FYI, we will be inviting representatives for Minnesota for Marriage to contribute in similar fashion later today. As Kate said below, we wanted to encourage local dialogue on this issue.

Well, we've reached out to them with an invitation, but so far, they haven't replied. We can't make stuff up for them.

It makes me weep too Shari, to see how far the morals of our civilization have decayed. I wonder if Soddom and Gomorra were still in existence, what their votes would be on this matter.

Jim, try as you might, you can not force your morals (or religious beliefs) on others. If you don't like what someone is doing, then YOU probably shouldn't do it, but leave them to live their lives.

Jim,
What do morals have to do with same-sex marriage? I'm sure that you aren't saying that homosexuality is immoral. It is neither immoral nor unnatural. It is neither deviant nor is it sinful. A great article in the Chicago Tribune way back in 2007 made some great points about the "morality" of homosexuality. http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2007/03/seven_reasons_w.html Next argument please.

It is up to the individual to decide what their religion (and God) is, and stands for. It is not up to you to choose and decide for them.

Tell me, what did Jesus say about homosexuals? One has to wonder, if homosexuality is such a heinous sin against God, why does Jesus himself never refer to it?

And may I say "Judge not, that ye be not judged". Matthew 7:1.

Jim, many Christians felt the same way as you. Their understanding of homosexuality, however, has evolved. I would encourage you to watch the DVD, "The Bible Tells Me So," and Retired Bishop Lowell Erdahl's DVD "Testimony Time: A Positive Perspective on Homosexuality and Same Sex Marriage." I think it will help you understand that homosexuality, that it isn't a bad thing, it simply is an expression of the diversity God created. It is understandable why you are repulsed by homosexual activities; it's because you are heterosexual and you are hardwired to feel that way. It is the same for a gay person, but they are attracted to persons of their same gender. I can help you understand it from a Catholic perspective, even though our Bishops have come to a different point of view, reflecting a lot of pre-Vatican thinking. No one is blaspheming by being who God created them to be. Please try to pray over this and I will pray for you as well that the Holy Spirit will grant you wisdom to understand and show respect for all individuals, straight as well as gay.

Thank you Bob. You made me smile. I have hope.

Jim, as I said, it is up to the individual, and should not be what you interpret or impose on them. Each individual church (as I said above) should be allowed to make their own choices. The government should only be looking at equal rights.

Again, this is not a religious issue, this is an equal rights issue....don't quote the bible in this case, look at the Constitution.

The problem with using the Bible as a resource for guiding society is that it doesn't apply to everyone. Not everyone is a Christian and many who are don't follow the Bible literally. The sections you're quoting also continue information on stoning those who work on Sundays, how to sell your daughter into slavery for a quick buck and praise polygamy. If you disagree with those, why agree with another rule that's just as stupid? Things have changed in the last few thousand years.

Jim, Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed because of homosexual activity, but because of lack of hospitality. Your interpretation is not shared by many Catholic Bible Scholars. With regard to marriage, basically people marry each other and that marriage is witnessed by others. With respect to the sacrament of marriage, the blessing by the Church should be extended to all couples that make such a commitment to each other, without regard to race, faith, economic class or sexual orientation. There are many good Christian and Catholic resources that can help you understand that moral principal. Also remember that our understanding of homosexuality has changed a lot over the last 50 years. Finally, remember that Jesus never once called homosexuality a sin.

Jim, you state that "I can understand those that don't believe in God, and have no desire to force my morals on them". I hope that, by saying that, you don't mean that those who "do" believe in God "should want to force my morals" upon others. That is not separation of Church and State. Maybe, though, your reference to this separation is tounge in cheek, and you really don't value this separation. It is an central American value though. I don't want to live under anyone's religious law - not even my own.

I hesitate to respond to the Biblical interpretation issue, because I teach Comparative World Religions at a local college and I certainly don't intend to "correct" or "speak for" all in a faith. That just can't be done. I think even the most Orthodox and liberal practioners should have their private rights (to practice as they see fit). If the discussion indicates a genuine curiousity to understand others though - about gay-friendly churches - then I'll comment:

Jim, you are still not seeing it....the GOVERNMENT, when making laws, can not choose God or the bible, because of the separation of church and state.

