Local view: ‘Yes’ vote on gay marriage is just cruel
October 29, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
A year ago, my Uncle Tom died of cancer in the arms of his partner of 33 years.
Continue Reading
Local view: ‘Yes’ vote on gay marriage is just cruel
59 Comments
Bravo, Emily, for writing this heartfelt letter. I couldn’t agree with you more! It is time to stop allowing government to make family decisions for our families! My family consisted of myself and my two sons. Because we didn’t have a man living in our house, did that make us less than a family? I have deep faith in God, and I know that the God I believe in is a loving and kind God, who would only want us to love all of our brothers and sisters and to support them. It’s time to stop discriminating against people…period! Live and let live! Vote NO!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
124 
74
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
63 
113
please restate your point because through all your nonsense i could not find one.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68 
53
I was raised Catholic. In later life, I chose another church.
In both churches some teachings were different but, many of were the same.
The first was, God gave man Free Will.
The second was, God said that in His appointed time, HE would judge us on what we had chosen to do with that free will.
The one thing I never remember learning in either church was that God had abdicated His role as judge and turned it over to man to use however he saw fit.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
39
Katy~ spot on as always. Also raised Catholic, parochial school and altar boy even…but judge not least ye’ be judged is one thing that has always stuck with me …I never thought it was my place to judge let alone condemn another soul for their choices…but secular religious beliefs have not a thing to do with governing equal rights for all or our Constitution anyway. Freedom to practice one’s religious hypocrisy is protected by the Constitution, using that hypocrisy to deny equal rights to others and to discriminate against them goes against the Constitution and ideals of this country.
Yet the whole group supporting this ammendment which includes the Catholic Church are doing nothing but trying to judge and condemn others based on their holier then thou religious beliefs. It simply has not a thing to do with it and in fact none of their arguments for supporting voting yes have anything to do with it, they’re all just shields to hide one’s ignorance and bigotry behind.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
62 
45
I’m not really big on the whole judgement thing, mostly cuz I don’t believe it’s a task that was ever assigned to me.
I’m seriously not good at reciting scripture but, somewhere in the back of my mind is that “judgment is mine sayeth the Lord’ thing. Paraphrased of course.
And it seems that some people wanna have things both ways. They want government to somehow protect their religious doctrine but, at the same time, they want government totally out of anything that has to do with religion.
I think if you want to insert your religious doctrine into a government constitution, then you better not be whining when government wants to insert itself into your religion.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
58 
32
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
37 
47
there are many different types of immoral behavior and sins that are not illegal…please dont pretend like this one deserves special consideration.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
19
Johnzimm said~ “Fastone, I’m afraid it is you who are besieged by ignorance.. Listen:
Morally-grounded people are NOT judging or condemning PEOPLE. We are judging their BEHAVIOR: HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS WRONG- IT’S SIN.”
Well I’m bright enough to know that’s oxmoronic and that you are condemning people…for their behavior….DUH!! and I don’t think the people against gay marriage are anywhere near as morally grounded as are full of hypocritical righteousness,,,but apparently the part of Christs teachings you follow are only selectively approved by you if it aligns with your bigotry.
When Jesus said, let he without sin cast the first stone, who were they going to stone in town square? Wasn’t that them judging and condemning someone over their behavior? Wasn’t Jesus’s real message…Tsk, Tsk….ahhh..I really, really, wouldn’t go there if I were you!
So your holding up your Christian beliefs are clearly very selective…
It doesn’t matter what your twisted beliefs are though and that’s what you holier then thou judgemental Christians don’t get…separation of Church and State Bucko, this isn’t Iran. It doesn’t matter what you think, it doesn’t matter what you believe, it doesn’t matter what your religious beliefs are.
You’ve vowed to uphold your particular if not twisted in my minds eye beliefs and despite I think you are twisted , I would defend your right to choose to do and belief in whatever you wanted. Condemn the behavior all you want and the solution is then just don’t go and become gay if that’s your beliefs. But we all have taken a vow to uphold the constitution, or haven’t you ever made a pledge of allegiance? True equality for all, regardless of your religious beliefs. You can live your life any way you want, believe whatever want, practice any religious nonsense you want… but you CAN NOT then use your freedoms to negate others choices and negate them being treated equally.
