Gay marriage ban is back on agenda at Capitol

  • Article by: KEVIN DUCHSCHERE and BOB VON STERNBERG , Star Tribune staff writers
  • Updated: March 18, 2009 - 11:45 AM

Sponsors again plan to introduce a constitutional amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman, saying it's the only way to prevent changes in the status of marriage.

  • 457
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jimemeryMar. 17, 09 9:05 AM

First it's a bill to tell California to keep Sarah Jane Olson. Now it's an impossible attempt to change the constitution. Can't our legislators and the governor just focus on solving the budget and economy?

foobarxyzMar. 17, 09 9:07 AM

Who cares what two people do. Regardless of what you think of homosexuality, who do you care what two people do on their own time? Why don’t you use the effort you spend on this to d something meaningful. And the argument of where does it stop, what’s next someone marrying a horse or three people is the worst argument possible. Just make it between and two people at one given time.

farmeraMar. 17, 09 9:11 AM

There should be a constitutional amendment banning religious and other nuts and blue nose hypocrites from proposing and voting on constitutional amendments. It would save us a lot of time and money and promote good will.

deficitspentMar. 17, 09 9:12 AM

The morals of our society have degraded so far as to have to discuss in public? Why don't the "same sex" people just be quiet and not bother the 99% of people who do not need to hear of this filth?

dlsithMar. 17, 09 9:21 AM

But with all the divorce, infidelity, and parents out of wedlock, the breeder community has done a pretty good job of ruining the sanctity of marriage, so whats so wrong with letting two people who truly love each other and want to be married do it, no matter what sex they are?

NokomismplsMar. 17, 09 9:40 AM

Aren't there more pressing issues to deal with right now versus trying to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot banning two people, who love each other, from getting married?

magpladMar. 17, 09 9:42 AM

Plain and simple, there's nothing more to it. This is no different than trying to pass a bill that prevents women from voting, or black people from drinking from the same fountain as you. You can't make laws to get rid of everything you think is gross.

BucklawMar. 17, 09 9:43 AM

There goes the whacko Minnesota Family Council whowing their insecurity again. What's the threat here? What would a constitutional amendment be attempting to protect us from? WHY waste our time on such issues?

Listen people...there are real issues out there, like a struggling economy and government funding issues. Why not go and stay with your own. Listen to people of a similar mindset like Limbaugh, a champion of fidelity...or even McCain, who left his injured wife for another woman.

Get off the freakin' family values gig and focus on things you can really do something about.

mspshadowMar. 17, 09 9:44 AM

any amendment regarding it has no business in the state constitution. It's hypocritical for the conservatives to claim they want less government in our lives, yet advocate the legislation of personal morals.

puffyafrosMar. 17, 09 9:48 AM

Marriage is a holy union under God between a man and a woman. That's it, period. Marriage is an institution under God. That's just the facts. Let me follow that up with some scripture...


Comment on this story   |  


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