I asked you what Jesus said about homosexuality, not the bible.

Tell me Jim, do you follow the laws of the bible as written in Exodus and Leviticus? When was the last time you killed your neighbor for working on the Sabbath, as stated in Exodus 35:2? The bible says homosexuality is an abomination, it also says eating shellfish is an abomination (Leviticus 11:10), do you ever eat shrimp? Do you get your hair cut (around your temples)? This is forbidden in Leviticus 19:27. Have you considered selling your daughter into slavery? This is sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.

There are many more examples like this, as Luke mentioned above. What gives you the right to pick and choose which of God's laws apply to others, when you may not even be following all of those laws yourself?

I've sat in on numerous gay-friendly sermons. They are quite aware of Biblical passages, and that fact that Jesus said nothing himself on the topic. As for the Sodom and Gomorrah story, that was a case of rape (not consensual relations between two adults); it's a weak analogy to use that to critique same sex marriage. These sermons tend to interpret the lessons to be learned differently than do conservatives on the gay-rights issue (just as all pastors do these days when it comes to the passages that direct the stoning of adulterers, killing children for cursing their parents, obedience in slavery, and divorce only in the case of adultery, etc.) Religious diversity does exist, even in Christianity.

Part of my reason for opposing the Marriage Amendment is "Religious Freedom". The Marriage Amendment would enshrine in our Constitution the inability of gay-friendly religious organizations (and many Rabbis have also come out opposing it) to ever practice their religion as they see it. I can't get married in a Catholic Church, or a Mormon one, because they have the freedom (as they should) to say no to me as someone who doesn't share enough of their views. Since they can say "no" to me, other religions should be "allowed to say yes" according to their own convictions.

As I see it, this is an issue about the rights of individuals to be self-determining - in their lovelives, and even in the freedom of religion. It's the State's job to protect both of these liberties.

Jim, no one is asking you to chose between God and the Constitution. There are many different religions in the United States with conflicting sets of beliefs. So it just makes sense to separate church and state. However, the real issue is does God condemn homosexuality or is it men that do? God created homosexuals. Regarding the Bible, there are many things in the Bible that at one time or another were condemned, for example the eating of pork. In the Old Testament you can read where the killing of innocent victims of war, the burning of crops etc. was sanctioned by God. Jesus changed all that. Now is the time for Jesus to change your heart and mind with respect to gays and show respect for them and their right to marry the person they love. This is indeed a moral issue and I ask you to be on the side of a compassionate and loving Jesus.

Personal contacts with homosexuals both in civilian life and in the military, and the fact that one man having anal intercourse with another man just turns my stomache. That's just my personal feeling though. If you feel it is fine and natural, that's your personal feeling.

Jim, if you don't like it, then YOU shouldn't do it...that is a very simple concept. Live your life, and let others live their's.

In all honesty, personal contact with many people turns my stomach, but I still think they should have the right to marry whomever they choose. My feelings have (and should have) little to do with others' civil rights.

I don't find others' sex lives (of whatever sort) to turn my stomach, but that's probably because I just tend not to imagine others' sex acts. If I did, I'd be grossed out quite a bit. (I'm sure to feel disgusted at the thought of my parents with each other if I thought too much about it - yuck!) Others' sex acts just really aren't my thing, so my mind just doesn't go there and it's probably the way it should be. (Maybe God doesn't even want us imagining others' sexual acts.) That might be something you could work on?

@Jim.. Well, I've had personal and professional contact with shrimp after I worked in a seafood restaurant, so I'm an expert. I can say without a doubt that the thought of someone eating shrimp turns MY stomach.

Oh snap! The Bible specifically says that eating shrimp is an abomination! I am going to wage a campaign to start limiting the rights of everyone who eats shrimp!

What's that? I don't have your support? Yes, you liking shrimp does not affect my life in any way, shape or form, but so what? It turns MY stomach, so YOU shouldn't be afforded the same rights that the rest of us are afforded. I've got God and the Bible on my side. Hallelujah!

Veda, I feel sorry for people that are attracted to other people of the same sex. The Bible speaks of it as the young man points out and offers it's advice. You can't help what you think maybe, but you can help how you act. Here we go now!

