Editorial: Vote 'no' on marriage amendment

  • Article by: EDITORIAL BOARD
  • Updated: October 22, 2012 - 10:30 AM

It's on the ballot for dubious reasons. It's also anachronistic.

  • 226
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
kd5757Oct. 21, 12 8:00 PM

In the end, love will win out over hate, love will win out over indifference, and love will win out over fear. It is only a matter of time before this conversation within our communities and across our country is one we won’t need to have anymore. Vote NO on this discriminatory and shameful amendment.

216
55
muggsh2oOct. 21, 12 8:21 PM

Well, the star trib continues its left leaning reporting going. Its very unfortunate that the NO people have made this into a name calling, hate issue. Typically, that proves that the side spewing the negativity doesn't have a real argument and that's the case with the "NO" group. Just read this poorly written editorial piece (is the writer an 8th grader} and one can see the point. Its a very sad time in our country's history, solidified by our current president that if you don't have a record or you have a baseless argument, make the other side evil. The only "hate" and "intolerance" I have seen in the marriage amendment debate has come from the left. Not one pro marriage amendment person I know discriminates or hates anyone. This is about the institution of marriage not hate.

85
325
foreatherOct. 21, 12 8:25 PM

A very sound argument for voting no. I am a conservative Christian who is voting no. We need to have a separation of church and state.

265
61
EmperorZorakOct. 21, 12 8:32 PM

Actually muggsh2o the articles and comments on this site have given many through and thoughtful reasons to vote NO on the amendment. It's those who want to vote YES that have yet to give one good reason for doing so.

240
48
luxaeternaOct. 21, 12 8:42 PM

An excellent editorial. Let us hope that Minnesota will go down in American history as one of the first states to say No to intolerance and bigotry when it comes to legal marriage for gay men and women.

215
45
davholbOct. 21, 12 8:44 PM

I have posted previously in regard to this "issue" which should never, ever been introduced as a "Constitutional Amendment" for reasons other than, it is a "distraction" from what legislators are "elected" to provide. As I had stated in previous posts. Do the things necessary to accomplish what you have been elected to do. If not, expect to be "replaced". Therefore, if you voted to include this "distraction", I hope you will be replaced. You are neglecting your responsibilities, and should be!

175
25
bizsmithOct. 21, 12 8:51 PM

Muggsh2o--your comment exudes negatism and hate, counter to your claims.

173
34
BABloomOct. 21, 12 8:52 PM

Opponents of this measure did not seek the dialogue, but have done a laudable job responding to the challenge. Minnesotans United for All Families has done our state a real favor by helping us learn that love is love and that by voting NO in November we can come together to continue to make Minnesota a wonderful place to live for ALL families.

176
29
carl12345Oct. 21, 12 8:52 PM

I just don't understand why we want this to be a voted issue. I am not pro-gay or pro-straight, but I believe in the right of individuals to love who they choose, publicly, privately - however they choose. Why should we vote on this?? Nobody voted I could marry, why should I vote someone can/can't. I just don't feel it should be a legislative issue, unless the amendment reads getting access to health benefits, etc.

174
28
kd5757Oct. 21, 12 8:53 PM

"The only "hate" and "intolerance" I have seen in the marriage amendment debate has come from the left. Not one pro marriage amendment person I know discriminates or hates anyone."......Really? You're free to believe whatever you want but when you try to force a group of our citizens to go to the back of the bus when it comes to civil marriage you're discriminating against others no matter what your motives are. When you try to compel others to follow your religious beliefs by codifying these beliefs into law you violate an agreement we all have made to separate church and state. Same-sex marriage will eventually be legal because our government does not have a legitimate reason to deny it. Hence, you see same-sex marriage advocates winning court case after court case. This will continue until same-sex marriage is legal throughout the country and then we can all move on to address real issues.

182
27

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT