editorials

Every time a church leader stands up and tries to lie to his parishioners about a the non sin of being gay. They should loose one of their tax breaks and since money comes first to these churches this hate driven speech will stop.

@lalahem: Hardly. We can judge human acts as good or bad all day long. The judgement of the person is for Christ alone. People with homosexual tendencies are people. We despise homosexual acts, but love people. You guys have long stopped thinking of people as being different from what they do. In your world, people are only people if they do something, and they are defined by what they do (hence the killing of the unborn, since they don't "do" anything and are not people as a result). In our world, which is the true one, people are people and acts are acts. They do not mingle.

@kd5757: Laughable. We've already noticed problems with same-sex "marriage" and the amendment has not yet even been voted on yet! The changes are overwhelmingly negative, especially (as we are now finding out through research) for kids. VOTE YES!

okbruceOct. 21, 1210:11 PM @luxaeterna: King was pro-life and pro-marriage (real marriage). Thanks for reminding us that he would be in our corner...just as his niece is.*************************King in no way would discriminate gays.

@lexxylexxy -- "The more the liberal media tightens their grip, the more votes will slip through their fingers." == Ok, here is a chance to gain another Yes vote. I have yet to hear one argument for this amendment that is backed up by verifiable facts. Please present an argument, backed up by verifiable facts, why MN should vote for this amendment. Please, no religious arguments or scare tactics. Just solid facts.

"The more the liberal media tightens their grip, the more votes will slip through their fingers." This is depressingly amusing because of course, this amendment is about social conservatives abusing the powers of government to fix their beliefs as law before their most numerous constituency starts shuffling off this mortal coil and changing the demographic profile that will result in a transformation of opinion around the issue.

rjbtonka: "But we also were told '1 in 10' Americans were gay or lesbian, when recent data shows it's more like 3-4%." There is no exaggeration. The former statistic is correct as is the latter. The difference is what the statistic is asking. It's true approximately 10% of Americans are gay. What the latter is the percentage of Americans who -identify- as gay. There's a big difference. Roughly 2/3rds of people who are gay are not "out" and therefore when asked do not -identify- as gay when asked. But when tested for which gender they are attracted to, roughly 10% of Americans are indeed attracted only to the same gender.

eandshaugen: "The editor indicates that this amendment will reduce the talent pool for our states' employees." Easy. Consider Facebook. One of the cofounders of it is gay. He had a choice of founding it in his home of North Carolina or California. Personally, he found California better, and now a multi-billion company is based in California instead of in North Carolina. Ebay had the same issue with moving employees to Utah. And yet not a single company can say they moved to a state because they had one of these bans. Therefore there is no evidence that companies would locate to Minnesota because they had the ban, but there is evidence that companies would NOT locate to Minnesota because of it. Therefore it's bad for business.

"A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages." - Coretta Scott King, spouse of Martin Luther King, Jr.

okbruce--What research? Please tell us of an unbiased research that supports your claims