Should we amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage?

Republicans at the Minnesota Capitol yesterday announced attempts to put before voters a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Today’s Question: Should we amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage?

  • Joanna


  • Duane

    It bothers me that we want to confuse marriage with that of a civil union. Websters dictionary defines a marriage as “the mutual relationship of a husband and wife”. A properly written civil union law will allow the same relationship exist between two people of the same sex, except for the creation of another human being. Isn’t that what is wanted…….or is it an attempt to reassure in their “own” minds it is an acceptable relationship?

  • Michael

    Absolutely not. The US and state constitutions are meant to guarantee and protect rights and provide a foundation for our government. They are not to be abused for political whims.

  • Tim


  • Dianne

    No. It is never a good idea to put discrimination in a constitution. Plus there are more pressing items that need to be addressed. What about jobs, health care, housing?!?!?

  • Mirah of Minneapolis

    Absolutely not. It is thoroughly unAmerican. Our nation was built on a constitution and a Bill of RIGHTS, not a Bill of Restriction of Rights. The role of government–federal or state, absolutely should not include legally mandating discrimination, and putting such a despicable bill to a public referendum should be irrelevant. It is the role of our elected officials to help defend the rights of ALL their constituents, not just the ones whose politics they like, and such a basic, eduring issue of equality and human rights should always be protected from attempts to limit those rights no matter what the current whim of the electorate.

    Republicans, you were elected to work on jobs, the economy, and matters important to the well-being of people in the state, NOT to attack its citizens or to waste valuable tax-payer time and money on this ridiculous endeavor.

  • Linda

    No! Just leave our constitution alone and I will be eager to vote against it given the opportunity.

  • TD

    No. If we allow our Constitution to be used as a restrictive document to ban gay marriage, what will be next? Absolutely not. I am not falling for this, Congress. GET TO WORK!

  • Rich

    No. This sort of ineffectual conservative political theatre is all-too-familiar these days. The proposed amendment amounts to little more than the death throes of superstitious moral ignorance.

    Where one man’s obstreperous bigotry is another man’s judicial activism. Typical conservative.

  • Zeke

    “Focusing on jobs and the economy like a lazer”

  • No.

  • Dave

    It depends what kindof Minnesota we want our children to aspire to. Monogamy is in the States interest. Marriage is the vehicle the State has traditionally used and it will weaken the positive message our community leaders are capable of sending if we create two tiers of support. Why would we turn away those who clearly respect the importance of starting a family with in marriage?

  • jon


    This is just a scheme to get more conservatives that find homosexuality “icky” to turn out for the next round of elections.

    While I disagree with how it was said below, I feel that that a “Civil Union” is a fine idea… Leave the definition of “marriage” up to those who have arbitrarily assigned it through out history. (P.s. you people who defend “traditional marriage”, I hope you enjoy your polygamy, cause if you start to look, the definition of “traditional” varies widely based on peoples traditions.)

  • Steve the Cynic

    I can’t get over the hypocrisy of conservatives who want to regulate private bedrooms and deregulate corporate boardrooms.

  • george

    The Wedding Industry creates jobs in the so-called “private sector” of the economy. The proposed amendment will therefore be a “job killing” amendment.

  • No!

    As others have said, this is just more pandering to the base. Focus on jobs and the budget, alright?

  • LS

    No! What the hell’s the matter with those people? (conservatives)

  • Megan

    I know you put up intentionally provocative questions to generate attention and discussion, but flippantly throwing our rights up for a “yes” or “no” type of debate treats gays and lesbians as less than human. I was really hurt to see you post this question this morning.

  • Mitch

    No. No way. NFW.

  • Bruce

    No! Just more distractions we Minnesotans don’t need right now. Get the budget balanced.

  • isaiah

    Absolutely not. I feel like so many people/politicians are taking crazy pills.

  • J

    Yet another example that Republicans are more interested in social issues than creating jobs, you see it here and in Arizona and in Wisconsin and on and on. We were lied to.

  • Karl

    No. The role of the government should be protecting the rights of minorities, not restricting them. Furthermore we should not be voting on people’s rights and certainly not enshrining discrimination in the state constitution.

  • Dmox

    This is such a classic dirty move that I’m confused as to why the press hasn’t asked point blank why they are taking a page from the Bush/Mehlman re-election bid of ’04.

    You put uber-conservative social issues on a ballot in a year when you will be facing a close election. It creates a skew in the extreme right direction because those ultraconservatives who wouldn’t like the current candidate because they weren’t “right” enough, or enjoying particular popularity with the electorate, will come out and vote for their extreme social views instead and hold their nose & vote republican as well. It worked in ’04, so I’m sure it’s why they are using it for ’12.

    As for the issue itself, I feel attacked & used. Moving to deny rights by constitution is nothing short of fascism. The reasoning used by the right to inform this amendment is identical to the reasoning Hitler used to slowly & gradually criminalize Jews, Roma, Gays & Lesbians and all manner of social minorities in the 30’s. The claim is that our push for equality in government representation & benefit is somehow destroying the prevailing culture, and is a threat to society. I wish people would start seeing it for what it is, and reacting accordingly. We wouldn’t allow a single member of the legislature to get up and introduce a bill disallowing Jews from marrying, or blacks, etc…..we’d have them out of office by the end of the work day. And yet, because gays are a minority, whose rights don’t effect many of the majority, this kind of political bullying is tolerated and condoned.

    The rights of a minority should never be put to a vote. They will lose every time. We have built this country to be the beacon of freedom and tolerance in the world that we are by dismantling discrimination when we find it, and marginalizing these extremists when they lay claim to our constitution.

    The people of Minnesota, on both sides of the aisle, should put down this idea before it threatens to hijack the next election, the rights of a significant number of their own, and force us into the national spotlight as a bunch of ignorant bigots.

  • steve

    no that should not be changed it liberty for individuals to be able to bind together any way they want!

  • Kaitlin


    And Duane, using a dictionary definition of marriage is not a strong argument. Dictionaries record the typical usage of words, they do not prescribe how those words *must* be defined for all time.

  • Curt

    Another Tony Sutton inspired method of getting attention for the GOP. Not only do they want to balance the budget on the backs of the middle class and poor in our state, they now want to be the arbitrator of moral values for everyone. This is just another cheap play by a party that’s out of touch with the average Minnesotan. Would anyone care to make a guess where the Koch brothers stand on this issue?

    I see this as just another issue that will cause the Minnesota voters to reject the Republicans in 2012. Even if this amendment should pass, look for it and all others like it to be struck down by the U.S Supreme Court. It’s a waste of time, energy and money to pursue this bigoted amendment.

  • P. Nielsen

    Absolutely not. These small-minded individuals and their supporters want nothing more than to divert the public’s attention away from the important and necessary matters and tie up the legislature and voters in junk such as this. There is no need for any government to legislate what a marriage is. Once again, these men have shown how silly they are and so juvenile.

