Gay marriage fight begins in Minnesota Legislature

  • Article by: Baird Helgeson , Star Tribune
  • Updated: February 28, 2013 - 6:01 AM

Effort to legalize same-sex marriages faces questions, even from DFLers.

  • 58
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
marsbonfireFeb. 27, 1311:01 PM

Geezuz, these repubs are the gift that keeps on giving. It's like that Twilight Zone episode where the wagon train heading towards California during the gold rush comes over the top of the sand dune to find modern 20th century society. These people seem equally baffled by today's world.

richieFeb. 28, 13 7:13 AM

Why is this a fight ? This issue has been discussed over and over again to me to it take looks like Minnesota's is ready for Gay Marriage a majority voted to stop the constructional change I read this as the folks in minnesota want closure on this issue and equality for all.

goferfanzFeb. 28, 13 7:35 AM

Hmmm, the party and its supporters that decried "spending time on social issues" last session, now dives this session issues. It's why people cant stand politicians, and electoral dumpings of ruling parties has occurred pretty much every two years this century. Meet the new hypocrites, same as the old hypocrites...........

lenovoFeb. 28, 13 7:39 AM

This is a day that Minnesotans should be very proud of,” said Sen. Scott Dibble.....Ahhh No... Why does the State feel compelled to change the definition of marriage? You can call a circle a square but that doesn't change the shape.

jimdogFeb. 28, 13 7:51 AM

From the article: "State Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen, R-Glencoe, said Wednesday that homosexuality is “a choice” and later called it a “sexual addiction”................... When people make such arguments, it has nothing to do with marriage. There already are many gay couples, they just aren't married. When someone argues morals or choice-they are really advocating that being gay should be illegal. Marriage is a seperate issue apart from someone being gay or straight.

jastkeFeb. 28, 13 8:08 AM

During the last legislative session the Republican majority was rightly criticized for putting so-called social legislation on the front burner. Introducing this bill now seems to indicate that Sen. Dibble has not learned from history. This bill would be better served if it were introduced after the budget is dealt with. There would be fewer criticisms of it and it would have a better chance of passing and being accepted by the public.

ahugginkissFeb. 28, 13 8:53 AM

"Why does the State feel compelled to change the definition of marriage?" Change it from which definition? There are MANY definitions of marriage throughout the ages. Which one are you thinking about?

windigolakeFeb. 28, 13 8:57 AM

lenovo: "Why does the State feel compelled to change the definition of marriage?" First, it is the people, not the State, who want to include all citizens in the right to marry. Second, why do you feel you can define marriage differently from the way it was defined in 1960 (blacks and whites can't marry) or in the Bible (David had multiple wives) or in the Middle ages in Europe (selling your daughter to the highest bidder)? Welcome to the 21st Century and equality.

GailKLFeb. 28, 13 9:23 AM

Let those who wish to marry, get married. For those wish to get divorced , get divorced. There needs to be laws sorting out who is family and who isn't for purposes of inheritance, property ownership,child support, right to make health decisions, etc., but beyond that what business is it how one's family is constructed?

fuzzy2010Feb. 28, 1310:44 AM

When Mr.Gruenhagen can prove his statements. With an PHD in some or any scientific field I will beleive his opinion on this.Other than a religious point of view.


Comment on this story   |  


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