As a good pastor friend of mine said on this very topic when discussing it ..~Whenever one draws a line in sand against another person and condemns them by saying God is on my side, that is most certainly the time when he is not.
“I like your Christ, I don’t like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”…Mahtma Ghandi
Hot debate. What do you think?
26 
22
When I say that bigotry is wrong, I don’t try to pretend that I have nothing against bigots.
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
17
johnzimm said:
“We are judging their BEHAVIOR: HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS WRONG- IT’S SIN.”
The more you rail on about it being ‘sinful’ behavior, the more you are affirming exactly WHY this does not belong in our constitution.
Religious doctrine has no place in the constitution.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
22
@johnzimm
John, I don’t think you are likely to get an agreement among people on the definition of sin. And before you give me your particular party line on sin, consider this. Many Christians cite Leviticus to denounce homosexuality, but oddly, they seem to ignore many of the other commands God gave us, even some from Leviticus. Jewish tradition identifies 613 commandments in the Old Testament. From Leviticus alone we have some interesting ones, including:
Men must not shave the hair off the sides of their head — Lev. 19:27
Men must not shave their beards with a razor — Lev. 19:27
Not to tattoo the skin — Lev. 19:28
Not to have sexual relations with a menstrually impure woman — Lev. 18:19
Not to eat non-kosher animals — Lev. 11:4
Not to eat non-kosher fowl — Lev. 11:13
Not to eat non-kosher fish — Lev. 11:11
Not to eat non-kosher flying insects — Deut. 14:19
Not to eat non-kosher creatures that crawl on land — Lev. 11:41
Not to eat non-kosher maggots — Lev. 11:44
Not to eat worms found in fruit on the ground — Lev. 11:42
Not to eat creatures that live in water other than (kosher) fish — Lev. 11:43
Not to eat blood —Lev. 3:17
Not to eat certain fats of clean animals — Lev. 3:17
Not to eat fruit of a tree during its first three years — Lev. 19:23
To cover the blood (of a slaughtered beast or fowl) with earth — Lev. 17:13
Not to plant diverse seeds together — Lev. 19:19
To leave a corner of the field uncut for the poor — Lev. 19:10
Not to reap that corner — Lev. 19:9
To leave gleanings — Lev. 19:9
Not to gather the gleanings — Lev. 19:9
To leave the unformed clusters of grapes — Lev. 19:10
Not to pick the unformed clusters of grapes — Lev. 19:10
To leave the gleanings of a vineyard — Lev. 19:10
Not to gather the gleanings of a vineyard — Lev. 19:10
Not to work the land during the seventh year — Lev. 25:4
Not to work with trees to produce fruit during that year — Lev. 25:4
Not to reap crops that grow wild that year in the normal manner — Lev. 25:5
Not to gather grapes which grow wild that year in the normal way — Lev. 25:5
A woman who had a running (vaginal) issue must bring an offering (in the Temple) after she goes to the Mikveh — Lev. 15:28-29
A woman who gave birth must bring an offering (in the Temple) after she goes to the Mikveh — Lev. 12:6
A man who had a running (unnatural urinary) issue must bring an offering (in the Temple) after he goes to the Mikveh — Lev. 15:
Observe the laws of menstrual impurity — Lev. 15:19
Observe the laws of impurity caused by childbirth — Lev. 12:2
Observe the laws of impurity caused by a woman’s running issue — Lev. 15:25
Observe the laws of impurity caused by a man’s running issue (irregular ejaculation of infected semen) — Lev. 15:3
Observe the laws of impurity caused by a dead beast — Lev. 11:39
Observe the laws of impurity caused by the eight shratzim (insects) — Lev. 11:29
Observe the laws of impurity of a seminal emission (regular ejaculation, with normal semen) — Lev. 15:16
Observe the laws of impurity concerning liquid and solid foods — Lev. 11:34
Not to rob openly — Lev. 19:13
Not to withhold wages or fail to repay a debt — Lev. 19:13
Not to overcharge or underpay for an article — Lev. 25:14
Not to insult or harm anybody with words — Lev. 25:17
etc., etc.
