Same-sex marriage: Next, the backlash?

  • Article by: Michael Klarman 
  • Updated: March 30, 2013 - 5:08 PM

If there were a broad ruling, the ingredients for dissent, so prevalent in past cases, might not be in play.

  • 72
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
okaybruceMar. 30, 13 5:56 PM

Wishful thinking, but you have begun a war you cannot win. Just like how the pro-life movement is now winning, so will the pro-real-marriage movement after this sham is made legal. The fact is, everywhere this sham has been forced on the people, families, marriages, children and churches suffer. This is their goal.

7
32
pumiceMar. 30, 13 6:55 PM

From the article: "The country is different, the issue is different, and public officials would not slyly encourage [circumvention/defiance]." Coupla things, Michael Klarman: (1) If one considers the arc of history from the beginning of the Republic to the present, issues of Justice take less and less time to resolve. (2) The country is different because the wheels of Justice are turning more rapidly than they used to. (3) If Americans of the past had been less willing to speak out against majority opinion, progress on the path to Justice would have stalled.

22
2
marsbonfireMar. 30, 13 7:38 PM

okaybruceMar. 30, 13 5:56 PM Wishful thinking, but you have begun a war you cannot win. Just like how the pro-life movement is now winning, so will the pro-real-marriage movement after this sham is made legal. The fact is, everywhere this sham has been forced on the people, families, marriages, children and churches suffer. This is their goal.____________--Shouldn't you be in a church pew somewhere practicing hypocrisy?

23
10
hawkeye56379Mar. 30, 13 8:31 PM

The article says that Roe v. Wade: "affected opponents" in a way that same sex marriage would not." I would say that it is pretty much the same in effect. With abortion, as with same sex marriage, someone else exercises a personal choice. And while opponents object to that choice on moral grounds, it doesn't impact the lives of those that object to it.

21
3
pumiceMar. 30, 1310:11 PM

From the article: "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has criticized Roe for intervening too quickly and aggressively on abortion, thereby helping to mobilize the right-to-life movement." Moving too quickly and aggressively? Would that be in comparison to millennia of glacial-speed movement on women's rights? Why, if the Supreme Court had decided not to hear Roe, we'd probably have an Equal Rights Amendment by now.....

14
2
kd5757Mar. 30, 1310:42 PM

Excellent article. Cogent reasoning, science, and a sense of fairness will prevail over fear-mongering and uninformed views. It is only a matter of time before marriage equality across our country becomes a reality and we will come that much closer to being a more socially just society.

23
4
greg62Mar. 31, 13 1:37 AM

I was supportive of civil unions for homosexuals providing them with the same legal rights as husbands and wives have, but this push to redefine marriage has me disgusted. This will open up a big can of worms leading to all sorts of unintended consequences such as polygamy.

2
27
windigolakeMar. 31, 13 6:52 AM

okaybruce: "The fact is, everywhere this sham has been forced on the people, families, marriages, children and churches suffer." I would think a comment like that would at least deserve a pathetic attempt at some examples. I'm guessing none will be forthcoming as there are none to be found.

17
4
wisebookMar. 31, 13 7:17 AM

I cannot think of a good reason to prohibit gay marriage. The argument that some in their posts have made that this would open up marriage to polygamy is ridiculous. We the heterosexuals have already had polygamy in our past and it was a miserable failure. So I cannot really lay the blame on gays for our straight failures. Regarding some posters arguments that this is similar to Roe v. Wade, I guess from the perspective of personal freedom it is. Roe v. Wade is about personal choices. I have two women in my life who have had tubal pregnancies in which the fertilized egg gets stuck in the fallopian tube. Women with this condition will die if the tube and the fertilized egg within is not removed. But because the anti-choice crowd wants to define that fertilized egg as a person, in some sort of twisted logic, these women should not be allowed to seek medical life-saving treatment. The only question on abortion is whether when your mother, or daughter, or wife, or sister's life is in danger, do you want the government to determine whether she lives or dies? I do not. I don't plan to marry someone of the same gender and as a guy, I don't plan to have an abortion but I also have no interest in forcing others to live by my decisions. It seems so easy. If you don't want to marry someone of the same gender- if you oppose abortion- don't have one. It is curious to me why some of you are so obsessed with controlling other people's lives. That makes you no different than this government that you claim to despise so.

18
4
Jakein08Mar. 31, 13 7:55 AM

This is the equal rights issue of our time. Opponents used the bible to justify racial discrimination in the past, just as they are using it to justify discrimination against gays right now. Love one another!!!

15
2

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