You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
It's on the ballot for dubious reasons. It's also anachronistic.
Under Minnesota statute, same gender couples are currently not recognized to enter civil marriage, which, by the way, is not the same as the religious vows. That your cleric has been authorized by the state to sign the document that recognizes your union is a convenience. This amendment simply wishes to ensure that the current law is never changed. Is this a good thing? Well....inter-racial marriage was seen, not so long ago, as "against God's Plan", and an impossible thing, just plain wrong. So with this logic, my granddaughters would be considered "wrong" and "against the natural law", as would be my nephew and my grand-nephew. That law was changed as society changed. You who would seek to anchor our society in an increasingly by-gone era, yes you. Tell me again how this amendment does anything but shout to the roof tops how scared you are that our society might actually evolve for the better. As far as God is concerned, perhaps you should pay far more attention to the beam in thine own eye and less to the mote in your neighbor's. Hmmmm?
The more the liberal media tightens their grip, the more votes will slip through their fingers.
Some good points in the article. But stretching the facts doesn't help your case (though it never stops the left).
"Many" other countries do not recognize same sex marriage. Only 10 out of 196. But we also were told "1 in 10" Americans were gay or lesbian, when recent data shows it's more like 3-4%. Exaggerating and distorting the facts only weakens your position. There are enough good points to make without resorting to dishonesty.
"So far the court cases you mentioned have been easy wins because of activist judges. Once it get serious it won't be that easy.".....Have you read the news lately Muggs? The most recent case was decided by a conservative judge. We may have a law on the books now banning same-sex marriage but it will eventually be overturned by the federal courts precisely because it is discriminatory. Once it becomes legal Muggs, you won't even notice the difference in your life.
"This will be as divisive going forward as Roe v Wade, and any honest person knows limitless abortion has torn the fabric of this once great nation. Gay marriage will never be embraced by most of society because it is a nonstarter on several levels."......The two issues are not even remotely related, goferfanz. We are close to the tipping point now, if it hasn't already occurred, where most of society has already accepted the notion of same-sex marriage.
"I do laugh at the notion of how the youth "embrace" gays at the same time most of the outright abuse of gays occur in school and youth settings. Ahh, exactly what "younger generations" are the Strib and libs observing?"............The Strib isn't talking about 12 and 13 year olds when they are referring to the younger generation, goferfanz. And it's not just liberals and moderates who are for same-sex marriage. Even in the last bastion of anti-gay attitudes, 44% of young conservative evangelicals(18-29 year old) favor same-sex marriage compared to only 12% of evangelical seniors (Public Religion Research Institute: Generations at Odds). In addition, 49% of young Republicans favor same-sex marriage compared to 19% of Republican seniors.
The shifting demographics around marriage equality do not represent an appeal to popularity but rather the recognition of what is already true: That same-sex relationships exist and have always existed, are normal, and deserve recognition and protection. As has been said many times, if you don't like same-sex marriages, don't enter one. Jewish people do not attempt to outlaw bacon because their religion forbids them from eating it.
It is amusing to watch the pro-amendment crowd go all 1984 with the double-speak. Denying rights to a segment of the population is now "love" and not "hate". Voting against this amendment is now an act of "intolerance" and "hate" as it hurts the feelings of social conservatives.
The Editor cites "dubious reasons" as to why this issue is on the ballot. One would then assume that the forthcoming arguments for rejecting the amendment would be clearly stated and clearly substantiated. Unfortunately this does not seem to be case. The editor indicates that this amendment will reduce the talent pool for our states' employees. Have homosexuals been established to be far more intelligent than heterosexuals? What are the job skills that they bring to the state that heterosexuals cannot meet? Do they perform better on standardized tests? Where is the evidence that this will provide a "brain drain" for the state? Also stated is the fact that there would be an economic cost to the state for passing this amendment. I would like to see the data please. Who has done this economic analysis? If one person moves to this state to fill a job vs five people (a couple and three kids) which situation benefits our economy more? Has this editor done the homework necessary to give us an enlightened opinion or is this just more ignorant fear mongering that he/she ridicules is behind the amendment in the first place?
boris123: "The homosexual population is estimated at 3.4% of the total population." And the Jewish population is estimated at 2.1% of the total population. Does that make discrimination against them okay as well? What exactly is the size a minority has to be before discrimination against them is no longer acceptable?
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
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.
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks