Marriage Amendment: Vote yes

  • Article by: AUTUMN LEVA
  • Updated: October 21, 2012 - 7:29 AM

Marriage between a man and a woman is a relationship unlike any other, and government has a compelling interest in supporting it.

  • 140
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
fishbachOct. 20, 12 8:15 PM

Government has no business defining a marriage. Marriage is a spiritual matter; though in this modern life you may have certain privileges due to marital status, such as employer and governmental benefits. The Star-Tribune has made a wrong call on this issue.

chavistaOct. 20, 12 8:16 PM

Per the article, "The overwhelming body of social science supports what we already understand to be true -- children do best when raised by their married mother and father." Compared to what; compared to single parents or no parents. Well, when two gays or two lesbians are married, the children do just as well. There is no scientific research showing otherwise and this was shown to be true in the Prop 8 hearing. Oh, someone will point out the Mark Regnerus study, but that's already been debunked as a garbage study. Autumn Leva's argument is at best specious, and at worst just another bunch of lies. The truth of this is that this amendment was only put on the ballot as red meat for the Republican base.

pwright111Oct. 20, 12 8:33 PM

Marriage is a disaster in this country. More than half of the people are divorced. If anyone wants to get married - go for it. Keep the government out of the bedroom. They are everywhere else.

ebfauvelOct. 20, 12 8:41 PM

"The Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment simply preserves our current, timeless definition of marriage in our state Constitution"

No, that is not all that it does. It prevents same-sex couples and the children they are raising from accessing the legal protections and benefits of marriage.

The only way to access most of those protections is through a civil marriage license. No lawyer can draw up paperwork granting the right to sue for a wrongful death, access to Social Security benefits or pension payments, or the right to inherit an estate without incurring tax consequences - all benefits granted to married couples.

This amendment does not prohibit same-sex couples from adopting or raising children. Therefore, I conclude that if it were really "all about the children," you would insist that same-sex couples raising children get married!

Clearly it's not "all about the children." Nice try, though, Autumn.

ebfauvelOct. 20, 12 8:45 PM

"Marriage between a man and a woman is a relationship unlike any other, and government has a compelling interest in supporting it."

Seems to me that the government is already supporting it, in that it allows opposite-sex couples to marry. Even if same-sex marriage were recognized in Minnesota - and no matter how the vote on this amendment goes, same-sex marriage will still not be recognized here - the government would still be supporting opposite-sex marriage by virtue of allowing it.

So please explain how keeping same-sex couples, including those raising children, from marrying supports or strengthens opposite-sex marriage.

bandresenOct. 20, 12 8:50 PM

This opinion piece conveniently omits the references to the Minnesota chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics which stated that it opposes this amendment because it "would be harmful to the health and well-being of children and adolescents."

ebfauvelOct. 20, 12 8:51 PM

"Iowans never got the chance to vote on the issue, and polling at the time showed a strong majority in favor of maintaining the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage in Iowa."

And what does polling today show?

In Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States longer than anywhere else, even most people who were initially opposed to it now realize that it's really not a big deal. (As an interesting aside, Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.)

Nationally, a slim majority now favors same-sex marriage.

Careful, Autumn; if you're going to start talking polls and majority opinion, your argument starts to fall apart.

ebfauvelOct. 20, 12 9:03 PM

"Children as young as kindergartners are taught about homosexual relationships."

Well, in first grade I was taught all about heterosexual sex. How babies are made, and all that. There was even an article in the paper about it. It was all presented at a level appropriate for first-graders.

So what is so horrible about teaching kids, in an age-appropriate manner, about any kind of relationship they may witness? We see blatant heterosexuality everywhere, everything from holding hands to kissing to... well, let's not go there. But why is it OK when it's a man and a woman, but not two men or two women?

Kids are curious and observant. They are going to see same-sex couples, and their natural curiosity is going to lead them to ask questions. Don't we owe it to our kids (becuase, as Autumn says, it's "all about the children") to be honest with them?

Same-sex couples exist. They always have and always will. To lie to our kids about that, by error or omission, is a disservice to them.

ebfauvelOct. 20, 12 9:09 PM

"We can show them that they are part of the marital relationship and not just an afterthought, taking a distant second place to adult desire." What a joke, Autumn. The marriage amendment won't force people who procreate to marry. Far too many unmarried opposite-sex couples have their moment(s) of passion, with the resulting child as an "afterthought." The amendment doesn't address this at all.

Same-sex couples, on the other hand, have to jump through all kinds of hoops to adopt a child. There's no "afterthought" when a same-sex couple adopts a child (often a child that opposite-sex couples don't want).

Why don't we show children being raised by same-sex couples that they, too, are "part of the marital relationship?" Vote NO!

lechevalier5Oct. 20, 12 9:22 PM

The one man, one woman are best for rearing children argument is disingenuous. First it imply's that same-sex parents are inferior, therefore should not be entitled to the benefits of marriage. But if same-sex parents are inferior and marriage is for the benefit of the children wouldn't that suggest that same-sex parents are more in need of the benefits of marriage. If this amendment is about the children why are the amendment supporters so committed to punishing the children with same-sex parents?


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