Is it time to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota?

After the defeat of the amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota, some advocates are beginning to organize an effort to make such marriages legal. Today’s Question: Is it time to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota?

  • Rich

    It may take longer than the visionaries think, but the pilot in the cockpit is already an endangered species.

  • Dianne

    As much as I would like to see the legislature legalize same-sex marriage, there are other things, e.g. health care, jobs, taxes, that need their attention and work.

  • Joe

    Not quite yet. The obituaries each day are filled with YES voters while each day more NO voters turn 18. A little more time is still needed.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    I’d give it a a few years in order to take advantage of the social trend that increasingly supports gay marriage. It will happen though.

    To all those people still against it, you have to realize

    that the legalization of same-sex marriage would not force any religious institution to do so. No church is required to marry ANYONE and couldn’t be forced to do so in the future.

  • Steve the Cynic

    It’s inevitable. However, if it happens in this legislative session, it will be the kind of overreach that right-wingers are warning against. One of the arguments used to persuade voters to turn down the amendment was that gay marriage would still be illegal in Minnesota without it. Making it legal now would be like breaking a campaign promise.

  • Sutton

    This will happen, but I don’t think it’s time just yet. If our state legislature can perform some wonderful work with the state budget and set things straight with the state’s economy, then I fully support the legislature taking on this social issue before the next election. But this could all be moot should a ruling be made by the Supreme Court.

  • Deja

    100% think it is long overdue. No waiting necessary. That would be like telling Martin Luther King, Jr. that if only he and the rest of the African Americans could just wait a few years…. This is an equal rights issue to me. I’ve been very happily married for 20 years. Why should anyone be denied the recognition of that type of commitment? We are talking about love and family here.

  • Scott

    As a moral question: undoubtedly.

    As a practical question: it might take a few more years, but we to keep working to make that happen.

    If it was your ability to marry the person you love would you want to wait? If it was your child, parent or best friend’s ability to express that commitment would you want them to wait? I don’t think so.

    As more states legalize marriage for all people I think more people will realize that this is an issue about real people’s lives, and not about abstract fears.

  • jon

    I’ve a split opinion on this.

    I agree with the sentiment that the time is not yet right, and more time has to pass so we can get to a 70/30 split on the topic instead of our current 51/49.

    However, if we were to pass same sex marriage legislation this legislative session, it should be one of the first things passed in the session. If it is legalized with in the few months of the legislative session we’ll have almost 2 years to absorb the reality of same sex marriage in the state before the next round of mid-term elections. 2 years of the reality of what changes under a new law, might help us get to that 70/30 split.

    If it doesn’t happen right away, then it best it not happen at all this time around.

  • Adam

    “Making it legal now would be like breaking a campaign promise.”

    I hold the opposite position. The party that swept to power actually included marriage equality in their platform and, while one of the arguments against the amendment was “it’s already illegal,” the vast majority of the arguments were about love and commitment, the Golden Rule, and how no one should be told that their love is illegal.

    Is it time? Morally: yes. As a practical question, it’s a matter of whether the citizens of Minnesota speak out to their elected officials and compel them to act. Legislators can, and should, consider a marriage equality bill at the same time as a budget bill.

    “You’ve convinced me… Now go out and make me do it.”

    – FDR

  • Philip

    No. But, who cares. Apparently the “Greatest Generation” didn’t know a dang thing.

  • Mark in Freeborn

    Yes, and because it’s already a guarantee under the U.S. Constitution. Read the 14th Amendment, from which I quote: “No state shall make or enforce any law which abridge the privileges….of citizens of the United States….nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which means that people living in Minnesota who are in a legally-performed gay marriage are being denied equal protection of the laws if Minnesota does not grant them the exact same rights as other married couples. The U.S. Supreme Court, being a strict constructionist Court, can’t avoid the obvious any longer and still be credible. Some people may not like it, but the Constitution is unquestionably clear on this point.

