editorials

gcrileyOct. 22, 12 6:50 AM oscarlevi Oct. 21, 12 10:02 PM YES I'll vote YES! It is appropriate that CHILDREN have their family with mother and father as parents. I would ask you today...do you had preferred to had two men or two women as a parents? Surely your own answer will be not..! I am very happy that my dad was a man and my mom a woman…very simple. -- Why are you ignoring divorce? That has much bigger impact on children------------If you are so concerned about "the children", maybe you should make it much more difficult to get a divorce. And if heterosexuals stopped having children they don't want. IMO those who vote yes are just throwing the children under the bus.

I'll be voting YES. Not because of it hurting other people (it doesn't) and not because of religion (I don't believe in it) but for the simple fact that only MAN and WOMAN are meant to come together as one. That is nature, and that is why the human race still exists. People can and will do whatever they want, I am all for that, but allowing them marriage just puts a big stamp of approval on it and that is just not the way it's meant to be. Vote YES.

okbruce: "What will you do when we refuse to recognize the fantasy of same-sex "marriage" and refer to same sex couples who "adopt" as child abusers?" You really think that same sex couples who adopt are child abusers? Even if they're not married? If you were to call a same sex couple who adopted a child "child abusers" you would be committing slander or libel. Once on the wrong end of a few of those lawsuits, and the real abuse from people like you would come to an end.

my4cents - And yet, people routinely treat people with physical or mental disabilities as less than fully human - so often that nondiscrimination laws and policies are necessary. So yes, the use of words like "disordered" is intended to imply that legal and social restrictions placed on LGBTQ+ people are done for some kind of idea of "their own (nonconsensual) good."

Michael Brodkorb has revealed the true reason for the GOP putting this on the ballot--to get social conservatives to the polls. Lots of Republicans are voting against it, as they should. This and voter ID are a waste of time and money. What a disappointment the GOP has proven to be--all they can do is divide and polarize Minnesotans, and accomplish nothing.

I wish the media would look further into the Archbishop's true motivations for this amendment--but they'd better do it quickly or it will be too late.

The same people who won't allow same sex marriage on the next generation are the same ones who'd rather have them pay back the national debt and pay more for student loans. What do these people have against the next generation??

The major concern of the anti-marriage folks here seems to be "the children". If so, they are voting on the wrong constitutional amendment. Every Republican should contact their representative and demand a constitutional amendment banning divorce in Minnesota. Otherwise, they are merely hypocrites who hide their bigotry behind their children.

This proposed amendment is unconstitutional in nature. It CLEARLY violates the equal protection clause and I would argue it violates the first amendment too because there is no doubt that the issue is being promoted by bigoted religiousity. Talk to any supporter of the amendment long enough and eventually you will hear them make some sort of deluded god claim. They love to mask their prejudice behind the shield of their religion, as if they were incapable of forming an opinion of their own.

You talk about separation of church and state, well then leave the sacrament of marraige alone!! Don't try to selectively take from religion what you want. Why can't you just be happy with a 'civil union' and leave it at that? You'd have all the same rights, just not the name. Vote yes, because it's the right thing to do.