  • Chris Nolan

    No. I’ve seen 6th-grade student council members with more decency and maturity, albeit less political sophistication, than this phalanx of panderers.

    When I was 18, my employer gave me some advice that still steers true today. He said, “The world has enough crap in it. Whatever else you do in life, just make it your business never to contribute to the making of more crap.”

    The proposal to introduce a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage is almost too cynical to rise above that crap injunction and merit a moral argument. But if its proponents manage to stand on their hind legs long enough to get it in the ballot, I hope the humanitarian tradition of Minnesota, and the Minnesota that elected Jess Ventura, will rise above it to their true moral heights.

  • David

    Don’t these people have enough to do? it doesn’t look like it, so i think like every other business in the state it’s time for some lay offs in St. Paul.

  • Christi

    It’s marriage. Not gay marriage. Not straight marriage. I don’t “gay eat my breakfast.” I thought this country was founded on the freedom of religion. I wish people would spend this much energy feeding the hungry or something.

  • Julia Accola

    No. The rights of the minority should never be subject to a majority vote. We should not be using our constitution to restrict the rights of another group of citizens.

  • Stephanie

    YES! Marriage is absolutely only between a man and a woman. This is not some new conservative notion, either. This arrangement has existed in humankind through centuries and cultures.

  • Kate Anderson

    No. Absolutely not. You do not use the constitution to discriminate, you use it to prevent discrimination. Call it a “civil union” if you absolutely must, and save “marriage” for a man and woman, but do not deny the rights that I enjoy with my husband to be denied to a gay couple any longer. And do not ever make it a constitutional amendment that is harder to repeal when people finally get their heads straight. It hurts wonderful people for no good, logical reason.

    Besides, aren’t there other things we should be dealing with? I hear the economy sucks, jobs need creating, a budget needs balancing, soldiers that need to come home, ect ect. Really, is this the right time to legislate who people can love and marry? We have better things to worry about.


    MN Legislators need to focus on the state budget rather than the personal lifes of its citizens. The Republican/Tea Party group wants smaller government but with a deeper reach into our lives. How can you be so anti government yet believe this type of legislation makes sense. Leave your hands off our bodies and lives. Fix the budget so that we can remain an incredible state that is a great place to live (despite the weather). Attempting to manipulate issues around gay marrage or abortion is out of touch and counter productive to our communities.

  • Sarah

    NO! Same-sex marriage should be legal.

    Either that or get the government out of the marriage business entirely – we could call the government paperwork for all couples “civil unions” and leave marriages in churches for those who care.

    I am married and gay marriage doesn’t in any way devalue my relationship with my husband, as some opponents claim. Gay and lesbian couples already have kids together and have proven they make just as happy a family as “straight” couples. Let’s just reduce IRS paperwork and simplify health rights/insurance by giving them a legal avenue to be an official couple with rights.

  • John

    No. It’s a civil rights issue.

  • Thomas Stout

    Absolutely not! What’s wrong with two people making a commitment to living their lives together? The conservatives should be overjoyed about same sex marriage.

  • Jen

    No. Not only do I think that amending the constitution to TAKE AWAY someone’s rights is an act we should have outgrown centuries ago, my question is this: If the republicans ran – and won – on economic/jobs issue platforms, why are they wasting their time on this? Are we going to solve the budget crisis, unemployment, and state economy by defining marriage one way or another?

  • Malcom


    This was the first group repressed by Nazi Germany – not good company for the republicans proposing this bill.

  • John

    NOOO!!!! Duane, it sounds like you think that what is in your mind is absolute, universal truth but what’s in the minds of others is just their own fantasy. How’d you come up that silly notion? I wonder why it that all these men who keep yacking about protecting the holy sanctity of traditional marriage aren’t demanding laws that would make women their property [again] or make adultery a felony or at least a misdemeanor. It seems many of these people pick and choose their “values” more out of convenience than conviction.

  • Bill


  • Scott

    No, discrimination should never be written into our constitution. This latest effort is appalling. It does show the Republicans in the legislature for who they are, cultural warriors with little care for all Minnesotans.

    As someone with LGBTQ family and friends, including some who wish to marry and cannot, I do not understand how some in our society wish to amend our governing documents to deny these fellow citizens equal rights. Who we are and who we love is not a choice, to pretend otherwise is bigotry. Jamming anti-gay marriage language into the constitution would be a huge step backwards on civil rights in Minnesota.

  • Aaron

    No. This is a civil rights issue that requires leadership. Sometimes leaderships means making a decision that is more progressive than the general populous. If civil rights for African Americans had been put up to a vote, state by state, would some states ever have passed it? As a gay man, it’s hard to even out into words how even this discussion makes me feel. I had hoped that Minnesota was a place where I wouldn’t have to experience this. Sadly, I was wrong.

  • C. McCormick

    Absolutely not. How about legislators concentrate on the real, pressing issues our state and country face, rather than legislating peoples personal relationships? This whole session so far has been about the republican social agenda. Abortion, discrimination against women, discrimination against immigrants, English only garbage, and now, with just weeks left in the session, they need to attack the gay community too. Get to work, bigots! Work on job creation, getting the financing to repair our infrastructure and lift up our public schools, get us back to being a state that is desirable to live in. GET TO WORK.

  • Michele

    Of course not! It’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard, over and over and over again. Wake up, you self-righteous, bigoted, ignorant, so-called Christians. My same-sex partner and I don’t have any interest in harming your traditional “marriage”, your traditional divorce, or your traditional dysfunctional family institution. All we want is to be allowed to be legally married and receive the same benefits that you automatically have. What are you so afraid of?

  • Al Heebsh

    No. Civil rights issues for a minority should not be subject to a majority vote.

    Civil marriage is a civil right. Virtually all of the opposition to marriage equality is on religious grounds, regardless of whether or not they are savvy enough to declare it. If your religion doesn’t want marry people of the same sex then don’t do it in the ceremony of your religion. We have a separation of church and state in this country so that I don’t have to be subject to your religious rules. This discussion is about civil marriage and the legal rights and responsibilites of that contract.

    Further, if we are to declare marriage to be between one man and one woman the state should define exactly what that means. There is a portion of the population for whom genes, anatomy, and indentity may be ambigous or in conflict. Who can these people marry? Who should get to determine their gender and who they can love and enter into relationship with? But that discussion sheds light on the variation in human sex and gender, and that’s a discussion the so-called ‘Religious Right’ doesn’t want you to have.

  • Debra


    This is a civil rights issue. It sounds just like laws Americans previously had on the books to prevent people of different races from marrying.

  • Shannon


  • Shannon


  • Joey

    No. The majority should not dictate the private and personal rights of an oppressed minority.

