Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The ‘destruction of marriage’

May 13, 2013

To the editor: Remember last year when opponents of the Marriage Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution said, ‘We already have a law against same sex marriage; we don’t need this amendment’? Well......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(77)

rangeral

May-21-13 12:12 PM

from a distance - good for you but not all heterosexual couples share your viewpoint and we don't expect it to be forced onto us.

3 Agrees | 9 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromadistance

May-20-13 5:04 PM

Well, I'll admit, my version of marriage is Disneyesque, including hearts and flowers and romance, etc. I am a middle-aged woman (a phrase I'd never use if I had to sign my name) married to the same man for 25 years. We have 3 great kids, own a business that we've worked hard for, paid taxes. Pretty normal folks. I have a life-long friend who is gay, and has been in a committed relationship with the same wonderful man for as many years as I've known my husband. They've built a business, worked hard, paid taxes. They chose not to have children, although surrogacy was always an option. I'd put their relationship up against the best heterosexual marriages I know as a perfect example of love, commitment. They have more than earned the same rights I share with my husband. If you wish to continue belittling their kind of union by turning marriage into a means of financial gain, I have nothing more to say. If your argument is not straw man theory, I suggest you debate it with the IRS

13 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-20-13 10:59 AM

Angry rhetoric? I'm making a philisophical argument. If you change the definition of words in the name of equality, shouldn't we make sure things are equal? To say there is no difference between a same sex marriage and a heterosexual marriage is disingenuous. A hetersosexual marriage is the only marriage that can produce offspring. That is unique. To now say the same sex marriage is the exact same, suggests that reproduction has nothing to do with marriage. If you do that, there is no basis for denying relatives the right to marry. I really don't care what people do in their own lives, but to change the meaning of words has an impact on society. Some have complained that my argument for marrying my father is a slap in the face to same sex marriage. Well, couldn't you then consider same sex marriage a slap in the face to traditional marriage if you believe reproduction is a part of marriage? If they are the same, they are all the same.

3 Agrees | 11 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

May-19-13 2:25 PM

The bottom line is that this issue should have been voted on by the public in a November election. This opens up the definition of marriage to "anything goes" be it sexual or platonic. It was always about economic benefits. Phil's letter should have been titled "the destruction of the family and society" because this is the start of the slippery slope.

4 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

May-19-13 11:26 AM

really - have you made your contribution to the cancer project yet? You have been quiet on these pages since I last asked this question.

3 Agrees | 10 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Really

May-19-13 4:33 AM

Merritt instead of trying to equate the passing of a sensible law with every what if, and, and but in the world why don't you just move on, Minnesota has.

11 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

fromadistance

May-18-13 10:02 AM

First of all, I just want to say I admire Phil's perseverance and conviction. And I feel sorry for him as the recent gay marriage vote, I'm certain, has caused him much agony. Some of us on the other side of this issue have shed many tears as we've tried our hardest to get the Phil's of the world to hear our reason and logic regarding LGBT unions. A pastor was interviewed on TV yesterday a.m., he said he doesn't think we are judged by who we love, but rather, by who we hate. Merritt, your argument has no merit here. Please stop your angry rhetoric - this, too, shall pass - it may take a few years (it took Phil's church almost 400 years to forgive Galileo's assertion that the earth revolves around the sun). We will look back at this one day and see how silly it was. Go visit with an estate planner and try to find some other angle to use with regard to tax evasion.

17 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

56two58

May-17-13 5:18 PM

I am not surprised how quick this has gone.

1.) First I was told - Why vote against the Ammendment - the definition of marriage is already set and we won't change it - Oops, didn't mean that.

2.) It's about equality. I'm born this way. Why discriminate agasint me. - Oh, we don't support marriage or relatives, or groups. Guess they aren't equal

I'm not weighing in on my personal opinion, just the overall tactics that are in play here. They don't pass the smell test of honesty and integrity. It just appears to be selfless politics & blatant deception.

6 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 5:00 PM

Timmy, there was a vote about amending the constitution. I don't remember a vote saying whether or not we should recognize same-sex marriage in this state. To say as Minnesotans we decided it was OK isn't quite correct. My question to you would be, should all consenting adults in the state of Minnesota have the same marriage rights as all other Minnesotans? You answer is obviously NO. How does my decision affect you?

2 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 4:52 PM

The fact is SEL, there is no difference between my proposed marriage than a LGBT marriage other than the fact we are related. Would it make you feel better if I told you I was adopted?

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 4:47 PM

There are different reasons why people get married. There is not a test that one can take to determine who should and should not be able to get married. Does a 22 year old attractive blonde have to take a test to see if she honestly loves the 90 year old man? What difference does the reasoning for my desire to marry my father really is. The fact is I don't have the same rights as others. SEL - is there a litmus test that we take that asks if all marriages will be mentally, physically, and emotionally healthy? If not, why does the burden of proof fall on me? All I can say is why wouldn't it? We're consenting adults who decided we would like to be married.

