John Nienstedt: Let's protect the meaning of marriage

  • Article by: JOHN C. NIENSTEDT
  • Updated: April 27, 2010 - 10:05 PM

The case for a constitutional amendment in Minnesota.

  • 241
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
emackbeeApr. 27, 10 7:34 PM

from the Catholic Church! That's funny stuff right there.

88
27
futuricsApr. 27, 10 7:53 PM

Why the heck should the government sanction (or not) what is essentially a religious institution? We are operation under a totally archaic system wherein government puts it's, excuse me, "blessing," on a religious right and establishes tax and rights benefits solely for those that have had some holy joe make esoteric gesticulations over them and mumble some incantations. Those that don't have the holy joe ceremony thingy or are of same-sex so that holy joes don't want to give them such a religious ceremony, are discriminated against, are they not? How is this right? We need to instead have an amendment that says government has no role in sanctioning the essentially religious institution of marriage. And further, that it is wholly discriminatory to offer tax, legal and other benefits to citizens who are "married" but not to those who are not. Gay marriage proponents sadly are barking up the wrong side of the tree here. Instead of working toward a buy-in to this 'marriage' farce, they should instead be working toward dismantling this discriminatory system altogether. Moreover, I'll remind you that marriage, at bedrock, perpetuates the old system where women and children are chattel property.

46
31
samo45Apr. 27, 10 8:01 PM

The US has always had a built-in cultural conflict between libertarian ideals and puritanical ideals. Now this clash is very much alive and well in the US, especially in the right wing. There are some religious Americans who have close counterparts in Tehran and some libertarian Americans whose ideals seem to be hedonism and anarchy. All I can say is stay tuned and good luck to us all. Or should that be, "May God help us?"

28
12
transumerApr. 27, 10 8:19 PM

Exactly what are we "protecting?"

86
12
ericschubertApr. 27, 10 8:27 PM

I'm not really sure Rev. Neinstedt how you can lecture on marriage when you've never experienced it.

82
21
ies0716Apr. 27, 10 8:31 PM

I love the awesome "tolerance" of liberals such as flexsf. If anyone disagrees with your radical viewpoint, then that person is a bigoted fascist.

22
73
katiuszaApr. 27, 10 8:44 PM

Is it ok now to curse and name-call here without repercussions? Noticed that the 'flag comments' links are not working.

10
11
katiuszaApr. 27, 10 8:50 PM

Do we jail all parents because of the few that beat their children? Do we deny cars to all drivers because of the number of fatalities every day? Should we generalize about the criminal tendencies of whole races/religions of people when some act criminally? We are asked not to judge all Muslim society when terroristic acts are perpetrated by a few radicals, yet it seems perfectly alright to condemn every Catholic man, woman, and child because of the criminal tendencies of some sick men (see emackbee above).

25
31
Bubba2mApr. 27, 10 8:52 PM

watch how long mine lasts!!!! NO profanity, etc. yet it will be dropped like a hot potato.. I am NOT entitled to my opinion unless it conforms to what a moderator believes.... Free speech, ya, you betcha......

7
37
normafigonApr. 27, 10 9:04 PM

Rev. Nienstedt is saying that raising a child is (or should be) dependent on being married, and that being married is dependent on procreating. Yet there is nothing in any current or proposed law that requires either of the above. Nor is there anything in the law that provides incentives for couples to stay together after (or before) they have children. If you really care about children there should be a law requiring would-be parents to pass an emotional/psychological/knowledge-based test before they're allowed to have kids. I know such a thing would be too much Big Brother and would never be seriously considered in the U.S., but it would help children far more than legally defining marriage to consist of man+woman.

65
16

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

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question