Its a long list. The list also includes odd commandments on things like how to properly purchase a Hebrew slave and how not to overwork him. If we can consider many of these outdated, why not the ones you are basing your notion of sin on? Or, are you and the folks you connect with the ones that get to decide? Hmm .. Leviticus says that meat must be drained of all blood, that the blood must be properly buried in dirt and you must not mix milk products and meat. Had a juicy cheeseburger lately? If so, you just might not be in line with the bible.
It is, I believe, an interesting book. And I very much agree with much of what is in the new testament. But I also believe that any unbiased reading of the new testament would lead one to the conclusion that Jesus would be voting no on this amendment, and that he would likely be a registered democrat.
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
22
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
79 
115
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
57 
95
The minute you mention ‘sinful’, you expose this for what it really is.
The attempt of one segment of one religious group to have their beliefs written into our state constitution above anyone else’s.
Religious matters have no place in a government constitution.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
92 
42
Wow, I agree, Govt should stay out of religion…,,, except I’m ok with In God We Trust, and asking God to Bless America….. Things like that. There is also something to be said about God’s word versus Man’s word… Man has a history of messing things up.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
6
Wow, Katydid.
DO you hear what you’re saying? -that as soon as someone says something is wrong(sin), that’s a problem. -in other words, there is no right and wrong.
The whole PC, everyone is right and no-one is wrong thing is playing out so wonderfully in our society, too. Peace, love, just about everywhere you turn these days.
Why don’t we throw out all our judges & legislators while we’re at it?
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
22
johnzimm said:
“Wow, Katydid.
DO you hear what you’re saying? -that as soon as someone says something is wrong(sin), that’s a problem. -in other words, there is no right and wrong.”
Nope…it’s YOU that’s not hearing what I’m saying. As soon as you mention something is a ‘SIN’ you’ve taken away any legal argument and made it into a totally religious argument.
I’ve got a better idea. Rather than trying to enshrine religious doctrine into our constitution, why not do as we are commanded and leave the judgement up to God?
Unless I missed something, that’s an act HE reserved for Himself. …in His own time.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
57 
82
Why should marriage remain special to heterosexuals?
Just look at how heterosexuals have mucked up the whole concept of marriage already.
Personally, I think we had our shot at ‘preserving the sanctity of marriage’ and totally blew it.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
85 
47
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
38 
63
See, this is were I always end up having a huge problem. People don’t want it to be called ‘marriage’ because somehow, marriage is supposed to be a religious/church/God thing.
Yet, people want this written into our Constitution which, in doing so, clearly takes it out of the religious realm and places it squarely in that of government.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
35 
63
Brian said:
“It’s not a religious issue for me, marriage is an institution, has a historical record of being a man and woman, that is a perk of 2 heterosexual people committing to each other for the rest of their lives, they get to be married, it ain’t perfect, but it’s for men and women.”
I still don’t understand the ‘why’ though. Just because it’s the way things have been done up to this point, does that necessarily mean it’s the ONLY way it can ever be done?
At one point in time, only white males that owned property could have any say in what happened in government at all. Thank God THAT changed.
Don’t you think opposite sex couples are just as capable of committing to each other for the rest of their lives?
Why reserve something for just one segment of the population and leave every one else out? That has to be descrimination, doesn’t it?
I’m not sure the whole ‘birth’ thing is relative to the matter at hand. I don’t know why people keep trying to put them both together like one can’t or doesn’t exist without the other.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
55 
21
Just when I agreed, you throw that out? We might of messed marriage up here and there, but it doesn’t mean we should recreate it. Sometimes I think divorce is made too easy and hence marriage becomes perhaps slightly less important to some. But thats an entire different discussion, but I do think its more important than same sex marriage.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
ctcmn said:
“but it doesn’t mean we should recreate it.”
Maybe that’s where my whole problem with this comes from.
I don’t see it as recreating anything.