    The constitution is a legal document and can only prevent gays from enjoying the legal rights of marriage. It cannot prevent the public at large from perceiving the word “marriage” to encompass homosexual unions. The only effect of an amendment is to oppress. I hope we are better than that.

  • Yogesh Grover


  • Carrie Rogers

    No, not at all. What I fail to comprehend is why people feel the need to tell others how to live. Why is it ok for one group of people to make a law that bans something that doesn’t affect them? What is it that worries them so immensely about the relationship I’m in?? Marriage= love + commitment.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “Marriage is absolutely only between a man and a woman. This is not some new conservative notion, either. This arrangement has existed in humankind through centuries and cultures. “

    Except, of course, in places where polygamy is accepted. And the idea that it’s “between” a man and a woman implies a mutuality that hasn’t always been the norm. Until fairly recently, even in this country, a wife was considered to be her husband’s chattel property and was unable to make legal contracts without her husband’s permission.

    I encourage all “Bible-believing” Christians to consider 2 Samuel 12 (especially 12:8). When the Lord rebukes David for taking Bathsheba, it’s not for adding yet another wife to his harem. In fact, the Lord doesn’t seem to have a problem with David’s plolygamy. The rebuke is for taking a woman that was already someone else’s and them getting him killed to cover it up.

    We’ve already redefined marriage from what existed in Bible times.

  • J

    The question should be put on he ballot so that it can be decided by the people of Minnesota rather than the courts.

  • Tong

    YES! The only way we heterosexuals can feel secure about our own marriages is to ABSOLUTELY deny others of any possibility for happiness and mutual responsibility.

  • Raph, ex MN-NG Army

    What a worthless pursuit!

    A total waste of tax payer resources. Allowing marriage (a civil arrangement predating religious interference) between two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation, fertility, or religious upbringing is not going to make/break the USA. Just as allowing mixed race marriage didn’t destroy this nation.

    If you don’t like ‘gay marriage’ then don’t engage in it, but considering how disruptive and damaging heterosexual marriage has been to millions of Americans you don’t see a movement to ban it.

    Seriously, if denying fellow citizens the right to be married is what you are intensely concerned about you need to get your head out of where the sun don’t shine.

    (btw, I am a hetero widower)

  • Deanne

    No How can a gay marriage possibly effect someone elses marriage? Perhaps those proposing this need to look at their own marriages and make it the best it can be, not worry about another person’s marriage–straight or gay. It is none of their business

  • Dave

    Why are we defending an institution that is so easily dissolved? The talk and focus is always on the sanctity of this union. However, people can repeatedly enter into and walk away from marriage. If the defenders of marriage are so set on ‘restoring the integrity’ to marriage maybe they should work on making more difficult to get out of. As was noted above, let’s return to working on the budget and job creation vs. writing discrimination into our State’s constitution.

  • Elaine

    No, it is outrageous to keep trying to deny same sex couple’s the right to commit to, and legally marry each other.

  • Mary Jo

    Definitely not. Marriage is a civil union. If people wish to have their marriage blessed by the “church” so be it. Churches certainly have the right to define marriage within the church and what form of marriage they will bless. But, that should not preclude legal marriage for two committed adults. As a happily married heterosexual gay marriage does nothing to the sanctity of mine. We as heterosexuals have done far more damage to the state of maariage than gay marriage could ever do

  • Jennifer

    No, no, and NO. Goodness, don’t Republicans have anything BETTER to do… like, say, passing budgets that DON’T gouge average folks like me?

    This is such a ruse, people! Republicans consistently raise up red-herring pseudo-morality issues like this simply to strike fear in the heart! They see 2012 looming, and they want the White House back. They see the “defense of marriage” as being so undeniable as to trump any other issue! It gets voters who are too afraid to vote on the whole candidate to the polls in droves, all for the sake of promoting so-called “family values”.

    ENOUGH! Republicans wave that “family values” flag high and proud, but their stranglehold on morality has lasted far too long. The positions they take on any number of other issues – tax parity, workers’ rights, health care – have NOTHING to do with morals. Intolerance, poverty and apathy are NOT family values.

    This type of nonsense is the only incentive I need to work hard to throw Republicans out of their current positions of power.

  • cmeredyk

    No, this is ridiculous, and diverts attention from real issues that affect people like budgetary shortfalls and decreasing state and local revenues.

  • CC&H

    Tong – You’re kidding, right?

  • Mary

    It is only recently that marriage has been only defined as a union between one man and one women. Of course in Minnesota, we should step forward and not continue to define marriage to ibe inclusive to everyone. Maybe the question should be, why are we so afraid to have two people’s commitment to each other be publicly awknowlegded? We need to understand and accept that gender is not two points, one male one female, but, that it is actually a spectrum which includes, but is not limited to male, female, intersex, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender. Are people afraid to accept the female genetics that are intrinsic to everyone’s DNA?

  • Kathy

    No. Not only should it not be passed, it should not be voted on. Putting this issue to a vote is like putting racial integration on the ballot 50 years ago.

  • Suz

    No! for all of the great reasons posted above. Our country was designed to protect minorities from majority bigotry and hysteria – the issue should not be decided by a portion of society — otherwise we wouldn’t have civil rights legislation and women wouldn’t have the right to vote. Republicans crow all day long about freedom, but clearly they mean only for a select few (or people just like them). And get real – marriage as an institution was created to ensure property and paternity. If anything, same sex couples redefine marriage as a loving institution.

  • Jordan

    What an absurd suggestion. Homosexuals deserves the same rights that any other race, creed, or sexual identity. Anything less is an insult to not only the gay community itself, but to anyone who believes in American freedom and equal rights.

  • Kalimah

    No. I just don’t understand how this is hurting anybody that is apposed to same sex marriage? Just because same sex couples would be getting married, that doesn’t take away any credibility from heterosex marriages. Why can we just let people LOVE? That is what this world needs!!! Whether it’s gay love or straight love!

  • Mark C.

    Most certainly not.

    First, the constitution should not be used to remove legal protections (or even the potential of such protections) or limit the rights of individuals, which is exactly what this would do. Second, I do not think civil rights should be a matter of popular choice. Constitutional protections were put in place precisely to prevent rights being subject to popular vote and opinion. And, third, there is simply no need to do this as same-sex marriage isn’t a threat to the state or the well-being of the people in any way what so ever. Instead, including same-sex couples in civil marriage laws (churches and other religious organizations would certainly the the right to decide for themselves if they wanted to recognize and solemnize same-sex marriages or not) would be strengthen the state by extending marriage’s important protections and responsibilities to more couples that really do exist regardless of legal recognition.

    Finally, it comes down to this: the proposed amendment is nothing but an attempt to legally and purposely discriminate against gay and lesbian people and their relationships and to enshrine that in the very definition of our state government, in its constitution. Minnesota is, and should be, much better than that.

  • Lynn

    Absolutely not! It was not that long ago that interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Now we would consider such a law barbaric. It is never ok to deprive others of their civil rights.

  • Tong

    To CC&H: Yes. This is the sort issue that Ted Haggard and Larry Craig would have loved to push.

  • Gary


  • Colleen

    I don’t think there’s any need for a vote. It’s not a decision that should be left to the majority to decide. I understand it could help to put an issue at rest, but what about those who consider themselves homosexual and have been paying taxes and abiding laws for, as one woman said, centuries and through cultures. Where is the equality?? The truth of the matter is, heterosexuals feel the validity of their own marriage will be threatened should homosexuals be allowed the same rights. And if you stop and think about that, it’s quite laughable. The only person that is responsible for the sanctity of one’s marriage is that person him/herself. The minute you let other people threaten or define your life through their actions, that’s the minute you stop being a free citizen. This is not about religion or customs or whatever else. This country was founded on the idea that there is no pervading, government-supported religion or custom that people should be forced to practice. The religion argument is, quite frankly, a load of bunk, that insecure people are using as a shield. This is about insecurity and selfishness. I’m quite certain that sharing was about the first rule of life that everyone learned.

  • Karol

    No. It would cause reason to justify bullying and add fire to the already prevalent suicides among youth grappling with their sexual identity.

    The thought that this is being focussed on when people are dying of hunger and poor heath care; and the high school classes that support the future of our service industries being cut, saddens me greatly.

  • Patrick


    All those ‘chicken-littles’ want us to blame gays for the failure of marriage….and everything else.

  • jmm

    no, it’s a moral issue

  • Philip

    Yes. I don’t hold a popular opinion, but marriage is designed to have three persons involved: one man, one woman with the Lord in the center of a loving and committed relationship for life. Any other arrangement is a misuse of this relationship and results in heartache and pain. This is true of heterosexual marriages, as well, which aren’t God centered.

  • Kevin VC

    Constitutions are the bare bones of a country or government. The skimpy, minus the religious and personal rhetoric.

    We already, oddly enough, have a law against same sex marriage by defining it as between a man and a woman.

    Marriage is a religious function and should really be removed from ‘government’ laws, or NOT be a main function, much less a ‘bare bones’ we are going to not work if it is not dealt with issue.

    Our New Leaders need to do the job they were given, stop this work that is distracting them from their job. DO NOT GIVE A OUNCE OF TIME TO ANYTHING OTHER THEN GETTING THE JOBS GOING!!!! ONCE THAT IS DONE THEN DISCUSS MORONIC ISSUES!

    We need a recall option in Minnesota like they have in Wisconsin. Trust me, the leaders would not get so easily distracted by such ‘ivory tower’ ideas….

  • Paul in Edina

    Absolutely not. Wrong as they are, there are laws in Minnesota that do not allow same sex marriage. Our legislators need to quite wasting time and state resources on political posturing and hot button issues. I’m pretty sure our current state deficit was not caused by members of the GLBT community, or by abused animals (S.F. 1118/H.F. 1369). The only way things will turn around is to turn the unemployed and under-employed into tax payers again with real jobs.

    This should consume every waking moment of their legislative life.

  • JIm Hartmann

    NO. Between the birthers and the and those proposing this ban, I’m embarrassed by my state and embarrassed by my country. Shame on you all.

  • David

    I just wrote my state legislators (Tom Hackbarth & Michael Jungbauer) telling them to stop with the distraction and get to work, or fix up their resume because they’ll be looking for a new job soon. I suggest everyone else do the same with theirs.

  • Paul

    “Marriage” should be decoupled from the legal, civil union. Marriage strikes me as a religious construct, and should be maintained there and only there. As it stands now, a couple must go to the government to get a marriage license. That should be renamed something like “civil union license.”

    The civil union can continue to be performed by clergy, who are currently legally vested with authority by the state to do so. If a particular church authority chooses not to accept same-sex partnerships, the couple can go elsewhere… but they only need to go down the street, not three or five or more states away. If a couple, either M-F or S-S, chooses to have a judge create the legal bond, it would carry the same legal weight as one performed in a church. Just like we have now, except it would also include S-S couples.

    It’s clearly a very simple matter of civil rights. Opponents to SSM do not understand and/or do not accept that some people are not attracted to opposite sex people, and are unaware of extremely long-term S-S commitments that are common, but unrecognized by law.

    By the way, I’m straight. I’m just not narrow.

  • Daniel

    Yes. Call it “marriage” or “civil unions” or whatever verbage you want, but the partnering of individuals to form the basic building blocks of our society (a.k.a “families”) wherein new members of society (children) are brought forth and raised needs to respect, among other things, the objective biological truth of our existence; namely the sexual complimentarity of male/female that is part of universal human nature. It’s appropriate for the State to weigh in, not because it’s a “religious” issue per se (although some religions obviously have views pro/con about it), but because it’s a “societal” issue relating to the ethical responsibilities of all members of our society to live in accord with the common good. This amendment is needed because, as many of the comments here indicate, many have come to believe that subjective desires are the only criteria with which to evaluate such behavior, and this belief has become common enough that courts around the country are not holding true to any laws already on the books that define marriage as one man + one woman.

  • Ann

    No. “All men (women) created equal”

  • Joe Schaedler

    We should amend the constitution to ALLOW and PROTECT same-sex marriage, not ban it.

    To do anything but enable and foster same-sex marriage would be an abuse of the civil rights of the LGBT segments of our society, which is downright unamerican.

  • Jeff

    The purpose of the State Constitution should be to GRANT and GUARANTEE rights — not limit them. Modifying the constitution to take away rights is wrong. That’s not to say there aren’t other things in the MN Constitution that are restrictive and, IMO wrong.

  • Alison

    So, Daniel, do you choose to just ignore “the objective biological truth” of the existence of intersex and transgender people?

  • Jeff

    Absolutely not. Amending the constitution to remove the rights of a minority group is immoral. How would supporters of this amendment feel if government were to pass laws that would restrict their marriage?

  • Owen

    The legislature should not even be spending time on this. Contacting our Representatives and Senators and urging them to drop the issue is important.

  • Karen

    NO! No ban on same-sex marriage. The argument that marriage is a pre-defined and static institution solely for child-producing and rearing is utterly ridiculous: Many heterosexual couples never have children or are unable to do so and they are permitted to marry AND many same-sex couples do have children and are not permitted to marry and give their children that security. Also, the high rates of divorce among heterosexuals suggest that the state doesn’t care all that much about “the sanctity of marriage”; otherwise, why isn’t divorce prohibited? That’s just an out-dated argument by people who can’t accept that “you love who you love” and that marriage is an expression of that love and commitment. It’s time to guarantee this right – not restrict it.

  • Ron

    (yawn) No.

    Can we now deal with real leadership and real opportunities? I see the state of Vermont is about to institute a single-payer health care system. Little ol’ Vermont, putting the rest of us to shame.

  • Alex

    Homophobia is no different from racism or sexism, yet if there were a state representative who was proposing a law that blatantly limited the equal rights of women or non white citizens, their views would be dismissed as extremist by mainstream society. The fact that we are even having this conversation and there is not more outrage being exhibited by ordinary citizens at the unbridled discrimination proposed by some members our state government only goes to show how far we still have to go in this newest frontier in the fight for equality for all citizens.

  • Mary

    No. This is a civil rights issue. Our government, no matter what form, local, state or national, should never restrict the rights of individuals. The timing of raising this issue is really suspect. Yet another thing to distract the public from the fact the legislature hasn’t gotten it’s work done, again.

  • Jeff

    NO! Please stop wasting time on devisive social issues and get to work on the BUDGET and create JOBS!!

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    No. What is it about FREEDOM that some folks don’t understand?

    As gay people only make up about four percent of the population, how could gay marriage ever have ANY impact on the institution of marriage? The real detriments to marriage are divorce, marital infidelity, and economic hardship.

  • ryan

    Please contact your state reps. Back in Sept 2010, most of the republicans who got elected when asked about marriage equality said it was not a priority, and they were going to focus on jobs and taxes. I think they need a gentle reminder of this….

  • Barbara Land

    Rights should never be denied in a federal or state constitution. If ‘marriage’ is sacrosanct why can’t there be a civil union so same sex unions have rights regading property and medical decisions as married people have.

  • Kathy

    No. The fact that the state (and federal) government gives numerous rights and privileges to my brother and his wife (and all other heterosexual married couples) that my partner and I (and other same-sex couples) cannot receive is discriminatory. Churches, synagogues, and mosques have the right to marry or not marry, any couple – that is freedom of religion. The government and the law are not religious entities, and so do not have the right to discriminate. Anyone favoring this proposed constitutional amendment should talk to Canadians (where same-sex marriage became law over 5 years ago), or to people under 30 years old. Their opinions may change your thoughts on this issue.

  • Steve the Cynic

    If I were a social conservative reading this site, I would find no reason to change my mind. In fact, I would probably dig in my heels and use many of these comments as ammunition. You folks come across as a bunch of self-centered whiners. “I should be able to do whatever feels good, if it doesn’t hurt anyone.” Bullshit! Social conservatives actually believe that homosexual sex is harmful to those who do it, and they deny that people have an inherent right to harm themselves (hence their support for drug laws). Some of them are bigots, but not all. Some are actually thoughtful. You need better arguments than your own hedonism. And please, let’s expunge homophobia from the language. It implies that anyone who holds a certain opinion is mentally ill, like the old Soviet Union used to do with political prisoners.

  • deb

    Amendments to the constitution should only be made to give additional rights, not to take rights away.

    Marriage should be defined as a loving and legal commitment between two people, to a relationship, regardless of sex.

  • CF

    YES – Absolutely.

    For one reason, the law as it is now is only one biased judge away from ruling the law “unconstitutional”. As it was in California, the judge voided the will of the people.

    Apparently most of the posters today fail to understand what would happen if, (dare I say when), gay “marriage” becomes legal, it will not expand civil rights, but in fact DENY them.

    * Catholic Charities no longer offers adoption services in Massachusetts because they would have been FORCED to do something that is contrary to their RIGHT to religious belief.

    * There have been several accounts of small businessmen and employees SUED because they declined to violate their personal convictions to serve God and not Caesar.

    * In Sweden where gay “marriage” is legal, any speech in public as well as in a house of worship declaring homosexuality to be a SIN to what it truly is, are prosecuted. Denied the RIGHT to free speech!!

    * When my child goes to schrool and is force-fed this pornographic propaganda that homosexuality is normal against my will as a parent.

    Who are you, lowly sinful people, who want gay “marriage” to redefine what Holy and Mighty God has instituted to only serve your own lustful desires? Are you kidding??? No you are quite serious, that all of a sudden you can call an apple a banana! Where does it stop after gay “marriage”? Can I then marry several gay “partners”? How about my sister or cousin… my cat!?

    Woe to him who calls good evil and evil good. If you think I’m a religious zealot, a bigot or “homo-phobic” and don’t believe in a final Judgement, it doesn’t matter what you believe, like marriage, it is what it is!

  • Daniel

    Thank you Steve the Cynic! As a conservative I don’t know anyone in favor of this amendment who is motivated by hurting anyone or taking away rights. It’s simply a disagreement over definitions (what is “marriage” anyway?) and philosophies (what are “rights” and who has them in what circumstances?). The opposing political positions at hand simply flow logically from these different starting points. I would hope that having the amendment on the ballot would allow for a robust societal debate about the principles here, but based upon the “conversation” on this forum it does seem that the Shout ’em Down brigade isn’t interested in that sort of thing. *sigh*

    and to Alison, who asked if I deny the “objective existence” of transgendered people…. not at all! I simply do not believe it is helpful to encourage such individuals in what is, objectively speaking, a misperception of their identity. We all have the capacity to deceive ourselves, don’t we?

  • Gary Hoover

    This proposal shows that the real agenda of Republicans is to make government larger and more intrusive.

    Notice that prohibiting this crucial conventional expression of a loving, committed relationship will cost money and lead tom invstigations into the sexual lives of otherwise law-abiding citizens.

    This is part of a larger agenda to disempower indiviuals and to make government into a kind of “long arm of the law” reaching into the lives of citizens in order to bring them into conformity with a religious worldview.

    Telling — as Republicans make laws to punish and disempower the working people — money flowing up to the top 1% — they also make laws to reflect the religious beliefs of people who are then easily manipulated as a voting block.

  • Kris


    Just to clarify I am gay but at the same time I also can see the point that why people believe marriage cannot be between same sex.

    However I do believe that people of same sex can be in a living and caring relationship and denying them the same rights as straight couple would be discrimination. Just because what majority of people believe what is right does not justify this bias. Church prosecuted Galileo and many people believe that he was wrong at that time. People who oppose gay marriage or even refuse to understand there situation are suffering from same ignorance which got Galileo persecuted. Same sex mating is commonly found in other species so one cannot say that God does not like homosexuals because then he would not have made those creatures either. Procreation is only one aspect of marriage and if people are making an argument based on this should aspect then I can understand why the institution of marriage is in shambles today because nobody is talking about love and care and other things about marriage.

    No this amendment is a crime, an instance of bullying a minority and discrimination.

