How Minnesota got from there to here on same-sex marriage

  • Article by: LORI STURDEVANT , Star Tribune
  • Updated: May 11, 2013 - 2:54 PM

Asking Minnesotans to say ‘no’ to equality led to more saying ‘yes.’

  • 60
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
okaybruceMay. 11, 13 4:05 PM

There is no such thing as same-sex "marriage" regardless of what the government or courts say. Just as an apple will never be an orange, two men or two ladies will never be "married."

liora51May. 11, 13 4:25 PM

The distinction between a "civil union" and civil marriage is totally bogus. And it calls into question the over reaching of religious groups that they attempted to force the state to offer two kinds of licenses -- one for heterosexual couples and a different one for same sex couples. Religious organizations with invested with the authority to perform marriages recognized by the state can marry or not marry whoever they choose. But for any religious group to force the state to decide to create a "special" license for gay couples to spare the sensibilities of the one or the other religious doctrine is, and should be, rejected by the citizens of Minnesota.

legalcommentMay. 11, 13 4:29 PM

Follow me: Think of all the gay men that won't have to marry a woman because he wants everyone to think that he is a straight man (for family reasons, to keep his job, church involvement, etc). Growing-up in the 1970's & 1980's, most of the gay and bi-sexual men that I knew were married to a woman so no one would discover that they are gay, or bi-sexual. Now, gay men, and gay women, can be in their prospective relationships together which benefits everyone. Do you want a gay man to marry a female family member of yours just to pretend that his is straight?

arspartzMay. 11, 13 4:56 PM

Will the Republicans in MN take note and realize that running as the authoritarian moralist party is a losing battle in the modern economy? Follow the ORIGINAL (pre-Bachmann) TEA party and run on a platform cheaper, less intrusive smaller government and see if that gets you elected.

erikj3May. 11, 13 5:07 PM

Indeed, the Republicans over played their hand when they were in control of the Legislature, and it came back to bite them. People came to see that marriage equality is a MORAL issue. You can rant all you want about how the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination, but the real abomination is that gays don't the same legal rights as straight people have. How would you feel if, after being together for years, someone came in and said that you have no right to be with your partner when he died, or that because your partner died and you weren't married, you have to pay hundreds of thousands in extra taxes? THAT is immoral, not two people who love each other wanting to spend the rest of their lives together (with all the protections and benefits that marriage allows).

kraemer1May. 11, 13 5:32 PM

okay, okaybruce, if you say must be so. Because????

shawnstcloudMay. 11, 13 6:54 PM

kraemer1: okaybruce believes that two people of the same sex can't perform sexual intercourse. According to his many posts, intercourse is the defining act of marriage.

pitythetoolsMay. 11, 13 8:19 PM

We were not allowed to vote on it. we did not get from "here" to "there". If this had been put to a vote it would have failed. Many liberals are against same sex marriage and Prop 8 in CA proved it.

gophers2013May. 11, 13 8:26 PM

In the 2011-2012 legislative session, which the Republicans controlled, two civil union bills were introduced. One of the bills had 29 co-authors, and Rep. Tim Kelly was not one of them. Neither bill got a hearing. If the Republicans had wanted to, they could have cobbled together enough votes for passage, and Gov. Dayton probably would have signed it. Instead they went for the constitutional amendment, thinking it would bring out the usual "values voters" in November. Except the "Vote No" folks were organized and didn't get run over by the right-wing bulldozer. If Tim Kelly really believed in civil unions, he would have chief authored a bill and pushed the speaker to get it to the floor for a vote. Lori Sturdevant's anonymous Republican's "variation" is meaningless - they knew what they were doing and they just picked the wrong strategy.

jdlellis1May. 11, 13 8:36 PM

Had the House, Senate and Governor had any "vision" they would have asked the question, "What role, if any, does government have in defining relationships?" Proponents have stated their case primarily on; 1 - Discrimination, 2 - It is not about children, 3 - Get the government out of my bedroom. No logical thinking person cannot recognize that today, people are living together without government approval. People are having children without being married and without government approval. People are having intimate relations without government approval. Most public and private are offering partner benefits. Thus, "What value is the government providing?" Had Minnesota legislators had vision and guts, they would have grandfathered current marriages to retain their legal standing and benefits. To protect "Freedom of Religion" as defined in the U.S. Constitution, developed legal provisions for [legal] religious institutions retain the right to marry as those religious institutions deemed appropriate under their manifesto. Those seeking relationships, however they wish to define them, could then solicit the services of an attorney to define those parameters. This course of action would have given most all parties everything they wanted to have the relationships they desire. Again, the pending legislation which will passed was gutless by not asking a series of tough questions. Out of box thinking. Definitely. Yet, those who will disagree with this assessment will be unable to offer why it would not work. There would be no discrimination...for all. This is not about children. It gets the government out of the bedroom and provides for legal remedies for benefits. Sounds like equality.


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