In my mind, “marriage” is two people committing to love, protect and be there for each other for life.
You know, the whole richer/poorer/sickness/health thing?
It’s been nearly 40 years since my husband and I first repeated our marriage vows but, I honestly don’t remember anything in them about sex or children or anything that would preclude 2 people of the same sex from repeating them.
The bottom line for me is, I just don’t believe that our state constitution is the proper place for this. Our constitution has thus far only been used for protecting or expanding people’s rights, not minimizing them.
We all know that the ONLY reason this is going to a vote on a constitutional amendment is because the authors of the bill couldn’t get the Governor to sign it and couldn’t muster enough votes to override the veto. THAT is not sufficient reason….at least for me, for a constitutional amendment.
Maybe I just hold our constitution in higher regard than some other people, I don’t know.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
17
Katydid…..according to these ramblings…..”there is no right or wrong”……only difference of opinion. Surely you jest!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
Vern said:
“Katydid…..according to these ramblings…..”there is no right or wrong”……only difference of opinion. Surely you jest!”
I’m not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
Personally, I believe there are absolutely right things and wrong things.
It’s when you try to define something YOU believe to be wrong as a SIN.
At that point, we’re no longer discussing right and wrong, we’re discussing religious doctrine.
They can be and very often are, two distinctly different things, depending on the religious beliefs of the people in the discussion.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Your liberal courts are what fornicated the marriage vows baby…!
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
These two gentlemen were together for 33 years and niether took the initiative to make out a will and have it notarized?? You can leave property to your cat if you so desire. Let us all hope that our institutions of higher education will, in the future, impart a basic understanding of property law.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
60 
39
So, if they had only been together for a year but had made some sort of formal commitment (perhaps gotten married in some other jurisdiction), but were young and didn’t anticipate a sudden illness and death of one of them, would you be ok with a Minnesota court recognizing the marriage from another jurisdiction and treating the surviving member as the spouse for legal purposes (for that matter, treating the one member as the spouse for making medical decisions as the other dies)?
Not that estate planning in these situations is as cut and dry as you suggest, but why shouldn’t there be a mechanism for allowing a committed gay couple to get the same rights with regards to medical and end of life decision making as a married couple? Why complicate inheritance (especially if the family is opposed to the relationship and challenges the will)?
Like or Dislike:
7 
8
Katy, it’s like the best player in men’s college hockey winning the hobey baker award, the girls can have an award too, but not that one, or the cy young award for instance, the best softball pitcher doesn’t get that one, it’s ok to have some things separate and special to one group, it’s ok for someone to win in dodgeball. The pregnancy thing was just to point out that all humans that want to mess with nature can’t ruin that process yet, like they have marriage.
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
40
But, the SCOTUS decided long ago that ‘separate but equal’ was not constitutional.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
11
Katy, the horse is beaten bloody, it’s the fanatical bleeding hearts (like you), that are ruining this country. Men and women get married, Indians are owed nothing, they can go to work, some people are smarter than others, they’ll probably be the richer ones, somebody wins every race, every one can’t tie, some people are taller than others, there are tons of ugly people, it’s ok to have some differences and it’s ok to have things specific to one group, it’s not a bad thing. I would also like to point out how coincidental it is that any time someone disagrees with you their comments are buried in mere minutes with dislikes while yours glow green at the same time. Odd. I VOTE YES!!!
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
20
Just a thought. Divorce is expensive and probably heart wrenching in some cases. The leading cause of divorce is marriage, without a marriage, there would be no need for a divorce. Maybe the people that will vote yes are just trying to help some Minnesotans avoid a major problem down the road. Again, Just a thought.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
26
Just a thought? Well a very ignorant thought. It is nothing more than discrimination. Let’s call things by their real name. Voting yes is completely supporting blunt discrimination….period.
Hot debate. What do you think?
36 
36
name caller….yes you connie moore
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
26
LMAO….yes, I’m sure that will be their intent.
But really, shouldn’t gays have the right to be as miserable as the rest of us? Why should they get extra protection?
