You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
As you vote on the marriage amendment, think of this logical extreme.
Yup. Marriage only happens once. Perhaps your first one was not a true marriage. It would make sense to investigate it through the annulment process. But if your first marriage was indeed a marriage, then yes, you are committing adultery. The truth is the truth.
Oh, and by the way, the anti-marriage/anti-family/anti-children "no" crowd is getting desperate. Preserving real marriage is a threat to no one. Destroying it by voting "no" is a threat to everyone.
I asked that very question at the pro-amendment table at a Catholic Church two or three weeks ago. Remember when Jackie Gleason got in trouble and would say something like "homina homina homina?" That was the basic response.
OOPS, I'm in real trouble, married 4 times,
my 2nd and 4th wife is the same person, does that redeem me???
@sjhuot: Why? We Catholics believe that marriage only occurs once. If someone is granted an annulment, that is because whatever ceremony or relationship took place was found not to be a marriage at all. This isn't anything new nor surprising. We Catholics uphold true marriage and urge everyone to vote yes. Divorce is a terrible thing, which is why we need stronger marriages through better preparation.
@okbruce---"Destroying it by voting "no" is a threat to everyone."--- Please explain how I am threatened.
@okbruce--"We Catholics believe that marriage only occurs once. If someone is granted an annulment, that is because whatever ceremony or relationship took place was found not to be a marriage at all. "--- Annulments are a joke. Pay a fee and there's suddenly no marriage. Ever see an annulment denied Brucey? ...didn't think so. I guess the whole indulgence thing never really left huh?
@okbruce--"Oh, and by the way, the anti-marriage/anti-family/anti-children "no" crowd is getting desperate. "--- Please explain how I am anti-marriage/anti-family/anti-children when I'm supporting a marriage that can support childre in a loving family while you're not.
What's your point? this is not the topic on the ballot. In any event, has mainstreaming and making divorce an easier proposition bettered our society? Clearly no. There is plenty of research on the adverse affect to kids. Of course, there are valid reasons for ending a marriage - an abusive relationship referenced is one. However, taken in as a whole, the greater acceptance of divorce has only served to degrade marriage.
okbruce says "Oh, and by the way, the anti-marriage/anti-family/anti-children "no" crowd is getting desperate. Preserving real marriage is a threat to no one. Destroying it by voting "no" is a threat to everyone" This is so wrong. My marriage will continue as strong as ever after I vote no. It won't be destroyed. "Traditional marriages" will still exist. Children of gay parents will be MORE protected because children's parents will be covered by the protections of marriage. In fact, with or without the ability to marry, gay people will continue to adopt children and be parents. Even if in a later event gay marriages are legal my marriage will be as strong as ever and just as unaffected and unthretened by it. I am pro-marriage so much that I believe that everyone should be able to marry, not just the hetersexuals like me. The anti-gay people are getting desperate. 2 gay people getting married is no threat to any heterosexual.
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