  • Jim G

    I think we need to ponder our state’s momentous defeat of the Marriage Amendment. To those who have successfully struggled to defeat this assault on freedom, I say let’s not break ranks and rush down the hill after our rejected foe just because we have held off their massive attack. Many historic battles, one being the Battle of Hasting in 1066, were lost precisely because of the rash exuberance of the troops.

    Planning for continuing action is the next step in achieving the victory we seek, not chasing blindly after the dream. Patience, planning, and then coordinated action has a better chance of success than pushing for change in the law this session. Now if I were hoping to marry the love of my life soon and couldn’t, my answer would be different.

  • joe in Minneapolis

    It’s time to legalize same-sex marriage all across America. If only in Minnesota, that’s ok too.

  • reggie

    I completely agree with Mark in Freeborn. There is no valid legal reason to continue to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry. It will be truly fascinating to watch the SCOTUS look for and fail to find a fig leaf to hide behind on this issue.

  • GregX

    Everyone knows that the answer is yes. What everyone is waiting for is the consensus “nod” to agree.

    We’ve been hampered by culture, custom, religious rhetoric, fear, confusion … and there are bits of those burrs still stuck in the fabric of our society, and they will remain stuck in small places … because is America is not a mono-culture.

    We are diverse, vibrant and ever-changing. It is ludicrous to hamper our forward progress with Oh-dark-ages thinking. Let people get on with their personal lives so the bigger issues confronting the actual lives of our country can be dealt with , jobs, environment, safety and peace.

  • Emery

    The GOP debated social issues and placed a Marriage Amendment on the ballot. The DFL needs to avoid a similar mistake.

    Do not confuse GOP rejection with a DFL mandate. Attend to the economy and budget first. Make tough choices, and really clean up the budget without any shifts or gimmicks that have been the norm for over a decade.

    2014 will be a much tougher election year than 2012 was.

  • Karla

    I think it should be moved forward, but what I really don’t understand is why people narrow their view of others down to nothing but a persons sexuality. People are so much more then that. It bothers me that once sexual orientation is stated/made public, then that seems to be all that is thought about in terms of that person. Seems rather silly. So yes, we should move beyond narrow-mindedness and it should be legal.

  • TJ

    It’s absolutely time to do it. The organization is in place and the supporters are galvanized. The DFL swept the legislature and it’s in the platform.

    The Republicans are going to cry about overreaching far-left lib whatevers no matter what the DFL does; if people are worried about complaints, let’s give them something to actually complain about.

  • Regnar James

    NO.

    Never.

    GL-BLT’s can do whatever they want… MARRIGE is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.

    Call it a civil union or something other than marriage.

    DTOM

  • Ann

    No. The vote showed that there is a high percentage of people who will never accept this.I would rather see the word “marriage” taken out of all government/tax documents. Then marriage would be a completely private affair. I could accept marriage as between a man and a woman. Other people could make it what they want–gays, polygamists, groups–whatever. Then no one has to argue or call other people biased or hateful. It would not be discussed in schools and families would keep their own values in this private matter.If you can’t keep marriage defined as what it is, then get government out completely.

  • Gary F

    From what Aaron Rupar writes in the City Pages, Senator Baak isn’t too eager to pass any legislation regarding this.

    Dibble and Clark will propose something, and it will die in committee.

    The DFL will be way, way too busy taxing and spending.

  • David Poretti

    Is it time? Maybe.

    A common sense, middle-ground suggestion:

    A) Define “marriage” as a religious ceremony and status, as defined by the particular religion in question, but having no legal standing with the state. The particular religious organization would decide whom they allow to marry within their organization. To be married, the couple would need to have a religious ceremony performed.

    B) Define “civil-union” as a legal partnership between any two consenting adults, with all the legal benefits and liabilities of what is currently defined as marriage. To form a civil partnership, the couple would have to file the appropriate legal documents or government forms.

