Minnesota plays pretend with marriage

  • Article by: KATHERINE KERSTEN
  • Updated: June 1, 2013 - 5:09 PM

The Right Side of History surely can’t be found on the Wrong Side of Reality.

  • 113
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
unionbossmanJun. 1, 13 5:20 PM

i didn't vote for the amendment and I don't care if you get married. Now that theres nothing left for you to complain about can we stop with the constant need for attention?

33
64
pumiceJun. 1, 13 6:50 PM

From the article: "Who knows what new game of 'let’s pretend' our chattering classes will impose on us next?" Well, Ms. Kersten, there's always the good old let's pretend game called "Antiquity"--you know, when men were men and women were women, and A-Guys were polygamists. Or, you could play a few rounds of "Patristic Marriage" which emphasizes the natural reproductive function of sex for wives and allows the A-Guys to have mistresses for fun. Or maybe you'd prefer a round of "Celibacy", the game which discourages matrimony altogether because (1) sex is impure; (2) women shouldn't be inheriting church property; and (3) the Second Coming is imminent.

If you're tired of ancient and Medieval games of let's pretend, you can try "Victorian Era" where successful, thirty-something A-Guys get their choice of young A-Women whom they impregnate as often as possible until the woman dies in childbirth or of exhaustion, and the A-Guy can move on to the next generation of A-Women so the children have a mother. (And so he can keep passing along his A-Guy genes.) By the way, maternal death's not as common as it used to be, so "Victorian Era" has been updated as "Serial Monogamy".

Speaking of the wrong side of reality, you should order a copy of the "Lou Dobbs All-Male Special on Women in the Workplace." There's a bunch of guys who've got the right idea about gender roles....

91
20
tommore13Jun. 1, 13 6:53 PM

I am so tired of conservatives claiming that civil marriage is all about children. If it was, the marriage laws would require childbearing - but *they do not.* Not even close. Infertile couples? Welcome. Old couples? Welcome. If civil marriage is about children, put it in the law, or stop using that as an excuse to keep gay people as second-class citizens.

124
30
goferfanzJun. 1, 13 7:32 PM

We are making history, but it also means America is on the fast track to being history. You think Russia and China arent laughing at our stupidity? It isnt even so much the "gay" aspect of marriage or unions, it IS the fact that SSM means that the vast majority of these "marriages" over time will be heterosexual couples, aka a business deal. I guarantee America hits a 70% illegitimacy rate before 2040. America should be working to strengthen traditional marriage, but que sera, sera.....

29
94
ebfauvelJun. 1, 13 8:08 PM

"For example, the law states that citizens must view the union of two people of the same sex — who can’t produce a child — as identical to that of a man and woman, whose sexual complementarity is the only thing that can."

Yes, Katherine, legally a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. You don't have to agree, but you don't matter - the law is all that matters.

Are opposite-sex couples who don't procreate, either because they can't or choose not to, pretending to be married in your eyes? Does it boil down to a simple equation for you? Marriage = procreation? What an insult to couples who can't procreate but choose to adopt!

No one is saying that a man can be a mother or that a woman can be a father. But either can be a parent, and under the law (remember, that's all that matters), children being raised by same-sex couples will now get the same benefits and protections (assuming the couple marries) that children raised by opposite-sex couples get. If you really cared about children, you would insist that all same-sex couples raising children get married!

Finally, stop trying to conflate different issues - polygamy, transgender identity, etc. - with same-sex marriage. Your ilk wailed about the imminence of polygamy when interracial marriage was legalized across the country in 1967, and obviously that sky never fell.

So go ahead and pretend that our marriages aren't real, Katherine. We don't care. You're not invited to the wedding anyway.

127
30
chuckdancerJun. 1, 13 9:20 PM

This kind of stuff is for the conservative intellectual elites. For the rest of us thankfully, life is unchanged.

68
26
jdlellis1Jun. 2, 13 6:42 AM

In framing part of this argument, it is tragically sad the thought process adopted by those who choose to ignore the reality of the physical and physiological differences between men and women when it comes to raising children. 1 - Having a mother and father has been replaced with, a child only needing two parents. Where did the quantity of parents become the "prime" criteria for raising a child and why? 2 - The belief that most families are getting divorced (a myth) it should not matter how a household is formed (e..g., anything goes). The question that should be asked by individuals before having children is, "What is in the best interest of the child (not the adults)." How about some intellectual honesty. The male of the species and the female of the species are different. This is an indisputable fact. One is not better than the other for a child but together, provide balance for a child. By the way, for those who will choose thumbs down or respond in negative tone, These remarks have nothing to do with. fears, anti anything or homophobic, etc.