  • Paula Marie Powell

    This issue is about civil rights, not religion! As a society, I hope that someday in the near future we will look back at this election as a turning point. The GOP should be ashamed. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if the state government started confronting legitimate problems instead of attempting to regulate love?

  • BK

    @Gary Hoover

    Your illogical if you think Republicans are trying to extend the government’s reach by just making something that already exists constitutional.

    Like telling us what kind of light bulbs I have to use is not government overreaching? Give me a flying break!! You’d rather have gov. make silly laws than govern in the area of foundational societal structures. Wonder why Dems lots BIG last Nov. and will again in the future.

  • thomas mccoy

    No!! Republicans trying to govern by imposing their ideology on others. Reminds me of Islamic Fundamentalists.

  • No.

    If you don’t believe or support gay marriage, just don’t get one.

  • Jane

    You’re seriously asking this question? My partner and I have been together for 25 years now. Still waiting for marriage equality in Minnesota.

  • Carrie

    No. More silliness from the Republicans. I thought they were going to be working on JOBS, JOBS, JOBS?

  • CF

    @ Thomas McCoy

    What, are you kidding. That’s a joke right? What do you think the gay agenda is doing??? They’re imposing their ideology of gay “marriage” on me!!! This amendment will prevent that from happening and the resultant social consequences.

  • Carrie

    @ CF

    Are YOU kidding? Explain to us all what the social consequences are and how they are imposing their “ideology of gay marriage” on you.

  • EAL

    The basis for those in support of same-sex marriage is discrimination. Yet socieity makes all types parameters on behavior. One cannot marry unitl a certain age. One cannot drive a car until a certain age. A 50 year old woman cannot date a 12 year old boy. If discrimination is the mantra for two people of the same gender marrying, why should there be any law against pologymy. Trutst that if/when gender neutral marriage passes it will not be long before the legislature and courts are faced with requests for pologymy and other such arrangements. A society witout boudries! Think of the consequences.

  • David

    It is a heart-breaking notion that a citizen of this country has to have their respective constitutional civil-rights decided by an onslaught of election spending, fear and smear advertising and a “vote”.

    A sad day for all of Minnesota, a sad day for all of America that such a thing would even be considered.

  • Carrie

    And how would one know if a gay couple was married?

  • Alison

    And @Daniel, you again chose to ignore the existence of those who are intersex? Do some research. Ask ob/gyns and pediatricians if they have seen babies born where they could declare “It’s a…hmmm. I’m not quite sure.” Then come back and deny their existence.

    And then make your declaration on who they should be allowed to marry.

    As for the existence of transgender people, would you be convinced if a brain scan or some other medical cause was found for transsexuality? What would it take?

  • Noel

    NO! I’ve been with my partner for 19 years and I’m just waiting for the day we can get married. What really upsets me is that our relationship has lasted longer than most straight relationship that I know of. Straights can marry and divorce as many times as they want and I can not even do it once! Also, this is not a religion issue…if your religion does not want to marry gays that is fine with me!

  • Steve the Cynic

    “…it does seem that the Shout ’em Down brigade isn’t interested in that sort of thing.”

    There are “Shout ’em Down” brigades on all sides, sad to say. The Tea Party, for instance,…..

  • TJSwift

    The best thing about putting this to a vote is that it will be decided once and for all, in the quiet sanctity of the ballot booth, without having to listen to all the smarmy indignation from leftists.

    One vote per person; end of story.

  • Ron

    No ! Anybody that is unable to separate their political opinions from their religious beliefs should not be allowed to hold public office or engage in political discussions.

  • CF


    Are YOU kidding? Explain to us all what the social consequences are and how they are imposing their “ideology of gay marriage” on you.

    Apparently you didn’t scroll down and read my previous posts. In any event, what right do YOU have to impose your sinful lust on me and expect me to accept it? Are you also saying I should have to allow perhaps prostitution to take place in my rental property? That’s what “pushing the gay agenda on me” means.

    And how would one know if a gay couple was married?

    That’s not the point. If the radical gay movement allows gay “marriage” then all of our civil rights are at stake. Including yours whether you believe it or not.

    Be careful what you wish for.. you just might get it. At yours and our peril as a nation under God’s judgement.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Likewise, TJSwift, for the “smarmy indignation” of the rightists.

  • tyler

    To even hear that this is being proposed shows how ignorant and one track minded people are. No matter how you cut it, these are rights, and by taking away a right from one and not all there is not equality… ok, besides the point… go ahead and put it on book and debate it! I’m gay and I would like to see them attepmt to make this a constitutional amendment, why? Because then we can take it to the supreme court and have it ruled unconstitutional.

  • CF

    I guess Tyler doesn’t give a hoot about state’s rights. Can the US Supreme Court override the Minnesota Constitution? If so, the Minnesota Constitution ain’t worth the paper it’s written on. And so we go down the road of tyranny, led by the radical gay movement.

  • KD


  • SJ

    Great job, MPR. This dumb, polarizing question had my wife in tears this morning. Leave the yes/no polls on issues that impact actual people to cable news.

  • Steve the Cynic

    CF, wasn’t the question of the supremacy of the U.S. Constitution over state constitutions settled in 1865? Or are you suggesting we re-open the Civil War?

  • DNA

    Sorry, but it would be mean and stupid to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

    However, we should amend the Constitution to ban the criminalization of beneficial plants, for example, Cannabis/Hemp … the world’s most useful and versatile (and non-toxic) plant. The criminalization and renaming of hemp to marihuana/marijuana was similarly mean and stupid, fueled by greed.

    Live and Let Live.

    Love and Let Love.

  • Kurt


  • CF

    @Steve The Cynic

    In a way we already are in a civil war. Gay vs. Strait, Christian vs. Atheist, Rich vs. Poor and the list goes on. Never since North vs. South have we been so divided!! Take elections for example, Republican vs. Democratic with no room for ANY other party. (OK Jesse Ventura but only because he was…. well, Jesse Ventura). Look at the polls, every one of them reflects a 50/50 split, same for our election results.

    “A house divided will not stand”, quote: Matthew 12:25 and President Abraham Lincoln

    So over this issue, we are tearing the nation apart over something which God has defined and has been honored for thousands of years only to our detriment.

  • Jennie

    No. This is absolutely ridiculous. If I am that much of a sinner than this winter has been sunny, tropical, and snow free.

  • There should be no amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. This is religion masquerading as politics; an attempt to EXPAND government, not shrink it; all proper conservatives and libertarians should shrink in horror from government’s invasion of personal choice in this matter.

  • T

    No. This is an individual right question and denied benefits based on sexual orientation. Heterosexual couples who are married receive benefits not available to gay couples. Plain and simple.

    Now if all of us straight couples would quit having gay children, I guess the problem would be solved (all sarcasm intended).