    Some would choose A; some would choose B; some would choose both A and B; some would choose neither A or B. But the choice would be theirs. The law as defined in the 14th amendment would be upheld.

  • Dick

    Yes, yes, yes. As soon as possible. A human rights issue and has no relationship to budget deficits, job creation, taxes, etc.

  • DNA

    Is it time to legalize same-sex marriage in Minnesota?

    Only if polyfidelity is extended the same rights and considerations.

  • Kate

    Yes, absolutely. I truly see no reason why anyone would be opposed to two people who love each other and want to commit to each other and get “married”. Do they want them to be punished simply because they are different? It should not even need different terminology, and they should be allowed all the same rights as any other married couple would have.

  • Wil

    Absolutely! It’s ridiculous that we even have to ask this question in 2012. My partner and I deserve the same legal rights as every other American citizen. My church is ready to marry us so what’s the state’s excuse??

  • Janean Hall

    Although I am conscious of the importance of equality for all, I honestly need to say God designed something perfect in marriage between one man and one woman. Every single child in the world needs the nourishment of one mother and one father to grow up with a balanced and healthy sense of identity. It is not for us humans to re define this timeless plan laid out by God Himself. Both Old and New Testament warn of the slippery slide of sin involved with homosexuality. I cannot go along with a worldly point of view.

  • william

    It is time. There is a whole group of people who are being treated like second class citizens, because of some peoples religious views, or the views of people who don’t realize our world is changing like it always does. To paraphrase Martin Luther King “Change is going to happen, so we need to decide if we want to be the headlights, or the tail lights.” Come on Minnesota, make me proud again.

  • Really?

    If the D’s had any credibility on this issue they would ram something through right away. These are equal rights we’re talking about! How can they make any arguments, other than craven strategic/political ones, to the contrary?

    They will have a Democratic House, Democratic Senate, and a Democratic Governor come January. What the hell would they be waiting for?

  • sam

    In answer to Janean Hall: That is your God, your Bible. That is not my God. As we all know, the Bible says a lot of things that we no longer hold relevant. I will respect your rights to your beliefs, if you don’t force yours on me. Your church will never be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. PERIOD

  • Wally

    Deja says: “We are talking about love and family here.” NO we’re not. The anti-amendment ads lied. Nobody is keeping anybody from “loving” anybody they want to. And “family” is whatever anyone wants to make it these days, including harlots who have six-packs of bastards, at taxpayer expense.

    william says: “There is a whole group of people who are being treated like second class citizens.” Of course, straight hetero couples who decide to wait until marriage to have sex and children.

    sam says: “Your church will never be forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. PERIOD.” Sure, just like Catholics or any of us won’t be forced to pay for birth control or abortion through Obamacare.

    Marriage has been nearly destroyed by the “sex whenever, wherever and with whomever you want” libertines. This is just another step toward the annihilation of all traditional morals. How many homosexuals are refusing to love who they want to because of some law? This is about moving along the agenda of the GLBT “community” toward that enlightened day when “homophobes and haters” are sent to prison or re-education camps until they can chant “gay is great.”

  • Linda in Plymouth

    The liberals won the Presidency by 2% of the voters, 3 million conservatives stayed home and gave the election away. 108% of eligible votes were found in PA but one can never have over 100%…no scam there huh? Most states have voted NO for gay marriage, 63% of Hispanics polled said they are not in favor of gay marriage so the DFL will lose voters if they persist in this. Look at Rome and how their morals decayed before they fell..history has a reason to learn from.

  • Linda in Plymouth

    The liberals won the Presidency by 2% of the voters, 3 million conservatives stayed home and gave the election away. 108% of eligible votes were found in PA and they all were for Obama but one can never have over 100%…so, no scam there huh? Most states have voted NO for gay marriage, 63% of Hispanics polled said they are not in favor of gay marriage so the DFL will lose voters if they persist in this. Look at Rome and how their morals decayed before they fell..history has a reason to learn from.

