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:
corilietzOct. 21, 12 8:54 PM

"We all do better, when we all do better!" Paul Wellstone

87
9
jcrew45Oct. 21, 12 8:56 PM

I do not want a judge down the road deciding what is and isn't a marriage based on squishy or fluctuating beliefs and social trends. I'lll be voting yes.

31
154
anderson245Oct. 21, 12 8:56 PM

Remember when the Republicans promised to balance the budget. Instead, they forced two irresponsible and divisive constitutational amendments on the ballot and proposed to cut services for the least fortunate. And now we come to find out we still have a $3.5 BILLION deficit in the next budget cycle. It appears the Republicans lost their focus and worked harder to appease their special interests instead of working for real Minnesotans.

131
22
thegreatowlOct. 21, 12 9:03 PM

Same-sex orientation is a natural and harmless biological variation in human (and other mammalian) sexuality. Beliefs that it was "wrong" or "against nature" are based on ancient ignorance of the science of biology and brain wiring. Gay people are going to fall in love with people of the same sex. That is reality. There is no good reason to deny them legal recognition of their life commitments, and definitely no GOOD reasons have been given to enshrine such prejudicial restrictions into our state Constitution. Be on the right side of history, and on the right side of morality: VOTE NO.

122
16
thegreatowlOct. 21, 12 9:08 PM

jcrew45: "I do not want a judge down the road deciding what is and isn't a marriage based on squishy or fluctuating beliefs and social trends." --- Science isn't "squishy or fluctuating beliefs and social trends," science is evidence-based reality. I'm voting for reality; I'm voting NO.

125
17
erikj3Oct. 21, 12 9:11 PM

I'm voting no (twice!), and I think a majority of Minnesotans will as well. Keep in mind, rejecting this amendment will be just a first step in removing the ban on gay marriage altogether. It's coming whether the regressive like it or not!

111
16
okbruceOct. 21, 12 9:11 PM

Meh. Wouldn't be the first time the Strib is wrong. Anyway, you're still invited to the VOTE YES victory party in November. We'll even let you eat our cake.

23
147
jdcarlinOct. 21, 12 9:11 PM

I've said it before, I'll say it again: The sky in Iowa still rises every morning. Not a single person has been fired for their views on gay marriage. Not a single business has been fined. Not a single church sued. Not a single children has been taught gay marriage. And not a single lawsuit has been filed. If the parade of horribles were so eminent, wouldn't a single one of them have happened in the 3.5 years since marriage equality were legal there? And yet, nary a sight of a single horrible to be found. Really. We need to end this travesty of an amendment before it hurts another Minnesotan. Thank you editors for realizing the difference. Minnesota will Vote NO!

133
16
justsayinOct. 21, 12 9:11 PM

It's as though the Catholic church has forgotten what it is to be persecuted. No one will force them to marry a gay couple. Besides, the bible was written in Hebrew so what's the fuss about the English word 'marriage'? Will we need another amendment for the Spanish word 'maridaje'?

96
15
okbruceOct. 21, 12 9:12 PM

@kd: We will NEVER move on from those like you who despise the truth and those of us who uphold it. There is no such thing as same-sex "marriage" and no amount of government paper or judicial fiat can make the imaginary real. Sorry, kd, but this fight (win or lose, but we will win) is NEVER going to be over. We Catholics are on the front line too. Get used to it.

22
139

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