Like or Dislike:
14 
14
Here’s the point I think people fundamentally aren’t getting in this debate. It’s more evident as I see references to God more prevalent through the commentary surrounding this discussion. Here it is, it’s very simple:
THE USA HAS NO OFFICIAL RELIGION!
(I hope nobody is surprised to learn that)
furthermore, the constitution specifically guarantees the the separation of church and state. Given those facts, there should be no biblical arguments being made for or against this amendment. Without biblical arguments, those in favor of the amendment really don’t have anything to argue. They are simply arguing to alienate and degrade a group of people simply because those people have beliefs and practices that differ from their own. Every fiber of the founding of this country has been based on tolerance, justice, free speech, free exercise of beliefs, the belief that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Regardless if you personally choose to engage in or agree with same sex marriage, regardless if you personally think God does or doesn’t approve of this. We live in a country where ALL PEOPLE are created EQUAL. If you believe in the founding principles of the United States, you must vote NO on this amendment.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
16
James……I believe you are “expanding” on the Founding Fathers definitions of the U.S. Constitution. Do you actually believe that the Founding Fathers would approve of such things? As a society, ( the Left leaning folks )….seem to be always “stretching” the Constitutions meanings. They have been trying to eliminate “In God We Trust” from our coinage and paper money…..among so many different things, that we seem to be heading the wrong way ( and have been for quite some time )…..that before we know it…..the U.S. Constitution will have no value at all. Is this what we truly want our country to evolve into? Please…..everybody, look into your hearts and decide what you truly know to be right….not what “others” have “persuaded” you to think!
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Vern, I am not sure the mention of “In God We Trust” really supports your case, as it was only added to to coins because of the rise of religious fervor during the civil war and was only added to paper money in 1957. I think you could make a case that it is a sign of the religious backlash against our constitution’s restrictions, but it clearly does not support your argument.
As to liberals wanting to reinterpret the constitution, this is a charge brought by both sides. Each side hates when the Supreme Court “legislates” from the bench and there is plenty of fodder out there (Roe v Wade revs up the right). But Citizens United, Gore v Bush, Plessy v Ferguson (and a herd of union busting decisions) over the years give the left just as much fodder (if not more). I would note that a lot of the most conservative decisions (Plessy, the Dred Scott case, etc.) have ended up being overturned by later courts. People seem to like arguing for the letter of the constitution (or as in Judge Scalia, *his* take on what the framers really meant) only when it supports their viewpoint.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
For those resorting to some variation of the “hey, marriage is our thing, lets the gays get something else” its a little more complicated then that. The history of marriage is full of shifts. Perhaps the most profound shift has been away from marriage as a contractual notion (to guarantee the legitimacy of the child and for inheritance purposes) to the current western notion which focuses on love. Some other things to note:
- Marriage appears to predate most religions as it is mentioned as something that already existed in the earliest of writings for any religion
- The connection of religion to marriage is another relatively recent phenomenon, most marriages were not solemnized by anyone (just agreed to by both parties) or solemnized in front of friends by mutual consent, the religious solemnizing of marriages came later, especially as religions realized this provided a source of power
- Schisms in Christianity have happened because of disagreements over the notion of marriage (most notably with regard to the notion of divorce)
- There is some evidence that the Greeks and Romans allowed homosexual marriages at times and that some provinces of China also allowed homosexual marriage
- Marriage, until very recently, was not an even relationship, you can still see leftovers from this in some churches with traditional vows where the woman swears to obey the husband but the husband makes no such reciprocal promise (and the further back you go, the less even things were)
You might still want to claim that while marriage does have an evolving history it is relatively stable now. But this isn’t true. In the US, miscegenation laws (laws against interracial relationships and marriages) started coming off the books in the 1950s, with the last of them (Alabama’s) disappearing in 2001. Other views of marriage are practiced in other parts of the world. Arranged marriage. Marriage between second cousins or closer (estimated to be 10% of marriages worldwide in 2009), mostly to retain property within families.
Marriage is NOT a monolithic institution. If you really want to cling to it, I suggest this. Take the term Matrimony and apply it to the religious observances associated with solemnizing a marriage (which after all, has to have a civil part to be legal) and let the civil (secular, non-religious) aspect retain the term Marriage.
