Marriage amendment guards society's stake in procreation

  • Article by: TIM REGAN
  • Updated: October 29, 2012 - 6:28 AM

Unfortunately, those who hold the traditional understanding of marriage are frequently accused of bigotry.

  • 146
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
liora51Oct. 28, 12 9:05 PM

This amendment is a wedge issue, pure and simple. Unless you believe that we are all secretly gay and heterosexual activity will stop cold if we don't double down on marriage with both the current laws and a constitutional amendment. Even at that, God doesn't seem to have any trouble "granting the gift of life" in a petri dish if the situation calls for it. Further more, marriage in the state is NOT predicated on a life long commitment by any stretch of the imagination. It is a civil contract that can be broken by either party, regardless of whether there are minor children or not. The "traditional" definition of marriage is a CONTRACT that spells out the conditions, financial and other, that govern the legal relationship. The Romantic Definition of marriage is that it is a "spiritual bonding" blessed by God and involving an emotional attachment. So, yes, we who support traditional marriage think this amendment was inspired by bigotry and a hatred of how our constitution limits the power of the majority to take away the rights of the minority.

brainerdguyOct. 28, 12 9:07 PM

The fact that you can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means you've already redefined marriage!

martiankingOct. 28, 12 9:10 PM

Honestly, you think we as a species are going to die off if we let gay marriage happen. Gay people cohabitate already. They adopt kids. They raise kids. Sounds like you just don't want gay people around anywhere. Hater.

wickeywackeyOct. 28, 12 9:11 PM

"""[Government] does have such a compelling interest: the procreation and nurturing of children. As a society, we need children who will grow up and become wage-earners, entrepreneurs and tillers of soil."" - ---------- then all marriages should be limited to only those couples who will explicitly raise good children for the State. This would apply to gays and straights. All marriages should be questioned and vetted, right? Should 68 year-olds be allowed to marry?

patriotrightOct. 28, 12 9:23 PM

Well said Tim Regan.

ebfauvelOct. 28, 12 9:26 PM

What a bogus opinion piece. People who procreate aren't required to marry, and people who marry aren't required to procreate.

How does this amendment "guard society's stake in procreation?" Will straight couples stop having kids or getting married if gay couples can marry?

ebfauvelOct. 28, 12 9:29 PM

"The federal government allows ... Social Security benefits for surviving spouses."

Not for same-sex couples. We pay into the system at the same rate as everyone else, yet we are denied the same benefits.

How does denying Social Security survivors benefits to a surviving same-sex partner help any children that couple is raising?

ebfauvelOct. 28, 12 9:33 PM

"It has been argued that special benefits for married couples are a denial of 'equal protection.' But this argument is based on a misunderstanding. These measures are not government freebies for a privileged sector. They are indirect subsidies compensating parents for the cost of raising children."

Not quite.

1) Many same-sex couples are raising children too; why aren't they being compensated for some of the cost of raising those children?

2) Opposite-sex couples get marriage benefits whether or not they raise children.

crash1Oct. 28, 12 9:34 PM

"Society confers this status because of its compelling interest in children."----Really? Having worked in pediatric health care for more than 30 years, I can tell you with confidence that society's "compelling interest" is in property-- in this case, in the form of women and children-- not in their wellbeing or prosperity outside the archaic legal definition of marriage. At the end of the day, marriage law revolves around property--who controls it, who is responsible for it, and who will inherit it? In contrast, most religions care about biology and procreation, but with different views. We are NOT a Christian nation. Constitutionally, we are a secular nation, and the population of the country is ever more diverse and less "Christian" (whatever that means, given the broad spectrum of Christian views). It's high time we truly separate Church and State.

Maynard_242Oct. 28, 12 9:36 PM

It would appear Tim Regan is also incapable of constructing an intelligent argument. He can erect a straw man with the best of them though.


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