Saying yes to 'I Do' for everyone

  • Article by: EDITORIAL , St. Louis Post-Dispatch
  • Updated: January 8, 2013 - 6:32 AM

America has a history of ending discrimination when possible. That's possible now for same-sex couples. Now is the time.

  • 167
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
erikj3Jan. 7, 13 8:24 PM

Gay marriage will be legal in Minnesota within 2 years.

okaybruceJan. 7, 13 9:00 PM

@erikj3: And yet, it still won't exist...ever. There is no such thing as same-sex "marriage" since it is impossible for anyone besides one man and one woman to form one. Persons afflicted with same-sex attraction cannot unite with persons of the same sex, and therefore, they cannot be married. It doesn't matter what the government says, there will never be such a thing as same-sex "marriage." We will never recognize such a fantasy.

okaybruceJan. 7, 13 9:05 PM

In addition, the "ending discrimination" thing is a tired and worn-out tactic. There is no discrimination, since persons of the same sex cannot marry anyway. You cannot prevent someone from having what they cannot have to begin with. The only discrimination I see is the violence and hatred against us Catholics and those who stand with us for the truth about marriage.

ciamanJan. 7, 13 9:09 PM

I thought this local paper had said enough to last me a lifetime. But noooooooo~here they are at it again. For one, I am so sick of this issue that I would like to scream in the face of the editor. Most normal people, not anomaly people, have had it with your continuning babble like a wore out record. You got your win and if you are wondering why you are losing money, maybe you should think about the normal people, the 95 percent of normal adults. Maybe we would buy more of your paper if you thought of the vast majority of us. By the way, Sirs, that is us. Please back off and get some wind. Clean air if you can.

jdlellis1Jan. 7, 13 9:43 PM

Those who promote same sex marriage emphasize two key factors. First, marriage is about a partner, not children. Second, keep the government out of my bedroom. As such, the question citizens and legislators should ask is what role (e.g., value) is the government adding by being in the marriage business? Today, two, or more, people can make their own living arrangements, including having children without the government sanctioning the arrangement. As such what should be called for is marriage should be framed solely as a religious ceremony to be conducted by state regulated churches. People wishing to have "relationships" with legal boundaries can have those parameters outlined in contract provider by a lawyer. Benefits can be negotiate with employers. This scenario will give same-sex couples everything they are seeking. Again, the question is not, "Should there be same sex marriage. The reality is, that if it ain't about children and keep the government out of the bedroom, and these things can be done without government sanction, the government should proceed with legislating removing it totally from the marriage business.

goferfanzJan. 7, 13 9:45 PM

"""Gay marriage will be legal in Minnesota within 2 years.""".......No, it wont. The Dem minorities were outraged in 2010-11 that the GOP fiddled with "social issues" while the economy suffered. Indeed, it was a cornerstone of their 2012 campaign. The Dem legislature will be laser focused in jobs/economy for the next two years.

bizsmithJan. 7, 13 9:47 PM

Although it still bothers me to call it marriage, I have come to believe same sex couples should have that right. I can amend my personal feelings and feel sorry for those who can't. It took a long time for a confirmed homophobe to realize homosexuality is the way a person is "wired" rather than a choice.

okaybruceJan. 7, 13 9:48 PM

@dlellis1: But that is not good enough for them. They seek forced approval, which they will not get. This was never about equality or rights - it was about demonizing opposition and forcing approval. We will not comply.

okaybruceJan. 7, 13 9:59 PM

@bizsmith: It is not about feelings, but rather truth. The truth is this: Male and female can unite bodies and persons of the same sex cannot. Bodily union is required for marriage (consummation). The state has an interest because the vast majority of the time the bodies of male and female unite, children happen. This never happens with persons of the same sex. What is more, what they share as persons of the same sex who cannot unite bodies can be shared among groups of three or more. There is no difference. Be true to TRUTH and not political correctness.

martytoilJan. 7, 1310:09 PM

As a heterosexual married man, I can tell you that love is the corner stone of marriage. Heterosexuals do not own love, love is there for all, and so should be marriage.


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