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:
Verita_e_paceOct. 22, 1212:10 AM

We are talking about amending the Minnesota Constitution--not the Catholic Catechism. We simply cannot add discrimination to our Constitution and that is what this amendment does. There are people and churches who support gay marriage. It goes against everything we stand for to take away their freedom to support it and to perform and participate in marriages. It goes against everything we stand for to deny homosexual couples the same rights as we have. How you feel about the issue should be irrelevant to your vote--this is our Constitution and we cannot allow it to discriminate against any group of people. We cannot legislate denying people their rights based on one and only one personal "identifying" factor; remember these people are doctors, nurses, businesspersons, teachers, lawyers, and even, yes, parents...they are contributing members of society. If we add an amendment targeting people based on one aspect of who they are, what group is next?

zekim09Oct. 22, 1212:11 AM

@potter101 -- "Every time a church leader stands up and tries to lie to his parishioners about a the non sin of being gay." == I'm calling an Offsides Foul. It is a church's right to call being gay a sin if that is part of their belief system. The anti-amendment crowd can not complain about folks pushing religious beliefs into secular law and then turn around and push their beliefs into someone else's religion.

ultimaistanzOct. 22, 1212:30 AM

@boris124 "Where is religion mentioned in this amendment? I've not seen this introduced. Is it possible some people believe marriage is between male and female adults? The homosexual population is estimated at 3.4% of the total population. No numbers on the percent of the homosexual population wanting to get married. Is this a matter worth expending the energy being spent?" It's 3.4% of the total US population, not total in general. 3.4% of the US population is 10,697,232 people. Just to give you an idea of how much that is, New York City alone has only around 8,244,910 people. While I can't speak for the other 10,697,231 I can say that I do hope to one day get married to a guy I love, so there's at least gay person wanting to get married. Besides that, what reason could justify denying a civil right, as the Supreme Court specified in Loving v. Virgina, when there is no rational arguments for denying it?

jdcarlinOct. 22, 1212:36 AM

zekim09: "It is a church's right to call being gay a sin if that is part of their belief system." Yes, but it's not their right to force their beliefs onto a secular society. They may believe it's a sin. I don't. The only people who are forcing their beliefs are the people behind the amendment, plain and simple.

dorianmodeOct. 22, 1212:48 AM

This IS a Theocracy, right ? Therefore one must vote Yes. ...oh wait ... oops. Never mind.

realpatriotOct. 22, 1212:56 AM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Will someone please explain to me how support of this amendment is in line with this founding principle of our country? I'm a patriot, fiscally conservative and live a conservative lifestyle, but cannot fathom this amendment as it goes against liberty, freedom of conscience, and everyone's unalienable right to pursue happiness in their lifetime. Freedom means freedom for everyone, not just those you prefer.

richieOct. 22, 12 4:48 AM

I`m voting NO for two reasons 1. Its the right thing to do and 2.I`m tired of the Republicans of trashing our gay community as a way to get votes every election.

stplooklistnOct. 22, 12 5:00 AM

It is not worthy of messing with the State Constitution.

maupin001Oct. 22, 12 5:24 AM

The evidence shows absolutely that those who support the anti-marriage amendment do so out of a belief that LGBTQ+ people are "damaged" or "disordered" - i.e. less than fully human, and that their relationships are less than fully equal to heterosexual relationships. Pious pity that results in ideological assaults on people's ability to care for each other is no less violence than fists, knives and guns, and it is no mistake that both this and the voter ID amendment were chosen - they are an attempt to get out the vote by attacking "wedge issues," the basic rights of vulnerable populations.

mn2niceOct. 22, 12 5:58 AM

Right on!


Comment on this story   |  


  • 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