  • Steve the Cynic

    The assertion that the fall of Rome was due, in whole or in part, to a decay of morals is a bit too facile, especially in regard to the issue of this TQ. That thesis was first asserted by Edward Gibbon in the late 1700s in his multi-volume tome, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. He was not referring to sexual morality, but to a general abandonment of “civic virtue.” In other words, Romans had become self-centered and contemptuous of the common good. His thesis is debatable, but if it’s to be applied as a lesson for America today, it would not be a warning about gay marriage. It would be a rebuke to the vapid materialism of our consumer culture and absurd things like cutting taxes in war time. Gibbon would advise us to let all the Bush-era tax cuts expire and not gripe about it.

    Oh, and another thing Gibbon thought contributed to Rome’s decline and fall was its embrace of Christianity. He thought its pacifist tendencies made people weak and reluctant to put up a fight when the barbarians invaded. So I always chuckle at the irony when I hear Christians use Gibbon’s thesis to back up their arguments.

  • David

    It’s time to update the laws, “civil unions” for government and “marriages” for religious ceremony.

    There are as many religions as there are people. – the Dalai Lama

    What is mutually commissioned among two or more responsible mature individuals.

    Polyamory is a daily fact and for many the preferred way to live life to the fullest.

  • georges

    Every great “civilization” has followed the same general pattern. From its rise to its demise. To wit:

    Strong, smart, determined men carve out a society from the wilderness of lesser beings, eliminating or controlling all others that would hinder their vision.

    Once the strong men have secured the land, they then institute a system of morals, laws, codes of behavior in order to sustain and improve on the society they have created.

    After a certain amount of time, with improvements being established, progress comes to a general halt as more improvement becomes painfully slow and uninteresting.

    The strong men then have nowhere to go, nothing to do, nothing else can be accomplished. So, the strong men in the society deteriorate into a life of booze, drugs, and rampant meaningless sexual activity, as the satisfaction of base drivers is all that is left to them to accomplish.

    Now, as the strong men deteriorate, the great society they created is a generally safe, civilized, place to be. And, as the strong men lose interest, precisely because of the mundane nature that the whole thing has become, the leadershhip roles are now open to the lesser abled…..the women and homosexuals, who take over the higher stations in the government and economy, running it the way they want to see it run. The strong men no longer care about it, being busy with the simple pleasure of life.

    As the masculine values subside and are replaced with the feminine, the civilization deteriorates. Once the deterioration reaches a certain point, the tipping point, there is no recovery possible. The society is dead, just an empty husk, waiting for a strong wind to end its existence.

    We, the United States, are now at that tipping point. Strong men could bring us back, but history says it would not last long. No society has ever come back. They just become a shadow nation, a weak People. Like England, Spain, Norway/Denmark (the Vikings), etc.

    Feminine values are weak values, and will crumble or be conquered. Completes the cycle of rise and demise.

    That’s the way it is. Most in the USA have already given up, and have decided to just enjoy the ride as much as possible. So be it. Amen.

  • Ken Webb

    Yes, it’s not only time but it was time long ago. While it’s easy to paint this as a social issue that lacks the same importance as other issues being faced by our state, the longer this is delayed the more certain Minnesotans will be disenfranchised, treated as 2nd class citizens and denied the rights that others take for granted. To those impacted by the current inequality in our laws this is certainly an issue that directly effects them and is as if not more important than other issues that we currently face.

  • Marie

    Yes, time for love, time for equality, time to close another door on hatred and exclusion. It is time.

  • David P

    @ georges

    Wow – now I see things clearly as never before.

    Thanks for the history lesson.

    Ummm, is this why the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the USSR and Nazi Germany, to name but a few ex-societies, all are now “history”?

    Or are you just being your old silly self, and forgot your har har?

  • georges

    Just keep reading my posts.

    In a year or two, wisdom will have taken over, and the pain of leaving liberalism in the rear view mirror will have dissipated, and living become an unmitigated joy………

    My gift to you.

    Enjoy