away with? Yeah, marriage never changes with the demands of it's society. This is comical. The "vote yes" crowd has shipped in Canadian Bigots to defend their position, and now they've resorted to "protect the children" and "protecting the sanctity of marriage." Wonder what the next straw will be?

zippo12Oct. 16, 12 8:34 PM

No thanks. I will not be adding the misguided archbishop to my "gratitude journal."

zekim09Oct. 16, 12 8:38 PM

Wait a second... From the article, "But marriage was not invented by religion. It is part of the nature of reality which, for the good of human flourishing, must be protected in law." But hasn't the pro-amendment group been claiming that marriage is a gift from God? Now it is the "nature of reality"?


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