On marriage, all talking, too little listening

  • Article by: ANDY TIX
  • Updated: October 23, 2012 - 7:19 PM

Do you have empathy for those who will vote differently?

  • 135
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
stmlink4930Oct. 23, 12 7:24 PM

Give them civil-unions and all the rights of marriage, but don't call it marriage, because since the beginning of mankind marriage has been between a man and a woman... but this isn't enough... who now is being irrational? They can get it all but a term for their relationship... and they still will not be satisfied!

41
129
twspt7Oct. 23, 12 7:36 PM

"Surely, there must be a way to provide rights to same-sex couples and protect religious liberties" Sounds so reasonable, when you frame it this way. However, the import of the marriage amendment is not to "provide" rights to same-sex couples, it is to "deny" those rights. Big difference. Further, no one is attacking "religious liberties" with this amendment. Rather, this amendment is an attack on the civil liberties of US citizens.

118
27
zekim09Oct. 23, 12 7:46 PM

" For instance, if marriage between same-sex partners became legal, would religious institutions eventually be required to provide same-sex marriage ceremonies, despite the teachings of their religion?"

Really? This is the argument that the author wants to hold up as an example. It has been dismissed by the anti-amendment folks as pure nonsense as religious institutions are already protected from having to perform ceremonies that go against their religion. Voting no on the amendment does not change that fact.

97
26
stpauloldiesOct. 23, 12 7:52 PM

Mr. Tix comes from the perspective that if we somehow move away from extreme positions, we can "overcome" our objections, and that compromise would be possible. He also says that since the law currently doesn't allow homosexual marriage, there is no need for the amendment. On that point, the amendment IS necessary, because activists are pushing hard in every single state to try to make homosexual marriage legal. It's not a matter of "if" in Minnesota, it's a matter of "when", so the amendment is necessary to those against changing marriage. But back to his original point about compromise, the main objection for most people who are against it is that this is completely against the teachings of their faiths. And if homosexual marriage is ever legalized, it WOULD have a serious effect on people's religious freedom. One business owner in a state that has homosexual marriage was sued recently because he refused to make his facilities available for a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs. So YES ..... it WOULD have a very detrimental effect with governments forcing people to violate their religious beliefs or pay big fines. There is no compromise on that.

33
91
zekim09Oct. 23, 12 7:55 PM

@stmlink4930 -- "Give them civil-unions and all the rights of marriage, but don't call it marriage, because since the beginning of mankind marriage has been between a man and a woman... but this isn't enough... who now is being irrational?"

Considering that civil unions are not on the ballot, I'm guessing that you are the one being irrational.

Civil unions are constantly brought up in the discussions as an alternative; however, they are not on the ballot nor has anyone introduced a civil union bill in the Legislature.

If the amendment passes, it is also possible that civil unions would be disallowed by it. Consider this: The Massachusetts has recently ruled that Civil Unions are the same as Marriage. The MN courts could agree and then block any civil union law passed by the state as it would be the same as Marriage, which would be limited to hetero-sexual couples. A few lawyers that I asked about such a scenario said that the court case would be interesting.

As seen in Colorado, social conservatives also oppose Civil Unions. As civil unions may be blocked in MN either by the amendment or by social conservatives, offering them as an alternative is being a bit dishonest.

71
19
zekim09Oct. 23, 12 8:06 PM

@stpauloldies -- "One business owner in a state that has homosexual marriage was sued recently because he refused to make his facilities available for a homosexual marriage based on his religious beliefs."

That was due to anti-discrimination laws and not homosexual marriage. Those are completely separate issues.

75
22
okbruceOct. 23, 12 8:17 PM

It never was about equal rights. It has always been about forcing people to approve of disordered and destructive behavior. Civil unions in Rhode Island were identical to marriages, but did not have the name. Homosexuals were not interested in them, because it never was about rights. It has been about forcing approval, which they will never get.

38
95
okbruceOct. 23, 12 8:18 PM

Oh, and I oppose civil unions too. Two men, two women, or groups of persons cannot unite comprehensively (body, mind, and hearts). Only one man and one woman can, and thus, only one man and one woman can be married. The rest are mere friendships and the State has no reason to recognize friendships.

24
96
silver73Oct. 23, 12 9:12 PM

When I get married to my significant other, I don't want it called a "civil union". I plan on having a church wedding with all of my family and friends in attendance. We will have a limo, reception, dinner, and dance. Then, we will be eligible for all of the benefits my married straight family and friends have. Right now this may be a dream. However, in the future, it will become the reality. We all know that LOVE wins in the end. The businesses we hire will enjoy working with us and we will give referrals to any of our family or friends who are getting married.

66
24
ebfauvelOct. 23, 12 9:39 PM

[I]if marriage between same-sex partners became legal, would religious institutions eventually be required to provide same-sex marriage ceremonies, despite the teachings of their religion?"

That's the "yes" side's best argument? The answer to the question is easy: no, they would not be required to marry same-sex couples. They can already refuse to marry any couple for any reason. The First Amendment to our Federal Constitution guarantees this right of religious establishments, and legalized civil same-sex marriage cannot change that.

70
16

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • 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

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT