editorials

No place on the constitutional amendment are gays or lesbians mentioned. The amendment simply says that "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. In fact a gay male and female could marry each other after this amendment passes ( and it will pass easily) next week. Why would sane peolle change the rules for 1/10th od one per cent of the population? If so, why not marry groups of three or four? Why not 11, an entire football team? a ridiculous comparison? less ridiculous than calling two same sex people a "married" couple. They are certainly a couple if they wish to be, they cannot by definition be married.

There is nothing discriminatory or anachronistic regarding defending the traditional understanding of marriage. Nothing prevents homosexuals from forming relationships—they simply aren't marriages. The culture is becoming increasingly debased. If someone wishes to debase himself by entering into a homosexual relationship, nothing prevents him, but it isn't equivalent to marriage. It might be a civil relationship regarding the sharing of property and such matters as hospital visitation privileges, but let us not debase marriage by attempting to claim it is equal to marriage.

This amendment will pass with flying colors. I'm sure the guys in the bushes down at Loring Park will be upset as they are anonymously engaging in "love" with shadowy figures. Is that "love"? That's a common practice with those types of people. And it isn't "love" and isn't worthy of granting marriage.

leroyjean You are actually proving some of the points of those supporting the Marriage amendment: It is not Religion that is causing the high rate of divorces, it is the erosion of society and its approval of doing what makes the individual happy (promiscuous sex, cheating on your spouse or partners, etc.). Society puts that out there (on movies, ads, marketing, etc.) and people become desensitized to it and think that "as long as it makes ME feel good it is ok." Aside from the civil reasons to support marriage between a man and a woman (best situation for a child to grow up in is a family with a good mom and a good dad, not one of each; a recognized marriage between a man and a woman helps bring forth children which helps continue society, etc.), it is also supported in the Bible. The Bible states that homosexual acts are an abomination and a sin. Supporting a relationship that condones those would be supporting sinful activity and further societal erosion into sinful activity. I agree with you, divorces are happening much too often and bad. People need to take responsibility for their actions and look at marriage as something that is sacred rather than something to try out on a whim.

As always......Religion is the problem! If marriage is so sacred, there should be a law you saying, can't ever get divorced. 62% of the most religious people get divorced. Now that is Religion at work.

STAR-TRIB is right as usual.... vote no ...This paper tells it like it is. So simple to see why? It is a no-brainier. The religious right just wants to make noise with this stupid ploy. Amen??

What about bisexuals wanting to join in committed polyamorous relationships? How far will the redefinition go? Better to have multiple parents, isn't it?

okbruce - I'm curious, will Protestants make it to heaven?

@buttles: Nope. Real Catholics stand with the bishops on this. We are Real Catholics. Not sure what one is who does not stand with Church teaching and those who teach it. Kinda sounds like a protestant to me.

I live in Sherburne Country and have seen hundreds of VOTE YES signs but have yet to see even one vote no.