Doctors’ view: Marriage amendment harmful to health of children, adolescents
October 3, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Recently the board of directors for the Minnesota Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics voted unanimously to sign on to the coalition Minnesotans United for All Families, joining more than 600 organizations opposing a constitutional amendment that would limit the freedom to marry in Minnesota.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
30 
57
Vern, you clearly missed a couple of your High School civics classes. In a Democratic Republic, such as ours, the majority is not SUPPOSED to be able infringe on the rights of the minority.
I add ‘supposed’ because all too often we let these types of issues fall to a simple majority vote…
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
45 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
42
Vern said: “Pretty soon down the road….the straight couples are going to be the minority”
Do you honestly believe that straight marriage will become the minority if gays are allowed to marry? come on… be honest.
And if that were the case (which it clearly is not) why would it matter? How does ANYONE’S ability to marry affect you exactly, anyway?
As we speak, athiests are out there getting married in ceremonies devoid of god. pagans are getting married in the woods (or whatever pagans do)… heck… there’s probably a pair of satanists out there RIGHT NOW getting married LEGALLY during a ceremony full of pentagrams and upside down crosses.
How has any of that affected YOU or YOUR marriage?!?!?!
The answer is that it hasn’t.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Majority rules, Minority rights.
That is how the USA works.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
15
I changed the headline once I saw that it could be read into that way. For pieces from the News Tribune’s Opinion page, views sent to us from people around the state often are called “State view.” When I saw that it could be read as “the view of the state of Minnesota,” I changed it to “Doctors’ view.” I promise this was not an attempt to deceive anyone. — Jimmy Bellamy, News Tribune multimedia editor
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
46 
3
Kudos to you for changing the title. It certainly could have been misconstrued.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
24 
34
Did you read the article, where they discuss exactly why they believe that this is harmful to children? Do you realize there are people who have dedicated their lives to helping children and making them healthy? Are you aware that the wonders of modern science do, in fact, allow people to have babies, even when it doesn’t happen via a heterosexual couple having sex? (I’m referring to in vitro fertilization and other methods that can, in fact, allow a woman to get pregnant in the non-traditional way.)
I just do not see how the ability (or not) to have children is a reason for banning gay marriage. A lot of married people have kids; some don’t. Some single people have kids (sometimes via adoption). Some gay couples have kids, even though they’re not married. The marriage=biological kids and kids=marriage argument just doesn’t hold up under even the lightest scrutiny.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
10
Yes…I did read the article, nowhere did I say kids=marriage or vice-versa only that male- female are required to create, in-vitro requires genes from the opposite sex.
Homosexuals have minority status, eventually they will have legal status as partners and probably be able to call it “marriage”. A few years after that any criticism of lifestyles will be deemed “hate speech” and punishable by full force of law….What then?? Will they have finally captured that Elusive Butterfly….EQUALITY?? Will they finally be able to “create” those tiny future consumers that Target and General Mills so desperately need??
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
Ok, I’m sorry. What you actually said is: “Support of opposite sex relationship is simply acknowledgement of the indisputable fact that it is how we came to BE.” I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, because your actual statement has nothing to do with whether to permit gay marriage. Is anyone denying that it takes sperm and an egg and a man and a woman to make a baby? No. But the fact that same-sex couples can’t make babies just has nothing to do with anything.
Speaking of having nothing to do with anything, you made an awfully quick jump from gay marriage to criticism of gays being hate speech punishable by law. There is zero chance of that happening in the US, where we are all protected by the First Amendment.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
Once again you put words in my mouth, I said “criticism of lifestyles”. I am not a first amendment scholar but speech is very much limited in regard to race and gender and certainly not an insurmountable leap to include lifestyles. “Zero chance” I suggest you lightly scrutinize that statement.
I’m not trying to demonize gays I realize they are thoughtful, caring and obviously more intelligent then the average bear. They have succeeded in focusing the attention of the entire country to a cause they feel is unjust, they have convinced a significant portion of heterosexuals in Minnesota, perhaps a majority, that abherent behavior is a “civil right”. I think gays should accept who they are and not try to be a poor imitation of something they aren’t.
Like or Dislike:
11 
13
My apology….aberrant…. not abherent
Like or Dislike:
5 
7
Speech most certainly is not limited in regard to race or gender. Anyone in this country to say as many racist or misogynistic things as they want to, and they cannot be punished by law for mere speech. (The obvious exceptions are harassment and slander.) That’s the whole point of the free speech part of the First Amendment–you can’t be punished by the government for saying what you want. You might get fired, and people might think you’re a fool, but you can’t be arrested or fined for saying things that offend other people.
