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




May-13-13 2:07 PM

Oh Phil. Divorce is the destruction of marriage, and I am sure that divorce will be a lot more common among my heterosexual frinds than it will be among my gay and lesbian friends.

22 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 5:10 PM

What would you attribute your speculation of a lower rate of divorce to among your homosexual friends?

4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 6:03 PM

Oh, blasphemer! Over the years I have known a number of gays, and except for two couples, no relationship lasted more than 7 years. There were small children - adopted and birthed - among several of the couples, and the party taking off did not pay child support. I don't think you can find any statistics to support your case.

5 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 7:02 PM

A number of gays Al? Are you sure? Do you have any statistics on that?, and 56258, when someone has to work hard for something they tend to work even harder to keep it.

20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-13-13 11:40 PM

I just told you my experience, I'm not doing a study on all gays.

I assume you are gay. So what is your relationship record?

3 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 8:16 AM

Phil, your concern and desire to keep our society pure and righteous is commendable. I can not imagine the moral panic that is happening in Delhi. The imminent destruction of the social order must be horrendous feeling for all the fine citizens. Keep a constant vigil and drive out any of those abominable transgressors. Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention so all of our communities can be on high alert for this social destruction. Stay strong in your faith and beliefs and your marriage may survive. Our society is going to pot....oh maybe that is the next legislative session.

24 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 8:25 AM

Al, Your assumption about me is certainly wrong, so I can only assume that everything that you assume about "gays" is wrong too.

19 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 8:49 AM

Al, why do you assume that blasphemer is gay? Just wondering.

21 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 8:49 AM

Regular old heterosexual marriage will continue. Main stream scholars who have studied those places in the US, Canada, and Europe where gay marriage has been legalized tell us they find no significant differences in the number of straight people who marry or divorce. Furthermore, to answer a common complaint, nothing in this bill would require churches or pastors to marry homosexuals. In fact, the bill includes a legal firewall to prevent that from happening. In other words, under this legislation society cannot tell churches what to do. Personally, I prefer that to what we had before, a situation in which those of us who attend church could tell the rest of society whom they could marry. We are not a theocracy.

25 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 10:37 AM

Let the lawsuits begin: I want to marry my father who is hospice to avoid inheritance taxes. Scratch that. It's about love, not taxes. Can you deny me the right to marry him? Do we love each other, yes. So what if we are's not like we can have a kid together. Marriage is obviously not about reproduction now anyway. My mom is long gone. Under the law, how can anyone deny me the right to marry my father?

4 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 11:01 AM

Merritt - No matter how much you want to marry your father, this law does not change the fact that marriage remains a civil contract between two unrelated adults. Your lawsuit would have no more Merritt on August 1st than it did last Wednesday.

23 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 1:11 PM

Resorting to presenting specious arguments involving all manner of relationships is insulting to both the gay community and those who wish to engage in an intellectual debate. Based on the ignorance displayed (whether real and in jest) by those opposing gay marriage in this forum, evidently, no intelligent argument exists for opposing gay marriage. Special thanks to liberal for making this point crystal clear.

21 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 1:55 PM

The insulting part is that you would deny my love for my father and not allow us the same rights as any other two consenting adults. Why are you denying my right to marry who I want?

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 2:01 PM

Well, the bill passed and as of today MN is the 12th state to give equal rights to couples of all sexes. One thing that confuses me, though, is that everything is normal. Weren't we supposed to see the 4 horsemen or something if this passed? I checked this morning and there was no more than the normal number of insects, didn't notice any frogs, water was still water, and my first born was still alive and well. How could Phil and others like him have been so wrong about the cataclysmic effects of passing marriage equality?!?

23 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 2:10 PM

I know that incest may be taboo to some of you that are not enlightened, but this is America and I should have the same rights as anyone else. It is bigots like Hartman and SD that would deny peaceful, law-abiding, citizens our rights. How does it affect your life Hartman? What difference does it make to you SD? Equal Rights for all Americans!!!!!

3 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 2:14 PM

Also, if there is a miracle and he pulls through, we would like to adopt a child. We're just not sure how we're going to explain the whole dad/dad/grandpa thing. I think I'll be "dad" and my dad will be "papa" to our child.

3 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 3:12 PM

SD - the gay marriage bill does not specify that marriage is between two unrelated adults. Go read the bill before you make statements like that. Not so concerned about hartman, because he is always making things up to suit his views.

How dare you deny the same benefits to others that you want for yourselves, to the exclusion of other sexual or platonic relationships. You two should be ashamed of yourselves.

Next you'll be supporting the man/boy love faction, or rape, as state law defines it. But, you both support "anything goes" so we will see the results in the not to distant future.

Folks like you and hartman have opened the door, so anything goes

2 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 4:01 PM

rangeral, once again you point out a lie, why don't you read the bill and you won't sound like a moron. Section 3 clearly states marrying an ancestor and a descendant, or between siblings is prohibited. So people, stop worrying about people marrying relatives, such a lame excuse.


23 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 4:39 PM

tinytim - the door is open and civil rights cases will be filed.

Anything goes, just as you folks wanted.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 5:02 PM

If this is about equality - why would we prohibit any consenting human from marrying another?

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 5:09 PM

blasphemer - I think your comment regarding divorce rate of homosexuals being lower than hetrosexuals is extremely far reaching. But, time will only tell. I suspect it will be very much similar - or if anything, hetrosexual couples will have a slightly lower (better) rate.

3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 5:15 PM

It's just my personal perspective, but I think one of the truest bonds in marriage - at least for me - is the child birthing process - including conceiving a child of your own flesh and your spouse's flesh - to conceive them, carry them, to birth them, to nurture them and to raise them. In my life, this has made my marriage stronger.

I know many couples can't have children - and my comment isn't intended to demean or upset anyone. However, much of this process is simply and truly not possible for every homosexual couple. No law, no religious belief, no decree of equality or anything can change that - it is defined for us, not by us.

3 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 5:38 PM

Al- I have read the bill multiple times and you are correct. The gay marriage bill does not specifically prevent the marriage of related adults - the marriage law that was already on the books does and will continue to do so once our gay and lesbian friends and neighbors are able to marry.

I am certain there were ridiculous claims of opening the floodgates to the end of society as we know it when interracial couples began marrying one another as well. In twenty or thirty years when people my children's age are running this country they will look back on this issue in the same way the huge majority looks back on segregation.

21 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 5:46 PM

56258 - I fully agree with your analysis that childbirth has been one of the most life-affirming and marriage-strengthening occurrences for my wife and I. However, where I think we differ is that I know this to be a truth for me and I refuse to generalize it to all marriages. How many married people who have children end up in divorce? Clearly, for whatever reason, having children was not a strong enough reason for millions of couples to stay married. I tend to believe there must be similarly life-affirming and marriage-strengthening occurrences for other couples, both gay and straight, that my wife and I may or may not have experienced. Adoption, co-navigating crises, and simply believing you have found the person you should spend the rest of your life with come to mind as a few examples.

20 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


May-14-13 6:11 PM

"no intelligent argument exists for opposing gay marriage" - hartman75

only if ur the one making the final conclusion about each argument, eh hartman? close-minded much? how will you determine the intelligence of each argument? do you have an IQ-ometer which will validate your determinations? please, enlighten us about how much more intelligent your arguments are versus the opposing view-point? who or what gives you the authority to determine the intelligence level?

inquiring minds want to know....

2 Agrees | 4 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:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web