Vote no, you will look less silly to your children and grandchildren down the line.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
19
RickM…..YOU say to vote no so you can look less silly to your children and grandchildren down the line…..that would only happen if the Left leaning folks keep on the same track as the one they are pushing …..”currently”….. ( and teaching their children )……so their children will not know any better……down the line! “What goes in…..always comes out”……down the line!
Like or Dislike:
6 
5
@Vern
The polling numbers suggest that a majority of the country are ready to consider same sex marriage. If you go to http://pollingreport.com/civil.htm , a polling data clearinghouse you can look at the many polls that have been done on this and related issues. Nate Silver has periodically had articles looking at the trend line, for example here: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/ .
And the people who dig into the polls note that the older generation supports same sex marriage at much lower numbers than younger folks.
So, you say it doesn’t matter what the majority thinks, right is right. My problems with that are that the only ways I can see supporting the notion that voting yes is right are:
1) if you start from a religious / sin point of view, which clearly we choose not to do as part of how our country was founded,
2) you try to suggest that we should adhere to tradition, as if marriage is an institution that does not change, but this of course is not true even of our recent history (miscegenation laws were here until very recently) and the marriage of today bears almost no resemblance to marriage of just a few hundred years ago,
3) you talk about the slippery slope, as if letting this happen lets all of these other situations happen. Problem is, those other situations violate other aspects of the law–perhaps over time we will reconsider some of them, but I suspect the law is always going to require that it be between two consenting adult humans, or
4) you make the argument about marriage as a government-supported institution for raising children. This, by the way, is the only argument the professional folks (for example, the Catholic church representatives who advocate on behalf of this amendment) who are pursuing this amendment ever talk about (in part because they realize 1-3 are entirely subjective). To make this argument they point to studies saying homosexuals are not as good parents as heterosexuals. Unfortunately, their studies are at this point outdated, as the more recent studies suggest there is no effect (well, one study suggests that lesbian mothers are more likely to produce well-adjusted kids, but I don’t think that means we should ban heterosexual unions, though maybe we should see what lesbian mothers are doing different).
Note that I am struck by the similarity of the above arguments to the ones made by Islamic extremists, who don’t like Western influences on their culture. Why should women attend school or drive? Why shouldn’t adulterers be executed (well, at least the women)? These ideas are 1) handed down from god, 2) traditional in that culture, 3) changing them would lead to other “westernizing” changes and 4) would lead to a breakdown of traditional family culture.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Having headquartered his organization in Minneapolis for many years, Billy Graham has endorsed the Minnesota marriage amendment. Does anyone want to step up and call him cruel, hateful, and a homophobe?
Like or Dislike:
14 
12
And lots of folks have written that it is out of character for him to espouse such a bigoted position so publicly (just google Billy Graham on homosexuality) and some who have worked in his ministry have suggested that the sentiments published under his name are the work of his son or others in his ministry. I am guessing that a 94 year old man is not able to exert much control anymore. Doesn’t take away from his past work for me, and I associate the cruel, bigoted language with his family and the others who manipulate his name. Just as I don’t blame God, Jesus, or whoever for the bigoted way people use his teachings.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
OK, so you suggest that Billy Graham’s son Franklin is the real spokesman for the pro marriage amendment? Again, does someone want to call Franklin Graham (head of the worldwide charity Samaritan’s Purse) cruel, hateful, or a homophobe? Incidentally, Samaritan’s Purse was in Duluth helping out after the June 20 flood. Talk is cheap but the Grahams have been walking the walk and making the world a better place for decades.
Like or Dislike:
9 
8
Yes, I would guess Franklin Graham is likely a homophobe, though I have no way of truly judging as his views are being filtered through a process. And no, he doesn’t get the pass that his father’s lifetime of nonpartisan ministry does. In any case, someone can be a nice person in many respects and still be bigoted in some sense. They are people, not gods. And the Bible explicitly warns us from picking false gods.
So, let me ask you, the Billy Graham ministry labeled Mormonism as a cult until just recently, when they lifted this label. Is it possible this has anything to do with the current election and the Republican candidate being a Mormon? If the ministry is willing to compromise its views on religion to win political points does that mean they are not being guided by their views of God’s word, or maybe does it mean that they can change their minds on long-held beliefs?
Like or Dislike:
5 
9
I can’t wait for this amendment to be defeated so that I can marry my best friend and a couple of hot chicks. Because NOBODY can tell me who to love and who I can marry. Make sense? When we decide that there are no limits on marriage…there won’t be any limits. How can there be any limits without discriminating against the next whack-a-doodle’s idea of marriage.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
14
Bravo Keith, exactly right! However, once polygamy is legalized because this same sex travesty passed, if I were you I’d just marry hot chicks, leave your buddy out. He may be more interested in marrying his brother and and favorite pet goat, who is society to judge his choices?
Like or Dislike:
16 
13
I love my dog (which is very true), and I’d love her to have the same medical insurance and life insurance my wife and I get (sarcasm, but it’s the next step once we go down this slippery slope). Don’t even try to say it’s about anything other than money for the bulk of folks. Sorry but that’s how I feel, and no number of pride parades, protests, or other propaganda will change my mind. Time may, but for now, quit trying to force feed everyone change. True change takes time, and most of us aren’t ready yet, if the vote goes as I expect it will.
Like or Dislike:
11 
10
“If you are struggling with how to vote, please just leave the box blank.”
From the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State:
Q: Is it true that if I don’t vote on a constitutional amendment, it is the same as a “no” vote?
A: Yes, that is true. Constitutional amendments by law must be passed by a majority of all of the voters who vote on Election Day. Therefore, if you don’t vote on this question the effect is the same as a “no” vote.
http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=1533
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
Maybe the way to look at this issue is not as “religious”….and not as “legal.”
But simply as a “societal” issue.
Definition from Merriam-Webster:
3: of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society
In light of this definition…a vote on the matter (as members of society ) is the perfect way to decide the issue.
If a person does not like how the vote turns out…they can leave, or stay and continue to fight.
If you decide to leave, France is nice…and they are well on the way to making “same-sex marriage” the law of the land.
However…..
“France’s government have unveiled the outline of its proposed same-sex marriage law, sparking the inevitable ire of conservatives but also irking gay rights activists, who say that without fertility assistance, marriage alone is a lousy deal.”
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
I suggest Brazil. They have the world’s largest gay pride parade. But I read the evangelical Christian movement, a rising political force, is starting to make trouble for the gay community in Brazil. It is due to the fact that they don’t share the same christian values…ie near nudity while parading around and carrying signs that invite the viewer to have gay sex.
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Good post always, that’s been my point, it’s not a religious or political thing for me. Liberal wackies are WAY more out there than the conservative types. I really get the feeling that any moral or ethical value in anything is lost on the libs. The whole mantra is do what feels good, do what’s fun, do whatever you want, whatever makes an individual happy. That’s crap! To maintain any sense of civility, order, or progress, a certain amount of structure has to be in place. We’re becoming a society of do what feels good, look at our youth, we are in a down hill spiral that won’t end until a certain amount of accountability and self respect returns to future generations, anyone familiar with the average 18 year old’s work ethic today? I don’t see that, I see everything getting worse until we can no longer sustain ourselves and become slaves to China or the middle east, it’s a dark future all this happiness is creating.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
And Katy, I don’t believe in separate but equal, I do however believe in different but equal, my marriage will never be the same as a same sex union, but without a doubt I know a committed gay couple is just as committed as myself and my wife, they just need to find their own designation, marriage is exclusive to a man an woman. It’s actually a very nice concept, man and woman. That’s how babies are made
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Brian said: On October 31, 2012 at 8:39 PM
“Katy, the horse is beaten bloody”
LOL….guess you decided you hadda get a few more bloody licks in after all, eh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
50 years, but Commies are winning.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
Today’s Liberals are so tied up with themselves they don’t even know there being sold out to the Communists.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5