commentaries

Good, well-written argument. This is, pure and simple, about imposing one group's notion of what is "right" on the rest of the population. I'm in favor of limiting marriage, and all its rights and privileges, to two consenting humans. Male and don't want a husband? DONT MARRY A MAN. FEmale and don't want a wife? DON'T MARRY A WOMAN. Can't figure out that simple plan? Maybe you're not ready to get married!

Dr. Goldbloom gets it. It's not about who, it's about the love that is within the relationship. For the ones who object on so called religious grounds, notice how often Dr. Goldbloom comes back to love, which is what religious people usually do, even so called traditional ones. Even Joyce Meyer, a quite conservative Christian, wrote a book "Reduce Me to Love." Just like Goldbloom says, if a kid is hurting, it doesn't matter who is supporting or helping the child, but the quality of the love that the child receives from the parent, whether heterosexual, homosexual, or single parent of either sex.

Unquestionably love within the family is important. As such logically the more love the better the family. Thus there is nothing magical about the love between two adults in a marriage and the battle cry "discrimination" will be used to further redefine marriage between...[you fill in the blank].

Thank you Dr. Goldbloom. Excellent article, spot-on facts. Love, support and more love is what makes a happy child. Enough of the religiosity of those supporting the amendment is getting dangerously close to the catholic church imposing its dogma on the constitution of the state of Minnesota. They must be stopped least we breech the separation of church and state. It is why my parents left the old country. They did not want the church interfering in their lives and neither do I

Great commentary article. I believe it is telling that the Twin Cities are covered with "No" signs (I have heard of a few "yes" signs in some neighborhoods but I have yet to see a single one). The polling is said to be close, but the moral imperative is on the side of those voting "no." Less than twenty years ago nearly all of the signs would have been "yes" signs, for most of the "no" votes wouldn't want to be identified as such. Now we see who is ashamed of their vote: it is the bigots planning on voting "yes."

I'm glad to know that children have two parents. Straight or gay. That being said, marriage is not required by gay or straight parents to raise great kids. Keep marriage as defined and get the government out of religion!

This is one misleading column, and sadly here come the comments saluting the author. Two facts remain obvious: 1. The children of today have horrible health outcomes compared to just 40-50 years ago. The author knows this-->illegitimacy, obesity, ADD, suicide, depression, poverty, etc 2. The vital American marriage issue of 2012 is what can strengthen American heterosexual marriage, as these will always be the lion's share of children-rearing marriages-->and we currently are failing our children BIGTIME. Who denies this? This author knows our ADD rate trend. Our suicide rates...and on..and on Will allowing same-sex marriage strengthen heterosexual marriage? I think it will weaken it, and our national decline will continue.

armybrat - "I'm glad to know that children have two parents. Straight or gay. That being said, marriage is not required by gay or straight parents to raise great kids. Keep marriage as defined and get the government out of religion!" Exactly: keep government out of religion by allowing gay atheists to get married at city hall and gay Christians to get married at their respectful church that want to marry them. Why should more conservative churches dictate marriage law to others? Do Catholics tell Jews they're not allowed to get married at synagogues? No. Keep government out of religion (and vice versa). Do it for the children. Of gay parents, that is. They need legal protection too. Their parents are already married in every way except the certificate. They're raising children, after all. It's a marriage.

goferfanz - "Will allowing same-sex marriage strengthen heterosexual marriage? I think it will weaken it, and our national decline will continue." You "think"? Use facts please. How will a same-sex marriage harm a heterosexual marriage any more than a sterile straight couple marriage harms them? Neither can have children naturally but both may want to raise children. And how will a homosexual or sterile couple adopting necessarily lead to a child with "illegitimacy, obesity, ADD, suicide, depression, poverty, etc"? Again, use facts please. What we do know if that when both couples get married, they're protected financially and legally through hundreds of laws, rights and regulations. Why force children of same-sex parents to go through childhood without a married couple watching over them? It would be a much more harmful environment for that child's parents to not have the legal protections of marriage. It may even reduce that depression that you're concerned about.

The author forgot to mention that the American Psychiatric Association, the American Sociological Association, and the American Anthropological Association also support same-sex marriage. In fact there is not one single professional organization that has expertise in human development, human social systems, etc. that opposes same-sex marriage. Those that predict doom and gloom do so based on factors that do not conform with reality.