You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
It's on the ballot for dubious reasons. It's also anachronistic.
This is the crux of it: "But it is not government's role to deny rights based on religion."
"What research? Please tell us of an unbiased research that supports your claims" .... he read it on the internet. And everybody knows there are no lies on the internet. I heard that on a TV commercial.
"Those concerns are easily refuted. Marriage is the voluntary union of two loving, consenting adults who want to make a legal commitment. Religions can and do limit matrimony to heterosexuals, and it is their right to refuse marriage to whomever they please. But it is not government's role to deny rights based on religion." ........................ That's it in a nutshell. And this is where the opponents of the amendment make their mistake. You can argue until the cows come home that loooooove should win out and gays should be allowed to marry, but the fact of the matter is that loooooove is at best ancillary. The opponents of this amendment do best when they confine their argument to the obvious--that this amendment is an attempt by opponents of Things Gay to limit the rights of two consenting adults to enter into a legal contract that harms no one. It has nothing to do with loooooove (on the one hand) or immorality (on the other). This amendment is purely and simply an attempt, based on a personal interpretation of values, to deny adults the right to enter into a contract which harms no one. Any other argument merely muddies the waters. The fact that this amendment will undoubtedly pass will be the fault of the amendment's opponents to address the issue from a logical as opposed to an emotional standpoint. Those championing gay rights from an emotional standpoint vis a vis this issue are, in effect, their own worst enemy.
As to the "defense'' of traditional marriage: There is no legitimate proof that same-sex marriages have any impact whatsoever on other families or relationships.
A number of years ago, this topic would have never caused this debate because it was never considered by most Americans. Most Americans knew that marriage meant one man and one woman, and anything other than that was not in question. As the opinion piece and many comments have stated, the more young people grow up who are more 'tolerant' to the issue would likely vote no and the amendment would not pass in the future. This proves the point that same-sex marriage and relationships do impact traditional families. Our children have been brought up in an era where the pro-homosexual groups have forced government schools and society to teach/accept their lifestyle as 'normal' or 'alternative.' It is not normal. Being forced to accept homosexuality as an OK lifestyle is not tolerance. Tolerance is to allow those with a traditional view of marriage to keep their opinion, not having to accept gay marriage. Tolerance is to allow those of us that believe the Bible teaches against homosexuality to keep our beliefs.
Let the votes at the ballot box in a couple weeks decide how the people of The State of Minnesota want to be governed.
Oct. 21, 12
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
Just VOTE NO!
maupin001 - I disagree with your whole premise, but I also disagree with your conclusion regarding "damaged" or "disordered." Somebody who is damaged or disordered (handicapped, mentally ill, injured, etc.) is NEVER less than fully human, and nobody is using that as an argument as it relates homosexuality or gay marriage. In fact, the only group that I know of that makes the "less than human" argument and truly seeks to remove "the basic rights of vulnerable populations" is the pro-abortion crowd.
Vote No, unless you want to see this battle all over again within the next decade when we are forced to re-amend the constitution and fix a big mistake.
I'm against any kind of government licensed marriage. Marriage licenses simply didn't exist on a large scale until after the Civil War when for some reason the government decided to get into the act. Without government sponsored marriage, there would be no divorce! If for some religious reason you want to enter into such a thing, it's between you and your church. Very simple. Voting yes is a good first step to getting government out of an area of our private lives where it should never have been involved in the first place. Vote yes and thus take the first step to freedom from marriage!
What does the bible have to do with the Constitution? If churches want to get involved in politics, then maybe they should lose their 501 (c)(3) status.
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