    And CF, I fear no god, because I believe god does not exist, so your scare attempts are hollow. Keep shouting in the wind how you are suffering so, hopefully your god will hear you. Your life must be so ruff and scary with all these gay people running around demanding equality.

  • Steve the Cynic

    CF, the country is less divided than the extreme partisans would have us believe. Most Americans reject the extremes, but extreme ideologues are all that the major parties are offering to voters as candidates. Choosing whom to vote for has become like that old party game: “If you had to choose between going blind and going deaf, which would you prefer?”

  • Taylor

    This is an interesting thing. It’s interesting that it’s even an issue and viewed as a “liberal” or “leftist” or “gay-power-movement” issue. It’s everyone’s issue. Why? Because both conservatives, liberals, Tea Partiers, Communists, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Atheists, et al. have gay children. Those of you in ND (my home state), think of how many “bachelor” farmers you know; it would be interesting to do a study on why they’ve been bachelors their entire lives as well.

    CF, I’m not sure we’re reading the same Bible, but I certainly know you’re misreading yours. The problem is, you are unwilling to admit that your pastor(s)/priest(s) have actually been taught how to incorrectly read their Bibles. References to homosexuality, which, if you know your Hebrew and Greek is the inferior translation, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here, appears six times in scripture: five in the OT and once–that’s once–in the NT. And where in the New Testament? It’s not from the lips of Jesus, but from Paul. Now, you probably aren’t Lutheran like me, and you probably aren’t progressive like me, but Lutherans hold the Bible third on the totem pole, where the words of Jesus and then preaching come before. Why? Because the Bible is divinely inspired. And, I often fear that the Bible waters Jesus down because he was far too radical for what a slow-to-change-church would want for it’s poster-boy.

    Now, we also know that politics and religion are separate, but I just thought I should educate you in your misinformed reading of the book I’m sure you never pick up.

    Constitutionally and morally we have been withholding very important rights from our GLBTQI brothers and sisters. Many want the comforts that heterosexuals already possess: Who will inherit what when I die? Will my partner have enough money? And all of those important questions.

    My other question is, Why do you care if they get married (politically now, not religiously)? You’re obviously gay–and I fear for any relative of yours that is–so why do you give anything that someone else has benefits that should be inherent to all people? (Again: put your Bible away and how me in law where your foundation for your fallacies are.)

    This is a none issue: Of course anyone should have the right to marry. Why? Because we believe in the freedoms of all people(s).

  • Taylor

    Correction to my above post: CF, You are obviously NOT gay; but I’m sure you’d have a better sense of humor if you were.

  • Daniel

    @Alison – I wasn’t ignoring your point (this topic is admittedly a bit too complex for a combox), but in response to your very valid observation about the existence of intersex babies, here goes: even intersex people/hermaphrodites have one set gender, that they do not “choose”. Sounds a bit counter-intuitive at first, but it’s true.

    See for example the research by William G. Reiner of John Hopkins University that was published in the January 22, 2004 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. Basically he followed the growth of a bunch of intersex children with male genetics (XY chromosomes) who had received sex-assignment surgery shortly after birth to construct their tissues as females. (This was once the common procedure for such cases because surgically it was easier than constructing male tissues, and also the prevailing wisdom was “if you raise them as little girls, then they’ll just become little girls”. The hope was to make the decision for the child early on, and thus spare the child the embarassment of growing up with ambiguous genitalia.) Reiner’s research showed that in the majority of cases, though they were raised from birth as girls, these people clearly identified (and acted) more in keeping with their true genetic gender as males. Because of this research, Johns Hopkins modified their clinical approach to handling such cases.

    The conclusion that this hints at is that gender is fixed in one’s genetics, even in cases where one’s body (or even brain for that matter), through no fault of one’s own, develop at odds with those genetics.

  • Sue

    No Never It appears we have a caste system in America. The GLBT people are in the bottom caste. Other minorities have gained more acceptance. The top cast is the very rich who are in control of the republican party. They have devised the use of conservative “religious” issues to bluff those with a narrow world view into supporting them. Our country is about “peace and justice for all” or so I thought especially in Minnesota an educated and progressive state.

  • Doug

    Wow, after just watching a documentary about the Nazi holocaust, there are many parallels to the forces that have hijacked the Republican Party: divide the populace with bogus fears, inject sanctions for non-compliance, garner the support of the uninformed by lies of impending doom to turn against their fellow citizens, ultimately face ruin (hopefully!) for arrogance, greed and hubris.

  • CF

    @Steve the Cynic: You do have a valid point, vote between whom you prefer, blind or deaf. That is choose the least of two evils. Might I emphasize ‘two’ evils. Or two of anything… but only two. One or the other. Now you are correct that voting has become a one or the other choice really, even though various candidates appear on the ballot. But in reality, look at the G. W. Bush election. Decided by the Great And Holy Supreme Court. Franken v. Coleman, after arduous recounts and court trials, the vote was counted, (as best as possible), down to a few hundred votes! Society divided? Yes, unless you are an ostrich. Off topic I know, but I digress.

    @Tyler: You’re right, apparently we don’t read the same “bible”, (or go to the same church). Apparently, you are a Lutheran, I’m a Christian. Jesus didn’t have to declare homosexuality to be a sin, although He did in a certain way. He said, “turn away from your sins and repent”. It was already said in the Old Testament by witness of God’s judgement on a city given into the sin of homosexuality. The same way God will judge our nation if we follow suit. Please tell me chapter and verse where God BLESSES homosexuality EXCLUSIVELY!

    @ MPR Thank you for such an engaging question. I was getting bored over the week.

  • Steve the Cynic

    I read the Bible from time to time, too, CF. Regarding your opinion about what a nation should do to earn God’s approval, it’s quite clear. See, for instance, Isaiah 58. Regardless of whether the God of the Bible approves of homosexuality, it seems clear to me that he would be rather displeased, to say the least, over our persecution of homosexuals (not to mention our oppressive economic system).

  • CF

    @ Steve the Cynic

    Can you be a little more specific in Isa 58? Anyway the notion that homosexuals are “persecuted” [in the US] is laughable. Come now Steve, seriously? You want persecution, try being a Christian in Red China, Iran, or North Korea where you can be jailed, tortured or executed! Now THAT’S persecution. So far I haven’t seen anything like that happening to GLBT’s here lately. To think that denying gay “marriage” being equivalent to persecution is also nonsensical. Look, we live in an unequal world. We can’t make everything equal or “fair”. The closest attempt to accomplish this was Communism. You want equality? Well there’s always Cuba, go there. It’s just a 90 mile swim from Key West. Meanwhile, the gay radicals can try to call an apple a pear, a water melon or a pineapple, but in the end an apple will always be an apple because it was created by a power greater than ourselves to be only an apple.

  • Steve the Cynic

    “Can you be a little more specific in Isa 58?”