Veda that presentation is very one-sided and misleading. Google lists over a dozen critiques of it which make good reading, eg
http://stasisonline.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/homosexual-marriage/

Terry, that pretty well covers it.

The amendment is really an anti-marriage amendment. There were lots of laws on the books that people once defended like poll taxes, slavery, that only men could vote, separate but equal treatment and on and on. Minnesota law discriminates against gay couples. Young people get it. However, there are a lot of people like you that don't see it as discrimination. It is unlikely that Minnesota will approve gay marriage today, but it will happen. Lutherans, Jews, Unitarians, United Church of Christ and many others denominations oppose this amendment, as do a growing number of Catholics. By the way, judges are there to protect minorities from people like yourself that want to deny basic human rights, such as the right to marry the person you love.

This is part of the big lie that this amendment has something to do with the protection of marriage. It really is about one group wanting to discriminate against another group on the basis of their religious beliefs. Thank God for church leaders that are speaking out against this amendment and urging the public to vote NO. Even in the Catholic Church there are advocates for Gays and other minorities that are urging the public to vote NO.

Jeff, I am so sorry for your loss. One can only imagine the pain, and the compounded anger when hearing such insensitive and ignorant comments. Please believe me when I say that there are many more who feel the love for, and loss of your son, than feel that their supposed moral superiority gives them the right to spew their hate and ignorance.

Morality is already legislated and behavior is already dictated by the laws already on the books.

"Yuck" like a five year old. Classic

Who are you to be the moral police? You think its moralistic to call society sick because some agree with gay marriage? If your morals are that it is OK to judge people and their morals, then I guess you got a point. I think its sick that people want to judge people that are doing what comes natural to them. They are not hurting you. Can you explain to me how gays getting married will affect you?

Who are you to be the moral police? You think its moralistic to call society sick because some agree with gay marriage? If your morals are that it is OK to judge people and their morals, then I guess you got a point. I think its sick that people want to judge people that are doing what comes natural to them. They are not hurting you. Can you explain to me how gays getting married will affect you?

A sick society is on in which Spandex is allowed to be sold in any size larger than a medium...

I might ask the same question of you, don't you have any morals. Why do you hate homosexuals so much as to deny them the right to marry the person they love. For heterosexuals, marriage should be between one man and one woman. For gays, that doesn't make sense; it is not the way God made them. Marriage should be between two persons that love each other and want to make that commitment. I also believe the church should bless such marriages.

You don't honestly believe what you say in your first sentence, do you? The rest of your post indicates that you don't.

Nice strawman. In saying that one is on the "right side of history," one does not mean that "the majority agrees with me". The majority view is not necessarily the "right side of history," unless you're a moral relativist of course (which I have to doubt that you are).

You do know how public opinion polls responded to issues of inter-racial marriage at the time that judges decided to allow that - right? I'd still say the judges were on the right side of history then too.

The score is 32-0?

This is not a game.

We are talking about a bigger group of people trying to ensure that a smaller group of people will never have access to certain rights, privileges, and opportunities.

Moral decay?

I too have moral concerns related to the proposed marriage amendment. I believe it is morally inappropriate to oppress others.

I don't think history usually looks well upon those who oppress others either.

When did you leave the Mormon church, Michelle? You claim to be an authority on all things Mormon, including things that supposedly take place in secret (like the temple rituals and oaths made by the "temple mormon" men. It's interesting that the Mormons that I know claim that you haven't a clue what you're talking about and that you're simply spreading hateful bigoted lies directed at a specific group of people. Now I have to decide whether to believe people that I've known for years and who have always been open and honest or believe someone like you. Easy choice.

Um - what Mormon church are you referring to for all of those things, it isn't the one based in Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Mormon church has plenty of things that don't make a lot of sense - as all religions do - so there is no reason to make stuff up - you can actually make poke fun at some of their real beliefs and practices...

Amen. Let's hope that Minnesotans will do the right thing, the moral thing, and rise above partisan politics and the orthodoxy of some religious leaders, and VOTE NO ON THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT.

Thank you Topher.

The reason it turns your stomach is because you are hardwired to feel that way as a heterosexual. It is no different for a homosexual. God made them sexually attractive to persons of their own gender.

You need to understand your "hardwiring" and not let it justify discriminating against gays and their right to marry the person they love.