28
80
jdlellis1Jun. 2, 13 7:12 AM

The rally cry for this legislation focused on discrimination, it is not about children and get the government out of the bedroom. Had the Governor and legislators had vision, a backbone and courage, the question that should have been addressed was, "What, if any, is the role of government in defining relationship? People today live together in relationships without government approval. People today have children together without government approval. People today have intimate relationships without government approval? If all these things are occurring without government approval, "Why does the government need to sanction any relationship under the "civil union and/or marriage banner?" As for taxes credits, "Why should two individuals need to "register" with the government to get any tax credit? That in and of itself is discriminatory. Historically perhaps because of the desire to support families/children, but again, the arguments were framed under, it is not about children. Benefits? Most businesses plus the ADA are providing benefits for partners, thus, no role for the government. Two things the Governor and Legislators should have done were a few things. 1-Removed itself totally from marriage, civil unions, etc. ensuring current marriages are grandfathered in for taxes, benefits, etc. 2-Recognizing the 1st Amendment right to religious freedom, for those seeking marriage, relegate marriage solely to registered religious institutions. 3-For those seeking to have their relationship legally codified, they can seek the services of an attorney to draft a contract (which marriage is) defining the parameters of their relationship. For those who will disagree with this premise, might I suggest focusing the fundamental question, "Since the movement was to suppress discrimination, since it's not about children, and get the government out of the bedroom, what is the role of government in defining relationships and why?"

15
51
smillikanJun. 2, 13 8:47 AM

Oh, Ms. Kersten. Careful what you wish for! If governments from the earliest days agreed with your view that "being concerned with history" over "being concerned with salvation after death," you, as a woman, would have no voice today. You would be the property of your husband, one among many wives and consorts, you would be pregnant, barefoot, silent, subservient, uneducated. Though you would be "married" (aka, "owned by a man",) you would be raising your children in his absence as, he could not be bothered to be present as a father, as men appear to be in your utopic view of marriage. His only role is to sire children. SSM strengthens the relationships of couples who have children that you and your ilk chose, and continue to choose not to adopt (read: chose or choose to ignore.) If those who believe as you do, that children belong only in the homes of married heterosexual couples, one would think that there wouldn't ever be a supply of unadopted children for us same-sex couples to snatch up, would there? After all, it isn't same-sex couples who are keeping the supply of homeless children in need of adoption so plentiful, is it! The legalization of SSM does not diminish or infringe on heterosexual marriage in any way. We have many years of proof around the globe: Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Iceland, Argentina, and many more. And we have proof within our own USA: MA, VT, IA, CT, etc. Your venom is tiresome. Your efforts should be focused on strengthening All marriages, not perpetuating the myth that marriage should only be permitted between one man and one woman. Your efforts would be much better directed at focusing on ways to reduce broken homes due to divorce. You should focus your energies on efforts that teach those who can procreate how to choose the correct mate, when they are mature enough and fanancially equipped make the decision to marry, to begin a family, to understand how many children they can support emotionally, financially, and spiritually. Concentrate your efforts on that puzzle and leave us same-sex couples alone, for the love of God! Just because man & woman can marry and procreate, doesn't mean they always should. There are countless examples of unsuccessful heterosexual marriages. Direct your energies on that problem. Please!

85
23
mccovey69Jun. 2, 1310:10 AM

Good article. The very basis of human life is that that there are givens, there are creational norms. Human beings can live by those norms and have a better life, or they can try to change them to fit their desires, whether good desires or bad (cuz there are bad desires),often with negative consequences for society. A family composed of a mother (woman) and a father (man) and children, either their own or adopted, is the norm that has kept societies stable through history. It is the norm to follow. Certainly there is cultural differentiation that brings progress to our world without breaking those norms--equality for women, blacks, and even for gays--up to the point of changing marriage to accomodate them. As for whether or not those of us who are not in favor of changing marriage will just go away now that the law has passed, that will not happen. This issue, like abortion, is too important and too much an affront to God's creational ordinances to just "let it go."

23
72

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