    Sure: “Is not this the fast that I choose: to loose the bonds of injustice, to undo the thongs of the yoke, to let the oppressed go free, and to break every yoke? Is it not to share your bread with the hungry, and bring the homeless poor into your house; when you see the naked, to cover them, and not to hide yourself from your own kin?” (Isaiah 58:5-6) The point is that social justice appears to be a much higher priority for Isaiah’s God than sexual purity is. And yet, Christian conservatives get more worked up about sex than about the rampant exploitation of the poor and vulnerable by the rich and powerful in our society. Jesus had something to say about that kind of hypocrisy. See Matthew 23:24, for instance.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Oh, and if you think GLBT folks are not persecuted in America, you’re not paying attention.

  • CF

    @Steve The Cynic

    And if you think Christians are not being persecuted, YOU(!) are not paying attention. Re-read my last post, will you. OK, granted there are so-called “hate” crimes committed against homosexuals. (As a side note, can somebody explain to me what a “non-hate” crime is? As if there is some sort of “love-crime”)? But anyway, such crimes should be punishable regardless of who is the “hated”, homosexual or otherwise. Please give me one example where homosexuals in this country are persecuted to the magnitude that Christians have been in others. Say like Viet-Nam or North Korea. Is the US government rounding up GLBT’s into concentration camps? Or burning down their houses? Are your local police searching for GLBT’s to raid their homes and torturing them? This is the reality pal! And guess what? GLBT’s in Iran face the same fate! Persecution? You liberals don’t even KNOW what persecution is!!

    And by the way, God does regard sex as a holy and sacred experience in the way He has ordained it, between one man and one woman. Far and beyond than just “doing good” like feeding the poor. Because sex between one man and one woman replicates God’s act of creation. Homosexuals just can’t do that! Hence the purpose of marriage between one man and one woman. Anyone who believes otherwise has just fired their only lawyer, (Jesus Christ), who would have otherwise defended them before the Judgement of the Father.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Please don’t read into my comments what isn’t there, CF. Did I deny that Christians are being persecuted in some parts of the world? No. In this country, however, Christians are not persecuted by any stretch of the imagination. And the fact that Christians elsewhere are treated worse than homosexuals here is beside the point. You are correct that there is no official persecution in this country, in the sense that the government is not doing it (any more), but to my mind hate crimes and bullying constitute persecution. Do you deny that GLBT teens are often mercilessly tormented by their peers in school?

  • Julie

    No, gay marriage should not be banned, and the constitution is a bad place to promote intolerance.

    I am very disappointed by this discussion, in that too many people are saying gay marriage is wrong. It is not, in any reasonable meaning of the word “wrong”! (Biblical opinion on the subject is debatable, and is not based on reason. And basing morality on your personal feeling that something is “just wrong” would have led Bush to ban broccoli.)

    In particular, I object to the comments that Christians are persecuted in lots of places around the world, so somehow that means GLBT folks here in the U.S. should not consider what they go through persecution. I would venture to say that MOST GLBT citizens of the U.S. encounter prejudice, only some of them are persecuted – but unjust persecution of any kind is a sin.

    —Dancing Librarian

  • CF

    @ Steve The Cynic

    Oh, let me tell you how I was constantly harassed, bullied, tormented and if you want to use the term “persecuted”. I suffered through public schrool from 1st grade to the twelfth!. If I had children, they would be FORBID from setting foot on the property of a public schrool!! I know how GLBT’s must be languishing in schrool too! And their tormenters should be brought before the courts to face Godly justice, (as well as the schrool officials, teachers and parents), to be sued!!!! BUT that does not give the gay radicals license to redefine an institution established by God, nor take away my constitutional rights and bring judgement on this nation. As if we haven’t done enough already to deserve so.

  • Steve the Cynic

    Gay marriage would take away your “constitutional rights,” CF? Don’t be ridiculous! And if God’s “judgment” does come upon this nation, it won’t be for allowing gay marriage. It would be for things that really harm people: the racist legacy of slavery, the Native American genocide, our history of unjust wars, and the fact that we allow homelessness to exist, children to go without access to health care, and the rich and powerful to exploit the poor and vulnerable. A God that would be more upset about gay marriage than about those things is not a God I could respect, and people who believe God is like that are one of the chief reasons folks have been turning away from Christianity in recent decades.

  • T

    Does god smote people anymore? Apparantly CF is wating for a good smoting. He must feel fortunate to be “saved” apparantly from a good old smoting 😉

  • Philip

    One final thought…Please watch and listen carefully to all that has been said of today’s (4/29/11) wedding of Prince William and Catherine on the three reasons marriage was ordained and what it truly is.

  • Steve the Cynic

    T, that would be “smiting.” Smote is the past tense (and the participle is smitten).


  • DNA

    “Marriage” is a religious and hardware term, “civil unions” would would be the State’s term.

    If “civil union” implies with one or more people I’d be happy to get “married” in a polyfidelic pagan triad 🙂

  • David

    @Steve the Cynic

    Well said, sir.

    It’s disappointing that the conservative right is co-opting religious rhetoric to bolster support for the status quo, claiming that God ordained marriage as between a man and a woman as a way of covering up the fact that many people are uncomfortable with the idea of same-sex attraction. As for the notion that providing the same rights and benefits to same-sex couples is eroding traditional marriage is utterly absurd. If anything, this could be a step towards reinstating traditional values, incorporating the idea that all people (straight, gay, lesbian, trans, etc) are fundamentally equal and entitled to the pursuit of happiness.

    Anyone remember what else was “American tradition” a few decades ago? Segregation. And before that? Slavery. Let’s look to history before using legislation as a weapon.

  • Beth


    To the Republicans, I simply say, “Have some more rope.”

  • Steve the Cynic

    “Well said, sir.”

    Except that you miss my point. I’m not criticizing social conservatives for holding the opinion that acting on homosexual urges is wrong. It’s a legitimate opinion that they have a right to. I’m only pointing out the hypocrisy of their being judgmental about other people’s sins while being uncritical of their own, and for failing to recognize that alternate opinions may also be legitimate. The New Testament has a name for such self-appointed morality police: Pharisees.

    And don’t call me “sir.” I work for a living.

  • Jason

    I don’t know; should we debate about making a law declaring a tomato a fruit? Or that Pluto really is a a dwarf planet? Give me a chance and I’m sure I could come up with some more frivolous ways to waste legislative time and distract the public’s attention from the real issues.

  • Nat

    Leave the constitution alone.

    Lets fight the bigger battles in our world, and certainly marriage, same sex or man woman marriage should be way down on the list of things that need to be fixed.

    Lets fight unemployement, helping the poor in our country. Make it really hard for companies to move work over seas. Lets help in straightening out our countries budget. There are more things that our country can work on other than marriage.

    Married or not we are all still responsible in some way to help the USA.