What you should be concerned about is those that sexual abuse children or their spouses, or what is happening in Africa where the military rapes a woman every 48 seconds in the Congo or where a heterosexual man might be forced into a homosexual act -- this is what much of Scripture was condemning, not two gay persons loving each other.

And yet you wish to vote for a one man, one woman amendment. hmmmm, there's a hypocracy there. Half my family are mormon. I was witness to things young girls should never see. I speak from experience, know many who have fled from my birthplace in Ariz. Populating a man's "celestial palace" in the afterlife as a heavenly whore has never been on my list of goals. Though the LDS are very active in creating the facade of eliminating plural marriage, it is just that, a facade.
Your statements are permeated with personal prejudice rather than actual relationship with the LGBT community. I understand your gut reaction, as you were raised in a time that taught this prejudice at very core levels. I'm hetero, it took some time for me to overcome the same reaction, time spent in engaging the community in conversation while setting my own crap aside. Even if this is beyond you, and I believe for the most rotted with prejudiced at the core levels it is, true maturity and wisdom comes from the knowledge and practice of accepting your right to have those feelings, however not having the right to impose them on anyone.

The reality is that marriage is an institution that exists in the secular world and confers with it a large number of legal, monetary and societal benefits from which there is no reason to exclude a certain group of people.

If a particularly religion does not want to perform same sex marriages that is fine and they should not be required to do so, of course if a church wants to, or if the County wants to, or if you want to fly to Vegas and they do it that should be allowed.

If you want to argue what "should" and "should not" be that can make for a great debate but should not impact what occurs in the real world as things are and as things will be in the future.

Marriage is an act between two persons, witnessed by a third. Marriages can be blessed by churches through the sacrament of marriage. I think that is why in most of the world, government witnesses a marriage or civil union, and churches sanctify it through some service or sacrament. It is too bad that we don't do it that way in the United States. If we did, this would not even be an issue.

Good for you, Ssmmll. I think it's so important to hear the personal experiences of people on this issue, and you illustrate the importance and reality of it so well. I read this, and I think what a source of comfort you must be to your mother and her partner. I hope that society will support you, and them, in November. (I will.)

yup, that is what I am saying. I don't believe in gay marriage and never will. I don't care what liberals think of my decision. I have no desire to support their agendas.

Bob, as a professed Catholic, maybe you could help me out by explaining what the word "Effeminate" means as found in 1 Corinthians chapter 6 verse nine.

Jim, do you ever get all the way to verse eleven? I say that you cannot preach about one issue in the bible with any authority or credibility, unless you are following all the rules/laws of the bible, as I stated above...this is the only hypocrisy here.

Jim there are many statements in the Bible that can be taken out of context. Have you every heard of the expression "bible bullet?" I am not asking you to accept my beliefs, but simply to note that Jesus never condemned homosexuality, that the Bible condemns a lot of things that we no longer judge evil, such as eating pork, and that the Bible affirms some things we no longer view as acceptable, such as slavery or how we treat our enemy. I am not accusing you of being a hypocrite. There are many Christians and non-Christians that believe homosexuality is morally wrong. We just need to look at Jesus and see that he preached love and compassion. We also need to know that our understanding of things change over time, e.g. that the earth was the center of the solar system or that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. With this new knowledge, we have a moral responsibility to be remember what Jesus said, was man made for the Sabbath or the Sabbath for man. Listen to religious leaders like Lowell Erdahl tell how his beliefs have evolved over time. I think God has given you the same capacity to change and to understand why we should vote NO on the marriage amendment.

"None of the Bible's authors ever met Jesus"

Except for John, Peter, Paul on the road to Damascus and probably James and Jude.

So, what you are saying is that Jesus justifies fornication, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers, and extortionists and also sanctifies these acts? I'm beginning to believe what my heterosexual Father told me long ago when he said "You can't deal with insanity." You make no sense what-soever. Good luck at the polls. I guess you know which way I am voteing.

no it isn't. it is about a small number of people wanting the rest of society to accept their lifestyle. I predict the amendment will pass here just as it has in the vast of majority of states which have voted on it. Common sense will win out.

