Minnesota lawmakers won't be rushed on gay marriage

  • Article by: LORI STURDEVANT , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 16, 2013 - 6:01 PM

The push is on for marriage equality, but it's a politically delicate task.

  • 47
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
smeeagain2Feb. 16, 13 9:17 PM

In other words, yes, they are rights, but we won't give them to you until we find it to be politically expedient.

33
9
mdachsFeb. 16, 1311:45 PM

Let's see. According to the article, "Minnesotans who habitually fret about jobs, jobs, jobs ought to start worrying instead about what will happen if this state lacks enough skilled workers to replace its retirees. They ought to be asking how best to make this state a talent magnet, and how to avoid sending homegrown talent packing. "We're competing for talent with places that are warmer and more accepting, and have mountains and oceans." If we want to attract and retain highly skilled professionals and managers, then the current Dayton proposals to increase income taxes are certainly not the recipe to attract these employees to Minnesota - tax rates impact far more employees than gay marriage laws (while I fully support gay marriage)! It's a matter of priorities. First, let's make sure that the economic value of working in Minnesota is a strong one - reasonable tax rates that do not penalize employees who succeed, are promoted, sell or manufacture more goods, and earn higher incomes. Higher tax rates on the so-called rich send a message that the more money you earn, the less you take home, because of the high tax rates. Increasing tax rates for those who do work and continuing overly generous welfare programs for those who do not work and contribute to the economy merely continue to make Minnesota a magnet to attract those who do not work and contribute to the economy and discourage those high performing, highly skilled professionals who do contribut to the economy from coming to work in Minnesota. Once we address the issue (taxes) that impacts the larger group of potential recruits to Minnesota, then we can address the issue of gay marriage that impacts a much smaller group of citizens.

12
26
theomckinneyFeb. 17, 13 4:54 AM

The distinction the Antigays are maliciously attempting to keep edited into state constitutions with their artificialy contrived Unions versus Marriage “debate”, is merely that gays are too “icky” to be considered as equivalent str8 couples. Just “not the same” enough. (sheesh: no wonder marriage bans keep failing court scrutiny, most notably, in courts of law, under oath!) L et’s consider a legally recognized marriage between two high school sweethearts with 6 kids. Is it “the same” as Larry King’s 7th marriage which expects NO naturally born kids? Or…What about a legally recognized marriage between a soldier off at war and a civilian at home,versus two married people, where one is on death row and the other isn’t? Is a first marriage “the same” as a third marriage? How about Britney Spear’s 55 hour marriage, or Kim Kardashian’s 72 hour one, versus a gay couple in MA who waited to marry for 35 years, and married the moment their constitutional right to do so was recognized. And how does the “marrriage” of Richard (The LA Nighstalker on death row) Ramirez & Ms. Looiy compare? The fact is, NO 2 marriages are “the same”, only the Antigays remaining think they can still use this FACT to make sure Gays are forever treated unequally, for as long as inhumanely possible. Innocent gay human sacrifices and unsuspecting children getting bullied and tortured in school "in the name of God"...just so these dangerous and falsely pious Grandstanders can claim to their peers some "foot up" into Heaven? ARE THEY KIDDING!?!?!? ENOUGH.

28
12
theomckinneyFeb. 17, 13 4:55 AM

ALL SOLEMNLY COMMITED MARRIED COUPLES BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY, SAVE THE GOVERNMENT MONEY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO EMERGENCY SERVICES Anti-gay marriage advocates need to remember that SINGLE people are the MORE EXPENSIVE citizens as far as healthcare and household maintenance is concerned: Couples are quicker to discover illnesses and catch them sooner, saving $$$$ when it comes to avoiding ER visits. If a single is walking alone on a street late at night, they are more expensive to protect with police services; most couples are less likely to be attacked than most singles, walking alone (of course!) The additional assistance given couples tax-wise makes perfect sense. It's the LEAST a government can do for people who are helping the community by SOLEMNLY supporting a percentage of its citizens' daily welfare, so government resources can be diverted to other causes. A convalescing member of a supported couple can do so at home with a guaranteed caretaker at no cost or lesser cost to the community. A convalescing single clearly requires caretaking that will invariably be paid for at a higher cost to the community. Committed couples support their communities by taking less out, and contributing a stronger, more secure household as a valuable community building block. Marriage discrimination isn't only unconstitutional, it's just plain silly, as far as any responsible government goal should ever be concerned. Sheesh. Compared with empty-headed "laws" created to disenfranchise Gay citizens and ONLY Gay citizens? "Equality and Justice for all" is just SO much wiser as a governing goal…as well as GODLY FOR REAL. History will bear this out.

18
15
unclemushyFeb. 17, 13 6:44 AM

Prior to the last election liberals complained that the GOP focused on social issues and not jobs. Today the DFL focuses solely on social issues and not jobs and liberals are silent. Funny how that works.

20
29
greg62Feb. 17, 13 6:46 AM

Policians realize that the vast majority of Minnesotan's oppose the notion of homosexual "marriage" and will be punished by voters if they push for this. Why don't they work on getting civil union legislation passed? People support that much more, but calling it marriage would be bad for the children.

13
35
thehoffersFeb. 17, 13 7:30 AM

Legalize, and legitemize are two things that homosexual marriage cannot have both of.

13
34
greg62Feb. 17, 13 7:34 AM

The democrat party aslo had complete control of Washington during Obama's first term but never made a move on homosexual marriage. They sure love calling conservatives bigots and homophobes for wanting to preserve tradional marriage though. Sounds kind of hipocritical to me.

14
29
liora51Feb. 17, 13 8:04 AM

unclemushy: Prior to the last election in Minnesota the state GOP used this as a wedge issue and forced it on the table. As a supporter of gay marriage I was content to let this issue evolve, even though I have a gay daughter in a committed relationship. After the GOP 'inspired' amendment to set gay people aside as second class citizens? The GOP sowed in the wind and will reap the whirlwind of renewed commitment to equality.

30
10
pitythefoolsFeb. 17, 13 8:55 AM

It is amusing that, had the GOP not focused on social issues like a Constitutional ban on gay marriage, there wouldn't be enough momentum today for this issue to move forward. Smart, GOP. Really, really smart.

17
8

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