Comments on: Gay marriage hits close to home, but Minnesotans not ready

By: Rachel

Rachel — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 20:35:25 +0000

Why is it that so many people are against love. What loves means to one is not the same as it means to another. In a country that has worked so hard for freedom how come so many people seem to be oppressed. It is hard for me to thing being engaged and all that according to the state that I am not recognized as married. I am a christain and a lesbian. And it is certainly not fair. People who refuse to accept people the way they are absurd. Why can’t everyone just let go of the fact and allow marriage and equality for all.

By: GayArgentina

GayArgentina — Tue, 19 May 2009 10:20:54 +0000

If someone has feelings for another human being then they have the right to get married even if they are of the same sex! Stop discrimination !

By: Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Gay marriage hits …

Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Gay marriage hits … — Sun, 10 May 2009 22:04:29 +0000

[...] here to review a rest: Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Gay wedlock hits … Leave a [...]

By: Eva Young

Eva Young — Fri, 08 May 2009 02:30:56 +0000

Jonerik writes: “We have no experience with “gay marriage.” Will gay men or gay women feel the same stigma to simply living together without benefit of matrimony as hetero men and women? I’m betting that most gays will not feel any pressure to getting married but will remain single in serial or multiple relationships of whatever sort. What you have done by declaring “marriage” the same as between two men or two women as it is between a man and a woman is devalue marriage as an institution and a regulator of human relationships.

EY: Jonerik: how do gays devalue the institution of marriage? Why shouldn’t gays who do wish to get married be able to participate in the institution? How does it devalue the institution of marriage to have gays included in the institution? It says something that gays want to participate in the institution of marriage.

What has always seemed ironic to me, is that gays are often criticized for being promiscuous, but then the same people who criticize gays for being promiscuous want to deny gays access to the stabilizing institution of marriage.

By: Tom Miller

Tom Miller — Thu, 07 May 2009 14:16:26 +0000

Compare and contrast; one of my high school english teachers drilled that into my head. Compare and contrast: Slave rights and gay rights; the contrasts are easy, the comparisons are profound. Slaves could not get legally married either. They could not create and sign contracts, and what is marriage mostly (legally speaking) but a huge contract with thousands of rights and responsibilities. Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights spoke there last year saying, “That just like apartheid laws that criminalized sexual relations between different races, laws against homosexuality are increasingly becoming recognized as anachronistic and inconsistent both with international law and with traditional values of dignity, inclusion, and respect for all.” Apartheid: A system of laws applied to one category of citizens in order to isolate them and keep them from having privileges and opportunities given to all others. Stop gay apartheid.

By: Time for equal marriage in Minnesota? | MNpublius.com

Time for equal marriage in Minnesota? | MNpublius.com — Thu, 07 May 2009 13:00:44 +0000

[...] A related story from Andy Birkey in the MN Independent: Gay marriage hits close to home, but Minnesotans not ready May 7, 2009, 7:50 am | Category: Misc. Local Politics [...]

By: Brix Smith

Brix Smith — Thu, 07 May 2009 12:09:55 +0000

Bravo, Katie Murphy!

By: Joe Mustich

Joe Mustich — Thu, 07 May 2009 11:33:05 +0000

It’s time. Kudos to New England and Iowa.
Joe Mustich, Justice of the Peace, Washington CT USA.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 07 May 2009 06:50:43 +0000

jonerik, I totally concur. An extremely well written piece. Good job!

By: Katie Murphy

Katie Murphy — Thu, 07 May 2009 06:02:31 +0000

Maybe what so many conservative churches and their adherents fear is that gay marriage or civil unions will make a mockery of the divorce rate for str8 couples. All my anecdotal evidence reading the web, eg re Canada, England, etc points out that the gay “divorce rate is perhaps 1/2 to 1/4 the str8 divorce rate. Meanwhile the str8 divorce rate is 50%. I and my wife are almost in a minority – especially for those married a long time, eg for us 41 years, with no other marriages in the past.

And don’t we owe it to our gay citizens to give them a legally sanctioned, difficult to dissolve relationthip recognition?. It helps them get over the rough spots of any marriage, rather then simply moving out in a hothead moment. In our 41 years, yes we’ve had our differences, but we cool down and go back to the business at hand. And stabilizing gay relationships will help end the spread of STDs, It will also do the same, by setting an example for all the hetero couples who live in a “for the moment, till a couple fights occur” unmarried relationship. Or are just in the “next partner mode – next thrill” all the time.

Something I learned long ago in the sales business is that embarrassment is the greatest driver for or against sales of big ticket items in a corporate environment. Remember the old adage about you can’t go wrong by buying computers from IBM?

And that is what the conservative churches fear – they will be shown to be on the wrong side of history, and like in Europe, church attendance will plunge, and with it the money and power goes away.

And re the old “marriage is for kids” argument. Well, we are empty nesters, obviously incapable of producing any more kids. Should our marriage be automatically annulled, given that our children are now alld in their 30’s?

JonEriks post is well thought out. And he is well on his way to realizing that gay relationship recognition is good for gays, it is good for str8s, and it is good for our nation. Just going to take a little more time, JonErik, And I think you’ll fully see the light, the meaning of tying together ly (nothing re forcing churches to do marriages against their dogma) gay couples legally, and making them full citizens in our society. With all the legal benefits and responsibilities for maintaining a relationship which is difficult and painful to dissolve.

And lets all remember what we all said so many times in school – that paragraph that ended with the words “…..with liberty and justice for ALL”. It didn’t say ” only for those who conform to teachings of particular churches”. Something about religious freedom, including that churches cannot impose their religious beliefs on others. And btw we belong to two churches – both of which support gay marriage. And we had the guts to leave the backwards looking churches of our past. And are so happy for it. And our wonderful gay friends as well.