4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teamtimmy

May-17-13 4:46 PM

ranger- "For the most part, having to have gay marriage is largely about economics, and you would deny those economics to other citizens of this state." I feel sorry for you, cause you are so fricking clueless.

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teamtimmy

May-17-13 4:39 PM

Merritt- you changed your story, first it was free love, I mentioned free love between next to kin is banned because of birth defects and so on. Then you change your argument to saving money on an estate. There are lines drawn to protect our society, that line was moved on Monday because we as Minnesotans believe it's OK for our society to accept same-sex marriage.

17 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

May-17-13 4:38 PM

Merritt, to successfully make your argument you would need to do as the LGBT community did and provide evidence that the type of relationship you're proposing is mentally, physically, and emotionally healthy. If you can do that then I would agree that you shouldn't be discriminated against.

19 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teamtimmy

May-17-13 4:35 PM

ranger-everyone has a right to there opinion, but when Merritt starts talking about free love, then switches it to saving money on an estate, I stop listening cause it's not an opinion, it's just blabbering. The bill was passed, time to accept it for what it is.

19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 3:42 PM

Why Hartman? I'm still waiting for you to educate me with your superior intellect. My arguments are made with facts and examples. It should be very simple for you to pick them a part.

3 Agrees | 18 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

hartman75

May-17-13 2:40 PM

"If I can go down to the courthouse and get married to my father and it saves me 16% if the estate is valued at over $10.4 million you're talking potentially millions of dollars. That is a non-issue to you? You think people/lawyers are going to sit by and think millions of dollars are a non-issue?....yes, I'm the dumb one.."

Your last line say's it all Merritt. You should have left it there.

17 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rangeral

May-17-13 1:46 PM

tinytime - yet again you show that your opinion is the only right one and that you have no room for other opinions. Merritt is 100% right - the arguments used to justify gay marriage are not being extended to other situations. For the most part, having to have gay marriage is largely about economics, and you would deny those economics to other citizens of this state.

3 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 1:25 PM

I will be quiet if you acknowledge that we are not afforded the same rights as any other two individuals in this state simply because we are related. I find it appauling that I can make the exact same justification for my situation that was used to pass same-sex marriage, but the same people who were fighting for someone else's rights would disregard mine. These are the same people who called anyone who was opposed to same-sex marriage bigots and homophobes. Are you not the same now? It's just a matter of where you draw the line compared to where others wanted to? I guess equality is a relative term with some people.

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 12:45 PM

Turn your cheek to inequality. Sad.

3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

teamtimmy

May-17-13 12:29 PM

Merritt, why don't you go get the other .00000001% that agree with you, march down to capital hill and protest, cause nobody cares what you think here anymore.

16 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 11:24 AM

In 1967, most people agreed that same-sex marriage was wrong too. It took over 45 years for people to get on the right side of the issue. I just hope it doesn't take that long for me to get my rights as well. Also, if during a pregnancy between a brother and sister, we could do tests, and if the test showed their night be issues with the fetus, we could just abort it. Problem solved.

4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-17-13 11:19 AM

We are two consenting adults. I would be willing to take a physiological test if that is your requirement. Seems discriminatory to me, but when dealing with people who are not as enlightened as myself, I would assume no less. Maybe you want to test same-sex couples of their mental state too? I am not pleased with your accusation that my father behaved inappropriately. He did no such thing, but I would expect no less from an incestophobe. We just want the same rights as everyone else.

4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

SELyonCo

May-17-13 8:24 AM

Merritt, I think most people agree incest is taboo because of the risk of genetic defects in the off-spring, but you have cleverly tried to circumvent that argument by proposing same-sex incest. While that is a novel approach to the argument it still is not the same thing as unrelated consenting adults having a romantic relationship. Studies (which you can look up yourself) of incestuous relationships show that the transition from a parent-child relationship to a romantic one can cause psychological damage to the child. While the child may genuinely feel a romantic attraction to the parent it is the usually the result of inappropriate behavior on the parent's part. So your theoretical desire to wed your father falls under the same category as an adult wanting to marry a child, which is only acceptable if you’re a 16 year old wanna-be reality TV star who’s mommy sees $$ in letting you marry a 50-something year old celebrity.

18 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Merritt

May-16-13 3:27 PM

It's not rational to think that people may want to do this? I guarantee you, that when people start realizing that you could potentially save millions of dollars in inheritance tax, that someone is going to fight for this is the very near future. If I can go down to the courthouse and get married to my father and it saves me 16% if the estate is valued at over $10.4 million you're talking potentially millions of dollars. That is a non-issue to you? You think people/lawyers are going to sit by and think millions of dollars are a non-issue?....yes, I'm the dumb one...

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 77 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web