And really, gay people are no more thoughtful, intelligent, or caring than any other group of people–they’re just regular people. But the “aberrant behavior” is not the issue here–civil marriage is. As most married people know, marriage does not mean sex. We aren’t (or shouldn’t be) talking about what people do or don’t do behind closed doors; we’re talking about legal recognition of a relationship.
Like or Dislike:
10 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
39
If you’re a parent, you better figure out how to have “difficult” conversations with your kids. For example, you better be able to explain why Suzy has two different sets of parents–why does her mom live with her new husband, and why does her dad live with his new wife? Why doesn’t Billy live with his mom anymore? Is it really *that* hard to explain that someone has two dads or two moms? And is your difficulty or discomfort with a topic a good reason to forbid two people to marry each other?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
15
Not difficult, boy becomes Boy Scout, girl becomes Girl Scout.
Boy Girl make marriage.
Girl Girl, Boy Boy make couple.
MN is screwed up enough now. If you want a tax break change the law.
What next polygamy, how will you stop it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
27
I don’t think the tax break is the main reason that gay people want to get married. It certainly wasn’t on my radar when I married my husband. And the kid-related tax breaks weren’t the reason that we had kids, either. I think I would have a harder time explaining why gay couple *can’t* get married than why they could.
The polygamy argument is a red herring, as is the slippery slope. Just for fun, I’ll give you one reason that polygamy would actually make things more difficult: Civil marriage is done for legal purposes–the spouse gets various legal rights, including in the case of the spouse’s death, survivor benefits, etc. If there were more than one surviving spouse, any number of issues would be legally messed up. In other words, there are legitimate, non-religious reasons that polygamy doesn’t work. None of those reasons apply to a same-sex marriage that involves two legally consenting people.
Hot debate. What do you think?
21 
13
Red herring, never seen one. Polygamy makes more sense, what is to say that one can not “love” more than one person? What difference would the number of wives make as now the system gives SS benefits to multiple ex-spouses, and healthcare also.
All you bring up is what you first claim is not the intent of gay marriage is benefits. I have yet to hear a same couple say they would marry and sign a paper saying it was for love and waiver the benefits. It’s the first thing they have cried for where society has allowed.
All your civil benefits may be stated in a Will.
Is your husband a boy or girl…?
Like or Dislike:
15 
13
Bob, you’re the one that brought up tax breaks, so that’s what I was responding to. I do not think anyone gets married for the tax break, but it’s a nice perk. (And it’s completely false to say that all your civil liberties can be handled in a will. As I’m sure you know, wills don’t have any effect when a person is still alive.) And it’s just silly to say that someone who marries for love should be willing to give up the benefits that come with marriage. And for the record, and not that it matters, I’m a woman and my husband is a man–not a boy.
Like or Dislike:
10 
12
Why do women live a Better, Longer & Peaceful Life, as compared to men?
A very INTELLIGENT student replied: “Because Women don’t have a wife!”
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
16
Your wife is a lucky woman.
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Thank you bandr, I also feel I am the Luckiest man in the world to have been accepted by this woman to be my lawfully wedded wife, to have and to hold until Death do we part..!!
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
For the record, Bob, I didn’t give you a thumbs down for that comment. But I honestly, with no snark intended, hope you will ask yourself why you would deny that feeling to another human being who happens to be in love with someone of the same sex.
Like or Dislike:
17 
12
bandr, because it is just different. Marriage is and should be a special bond between man & woman. If people of the same sex want to have their bonding, find another name and procedure. Stop trying to copy what isn’t theirs.
No matter how hard you try until the day I no longer breath those of the same sex will not be married in my eyes.
Like or Dislike:
11 
14
“It is just different.” I think it isn’t different at all, if what you’re talking about is finding the love of your life and wanting to spend your days with that person. You and I were both lucky enough to be heterosexual and to find the person we want to be with and to marry that person. You want to deny that to other people. You’re asking for “separate but equal” and telling people that are really no different from you or me that that should be good enough for them. I will fight against that until I breathe my last breath.
Like or Dislike:
12 
8
Your words… “You and I were both lucky enough to be heterosexual”, the way of the wild…!
Like or Dislike:
7 
9
Bob, I don’t really know what you mean by that. I’m guessing that maybe you mean that being heterosexual is the way nature intended? If that’s so, you should read up on homosexual behavior in animals. It happens across species. Some people are born gay. I wasn’t, so I had the right to marry the person that I loved. That’s what I mean about being lucky to be born straight. I think it’s utterly selfish to deny what I have to somebody who was born gay.
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
But yet you want to deny a polygamist the right to marry multiples…?
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
he never said he wanted to deny polygamists right to marry multiple wives he just stated a particular reason why it would be a complicated process to do. Just becuase a stupid book..yes the bible is just a book people…says marriage is between one man and one woman doesnt mean it should become a government edict. Divorce was also not allowed under the bible yet our religous authorities didnt find anything wrong with changing that to increase their numbers of followers…not to mention all the other rediculous things the bible says you are not allowed to do or have to do to be one of “god’s people”…. The bible is a just a book and anyone who follows every word written in it is ignorant, naive and gullable whether they be jewish, catholic or islamic.
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
Levi, just what the help are you talking about. I see no where religion being brought into this equation by bandr (she) and myself.
Point is how do you deny one group (polygamists) yet say it is the best thing in the world for another to allow same sex to use the word marriage as their bonding mechanism? I see prejudiced here.
None of the civil example bandr mentioned apply. Today if one has had multiple spouses and divorces SS applies to all already, same with eligible children. Help, half the Duluth Police Dept is paying benefits to multiples of families now..
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
I don’t think it’s prejudice. I said upthread that I think there are legitimate reasons why legalized polygamy would cause a bunch of problems within our existing framework of laws. Dying intestate is one; stuff goes to your spouse if you don’t have a will. More importantly, no one is born a polygamist. People are born gay. Polygamy is a choice; being gay is not. A polygamist could marry one person that he or she loves and feels sexual attraction toward (even if he would rather marry a few more people, too). A gay person couldn’t marry an opposite sex person that he feels sexual attraction to. It’s different–polygamists and gay people are not equivalent groups.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
bandr, now you are making excuses verses reasons. Frameworks change daily, as do laws. If allowed to marry polygamist would have property split equally to his loved ones, as if just having heirs of multiple children with no will.
Your fishing and only catching the bottom of the lake.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
Seriously, what does it hurt anybody if two people that are in love get married? Regardless of their sex? Let people live their lives whether gay or straight. As long as they aren’t hurting you or your family, what do you care?
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
11
Absolutely. How anyone could give a comment like this a “thumbs down” is beyond me.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Bob, I see that you’ve ignored the part where I said “most importantly” and then everything that came after that. Polygamy (a choice) is different from gayness (not a choice).
I don’t know why I even engaged on a “slippery slope” argument with you. It’s pointless. I could just as easily say to you “well, if you want to ban gay marriage in the constitution, what’s to stop you from banning divorce? Or banning remarriage? Or banning an infertile person from marrying? Or [fill in the blank]. None of those are at issue. If you stick to the issue at hand, there are just not good reasons for banning gay marriage, and there are good reasons for allowing it (see, for just one example, the article to which these comments are attached).
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Again bandr, you start out saying people of same sex should be allowed to marry because they “love” one another not by choice and should have the same rights as opposites that love one another by choice. Then you tell me polygamist can not marry because they can not love the same as same sex or opposite sex couples? Having a choice of true love I will not give you. Having a choice of lust you can have.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
I don’t even understand what you’re saying. Gay people are not gay by choice. A gay person is not attracted to anyone of the opposite sex. A gay person can fall in love, true love, in the exact same way that you can. To suggest that gay people can only feel lust, not love, is just completely ridiculous. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with the “choice” thing. Gay people and straight people all have choices about the specific person that they may fall in love with. I think I’ve covered why the polygamy argument is so useless here, so I’m not going to bother going around with you again on that.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
No rational explanation, so just quit.!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
No, I already gave my rational explanation, which you ignored because there is no rational response to it. I’m not going back to rehash exactly what I already said, so I quit.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
Legalizing polygamy would open up a whole new slew of difficult ethical issues. When one person wants out of a polygamous marriage, how are assets divided? How do you deal with custody issues? What do you do when one partner wants to marry someone, but one or more of the spouses disagrees?
Obviously, none of these issues have anything to do with whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Allowing homosexuals to marry is simple.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
bandr….as long as this is still going….”hate speech” is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against a protected individual or group….a victim of hate speech may seek redress under civil law, criminal law or both. There really are limits on “free” speech.
Your last comment in our thread…” we are talking about legal recognition of a relationship”…in Washington state same sex couples have legal recognition, in other words all the protections, rights and benefits as opposite sex. There is also a “marriage” amendment because gays want to be able to use the word.
No group should have the right to change, by definition, a culture and tradition that has existed for thousands of years. Mainstream gays need to take back their movement from the radical element that is trying to portray them as victims.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Hate speech is not forbidden. Inciting violence is forbidden–regardless of whether the person being hated is a “protected” class. For example, Fred Phelps is constantly saying terrible things about gay people–truly hate speech. All of that speech, disgusting as it is, is protected by the First Amendment.
My point about “legal recognition of a relationship” is that it isn’t helpful in this debate to talk about gay sex. Sex is not the issue. A legal relationship is at issue. I believe gay people should have the right to have the same legal relationship that I have with my husband. The “thousands of years” of marriage has actually included a lot of relationships that are not one man-one woman (in Biblical times, for example). More recent history has seen changes to permitted marriages–interracial marriages, for example. So let’s not cling too tightly to that historical perspective as the reason for banning gay marriage.
And please keep in mind that it wasn’t any radical gay element that pushed this issue in Minnesota–it was the Republicans in the MN legislature that decided that this was an issue that needed to fought about. And I’m a part of this movement, and I’m no radical–I’m a straight woman, married with two kids, who is depressed that this issue is still even an issue.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
“No group should have the right to change, by definition, a culture and tradition that has existed for thousands of years”
Tell that to all the interracial couples out their, logjam.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
People can vote by mail. Perhaps they should be allowed to get married that way too.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
bandr, “protected” class. I thought all men are created equal..?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
“Protected class” is a legal term, and I used it only when talking about hate speech and why hate speech is protected under the First Amendment. It has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
It’s pretty clear that those left on this thread who are opposed to gay marriage are grasping at straws and strawmen to try to make their case. Truly, the argument seems to come down to “Gay sex is gross, and the sex I have is not gross, and therefore gay people should not get to have the same legal status I have in my relationship.”
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
bandr, I have never said this. My point all along is Marriage is one man & one woman period. If same sex individuals care to bond find their own word and “right” the laws accordingly. If you and they do not want this then marriage should be thrown out and we can have a free for all. “As what is good for the goose is good for the gander”.
Like or Dislike:
2 
8
You’re right, you didn’t say that in so many words. But you also offer no logical or rational support for “one man one woman period.” Instead, you choose to ignore the arguments for gay marriage, including the subject of this article (that the amendment/ban is bad for kids, according to pediatric specialists). So I’m left to conclude that you have no logical or rational basis for your position–only discomfort with what gay couples do in the bedroom, and the desire not to let “them” have what you have. My marriage will still be special when gays are allowed to marry in Minnesota, and yours will be, too.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
Suppose I tried to make a disparaging remark about a certain race, the person reviewing these comments ( for DNT) would not allow it. The reason is because he or she would be allowing “hate speech”. Send Chuck Frederick an email for his opinion , your insistence that hate speech is protected is just plain wrong. Your Fred Phelps analogy is exactly my point, he can do what he does because his remarks are not directed at a protected class…yet. Once lifestyles are included they will end, as well as comments like the ones appearing on this thread.
Your continued reference to what gays do in the bedroom as well as gay sex seems to indicate that you are the one with the hang-up.
The lack of logic and/or rationality in most of these comments is precisely why I tried to call attention to the “radical” element in the gay movement.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
You’ve got a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. The News Tribune doesn’t have to let anyone say anything on its website, which is privately owned. You are free to say anything you want on your own website, or on the street corner, or in your own newspaper, and the First Amendment says the *government* cannot stop you from doing that, or punish you (or come at you with the full force of the law, as you put it). Also, if the News Tribune publishes something the government doesn’t like, the government can’t try to shut down the paper. The First Amendment stops *government* from doing things that abridge freedom of speech. You can get fired by your private employer for saying bad things about your employer, and a newspaper can “censor” you if you don’t meet the standards that the newspaper sets. None of that has anything to do with the First Amendment. And if “lifestyles” are included as a “protected class” (although I don’t see how that’s possible–a “lifestyle” is not a class of people) that will have nothing to do with what can and can’t be said here. I suspect if Fred Phelps was posting here, and tried to use his classy “God Hates ****” phrase, he would get censored.
And I think I’ve been pretty clear about this, but my reason for referring to gay sex and what gays do in the bedroom is to distinguish that from the issue that we should be talking about–civil marriage. It’s not about sex, it’s about a legal relationship.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
bandr, focus on the article indicates only society is brainwashing the youth. No different than changing the color scale. Once this happens certain parts of the medical society feel comfortable in taking ones money.
Bottom line, November 6th we decide, then the court battles start. Lawyers are the only winner.
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Bob, this comment does not make any sense at all. Brainwashing the youth? The article is about a group of pediatricians. The doctors are brainwashing children so the doctors can get more money??
You’re right, we’ll vote November 6, and I hope we as a state will make the right decision.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I am impressed, this comment is very well written, my thoughts are clearer in the AM also. I guess that is why “free” speech is so important, a charlatan with an agenda and a bag full of talking points can blather on forever, all thats needed is for someone to listen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0