Two sides of marriage fight make closing arguments

  • Article by: BAIRD HELGESON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 2, 2012 - 9:05 AM

Debate comes in final days of deadlocked, expensive campaign.

  • 34
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
bright612Nov. 2, 12 9:25 AM

The only arguments FOR this amendment are steeped in religious rhetoric. The state constitution is not a religious document. Religious groups will still be able to deny same-sex marriages within their own institutions, so please, leave religion out of our constitution; we do not all share the same Abrahamic views. It will not stand up legally anyway, and be realistic, if/when this amendment is voted down, it will not change the lives of those who favor the amendment one bit. For that matter, two same-gender people marrying will not affect their lives either. We should be way beyond this archaic argument by now.

45
13
smeeagain2Nov. 2, 12 9:43 AM

"If you add to the definition of marriage, you change my belief system," McAfee said. Wow! If your belief system is so easily changed by the relationships of others, it doesn't say much about the strength of your convictions.

45
12
junkmaledrNov. 2, 1210:04 AM

"Amendment supporters Pastors for Marriage announced at midday that more than 500 Christian pastors and leaders have endorsed the amendment and are urging congregants to vote yes on Election Day." There is one thing I don't understand. Doesn't the tax-exempt status of these and other religious organizations preclude them from active participation in campaigns such as this? If so, the Catholic Church and all of the churches participating in this organization should be stripped of tax-exempt status. Their individual congregants are obviously free to participate in politics, but I thought the freedom of religion means that we should be free from having someone else's religious view being imposed upon us. Some fear-mongerers have argued that same-sex marriage is the beginning of a slippery slope to all sorts of absurd conclusions like incest and polygamy. Isn't it just as likely that so-called "Christian" interventions such as this into civic life may lead to forced conversions of Jews and Muslims to Christianity? After all, they believe we should all live according to their doctrine. Goodness knows, Catholicism performed forced conversions for centuries. Maybe they will start to un-marry persons of other faiths because those aren't "Christian" marriages. I, for one, do not want to have religious institutions dictating public policy and telling me how I should live my life. They should stick to belief.

32
12
andy13tNov. 2, 1210:06 AM

"If you add to the definition of marriage, you change my belief system," - wrong. you are entitled to believe whatever you want to. you can believe that the earth is flat if you want to. it's factually wrong, but you can certainly believe it. same with gay marriage. you can believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman, (which in reality is ALREADY factually wrong- there are plenty of gay couples that have been MARRIED.... in CHURCHES!!) but eventually this will not be how our government recognizes it.

32
8
tria56Nov. 2, 1210:14 AM

smeeagain2, I had the exact same thought.

15
6
Kweber01Nov. 2, 1210:33 AM

Religious beliefs should never drive legislation of this state or any other. Would the proponents of this amendment be happy if the beliefs of, say, the Islamic, Jewish, or Agnostic communities drove a divisive amendment to change the state constitution to suit their beliefs system? My guess is the Christian community in this state would be the first and loudest to call "Foul" and declare that these other religious groups should not be able to impose their beliefs on them! This amendment is a joke. It is driven only by baseless fear and is blatently discriminatory. Everyone is entitled to their personal religious beliefs, but in this country, no one is entitled to impose them on others. This is not a theocracy. The Tea Party and Christian Religious Right wing have commited too many subversive actions in recent time and, in my view, seriously threaten the underpinnings of our Republic. A yes vote on this amendement gives them the green light for more subversive actions. Put yourselves in someone else's place for a moment and realize this constitues a very slippery slope....VOTE NO!

28
11
dibmaxNov. 2, 1210:42 AM

My small business provides healthcare. We have 23 employees. 5 are gay. If I am required to provide these 5 gay employees with family coverage, it will cost my business $600 per employee per month. That is $3,000 per month or $36,000 per year. I will just let one of my employees go to make up the difference. No cost to me at all.

14
41
whatever2012Nov. 2, 1210:59 AM

Vote Yes!!!

15
37
beebee82Nov. 2, 1211:09 AM

dibmax, why are your gay employees any less deserving of family health care coverage than your heterosexual employees? With such a high ratio of gay employees, it sounds like you've been exploiting them — exactly why we need to update our laws to prevent such discriminatory predators such as yourself from taking advantage of the second-class citizen status we have imposed upon them.

32
13
leodesNov. 2, 1211:16 AM

@dibmax: If those 5 employees were not gay and had families, you would provide them health insurance with no question? Is there an increase in health insurance costs for gay people? Anyway, the point is moot. Even if this this amendment does not pass, you will not have to worry about providing your gay employees with family coverage.

24
9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT