Marriage is probably on ice for now

  • Article by: LORI STURDEVANT , Star Tribune
  • Updated: November 17, 2012 - 4:49 PM

Despite talk, recognition for same-sex couples likely isn't on the DFL agenda.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
mchristiNov. 17, 12 5:08 PM

While it is certain that the budget and tax policy need and deserve significant attention to address the large problems we have in those areas, there seems to be a faulty assumption that a legislature can really only work on one thing at a time. But in a body with as many members as our legislature has, doing more than one thing is most certainly possible and to be encouraged. The Supreme Court could strike down limits on marriage equality in the coming year, but the most likely course seems to be that they will simply strike down the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" that blocks federal recognition of marriages from states that offer it, allow or uphold the lower court rulings against California's Prop 8, but keeping intact, for now, marriage inequality in most of the nation. No, this is the year for the legislature to act, to ensure equal and fair treatment of all Minnesota families, even if there are political costs to doing what is right. A delay now will mean a delay for many years to come.

28
28
BABloomNov. 17, 12 5:24 PM

The issue of marriage for all should be put on ice for the same reason we put champagne on ice-to keep it fresh and bubbly for us to enjoy together. The conversations started by Minnesotans United for All Families need to continue. We need to keep talking about why access to the commitment and love of marriage is important to many Minnesotans. These respectful discussions between citizens and their legislators will help us find when the time is right for popping the corks and celebrating the marriages of loving, committed Minnesota couples without discrimination.

40
17
dr4golfNov. 17, 12 6:35 PM

Glad Lori will be on hiatus for awhile. A disaster for MN. Cannot stand her self importance. Sick person on all levels.

18
72
DufferHNov. 17, 12 7:00 PM

dr4golf: I disagree with much of Lori's political viewpoint. And if you really were acquainted with her, you know how asinine your reference to "self importance" is. I've known Miss Sturdevant for several decades, and I can tell you, she exudes "class." But she doesn't need my defense.

57
10
markmary1725Nov. 17, 12 7:19 PM

Sturdevant is spot on! Just because I voted no on the amendment, does not necessarily make me an advocate for gay marriage and I consider myself a moderate democrat. I voted no simply because of the huge over-reach by the republican majority. FORMER Speaker Zellers and FORMER Leader Dean attempted to legislate through constitutional amendment and they failed miserably. The democrats will not make the same mistake. It does beg the question - What exactly did the republican majority get accomplished while in the majority for the last 2 years?

43
14
smdentNov. 17, 12 8:35 PM

For thousands of Minnesotans, marriage equality needs to happen sooner, rather than later. The people of Minnesota did not want to ban marriage freedom with a constitutional amendment. Why would they now limit who is eligible to can marry?

31
22
mglovettNov. 17, 1210:41 PM

Who writes the headlines? Marriage is alive and well, it simply requires two genders, the Constitution is also alive and well.

18
58
kd5757Nov. 17, 1211:31 PM

The legislature does not need to spend very much time on this issue if they have been paying attention to the conversation that's been occurring for the past 18 or so months or if they were paying attention to the outcomes of recent court cases involving Prop 8 and DOMA. The gist of it all is that while an ever decreasing number of people oppose same-sex marriage based on their particular religious views, the government does not have a legitimate reason to deny same-sex government-sponsored marriage. There is no scientifically credible evidence that same-sex marriage is bad for society or that children with same-sex parents fare any better or worse than children with opposite-sex parents. Currently, same-sex couples have been relegated to second-class status because of our discriminatory marriage laws. Allowing gay couples and their families to become full-fledged citizens in the area of government-sanctioned marriage is good for them and good for Minnesota.

31
13
kd5757Nov. 17, 1211:41 PM

It was immoral and callous for the Republican Party to throw a group of Minnesotan's under the bus as a means to improve their chances of re-election. The leadership should try to salvage what decency they have left and legalize same-sex marriage before they leave office. At least they would leave office with a more honorable legacy.

38
17
hughakstonNov. 18, 12 7:33 AM

Hopefully the backers of this marriage amendment will be able to regroup and take this issue on again. As the family goes, so goes the county and society. 31 states have already passed it. The only ones where same-sex 'marriage' is legal are those where it was determined by judicial fiat or legislative fiat. Marriage is to important to leave to the arbitrary whims of politicians and activist judges.

13
46

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