These are the same arguments that people used to defend slavery and to oppose interracial marriages. It took several generations for society to accept that slavery was wrong and that to deny interracial marriages is discrimination. The young people get it. And so it shall be with gay marriage, the ordination of women, and a society that seeks to promote the common good by finding the common ground that unites us all. I may not be able to convince you to vote NO on the Marriage Amendment, but I have faith that God will move us in that direction, to a society that lives up to the beatitudes.

Bob, I will certainly be voting no, but still worry about others who use a few bible versus as an excuse, because they find homosexual love making unacceptable. I think they are looking at this entirely wrong....using bible passages to justify their position, instead of looking at the overall theme (love one another) of the New Testament. But, I accept that they are entitled to their opinions, I only wish they could open their minds just a tiny bit.

I recently had an exchange with a wise woman here (I am sure you have seen her posts), who said that homosexuals will only be fully accepted and embraced after an entire generation dies off. I find this sad on several levels, but I also accept it as truth.

OK, then Peter, John, James and Jude.

It is widely accepted among Bible scholars that the above mentioned books were indeed authored by those they are attributed to.

For those who are claiming that Jesus never condemned homosexual behavior as sin you are deluding yourselves. If the Bible is what is claims to be, the inspired Word of God, and Jesus is who he claims to be, God in human flesh, then every time sin is condemned in the Bible it is Jesus doing the condemning. Homosexual behavior is spoken of as sin numerous times in the Old and New Testaments.

You can deny the authority of the Bible or you can accept it for what it claims to be, the inerrant Word of God. You can't do both. To cherry pick the passages about love and then ignore the fact that Jesus also set the standards for righteous living is disingenuous at best.

For those here who pick one sin as being more "sinful" than others, the Bible says this: "Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." and "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?".

You might want to take a look in the mirror.

Get government out of marriage completely. Problem solved!

Markus, how would you suggest we "get government out of marriage completely"? Don't get me wrong, I understand your Libertarian stance, but how exactly would you accomplish that, ensuring equal rights for all?

My own thoughts on Government and religious events:

Marriage is a religious institution with Government getting involved only to prevent unhealthy couples from tieing the knot and producing offspring that would not be viable.

Since Government no longer does any blood testing prior to issuing a marriage license there is no need for Government to issue a license to allow a couple to marry.

Step 1) Eliminate the marriage license.

Step 2) Scour the lawbooks (including IRS rules) and remove all references to marriage. Tax code can be individual only, no marriage penalty.

Step 3) Remove all references to marital status from Government documents it's none of Governments concern.

Above steps would be a start with additional changes made as needed.

While I reject the idea that marriage is only a religious instution, I am finding that I appreciate some of the Libertarian views, and their deep connection to the Constitution. I am however, skeptical that government would ever go "backward" in the manner you are suggesting.

Susan, so you think Government should sanction marriage?

On what grounds do you feel Government has control over marriage?

Is marriage mentioned in the original constitution?

It's understood there is clear definition of seperation of church and state, if marriage is religious then Government need not be involved in any way, correct?

From personal experiance I know in France they have 2 separate ceremonies, one in church and one in a Government facility. Goofy French. Here we have one ceremony with a Government license required. As if the Government should control who is married. IMHO, Government has a bunch of control freaks working there who love to control others, we don't need it.

I think people that are not religious should be able to get married. I think it would be dangerous to put so much power back in the church's hands. I think marriage is more than just for procreating. If I had my choice, I would prefer the government "try" to apply equal rights to all vs. the churches imposing their beliefs on others....THIS is the separation of church and state.

Sadly, those on the far right are now trying to impose their beliefs on others through legislation, and calling it morals, not beliefs, which is plain old BS....IMHO.

"Markus, how would you suggest we "get government out of marriage completely"?"

The government should view all voluntary associations and contracts as legitimate. Government's functions should be to enforce contracts, not determine what they should be. If two people of the same sex want to associate and contractually bind themselves together, why would that be a problem? Defining it as marriage is an attempt to make it widely socially acceptable, which it never will be. Defining it as marriage is also an attempt to force employers, particularly government employers, to provide "spousal" benefits. Remove those issues from the equation and it simply becomes a contract between two people.

Our rights are individual rights. When the government begins to recognize group rights, the rights of the individual are in jeopardy. That is the problem with this issue, the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC, etc. The 14th amendment ensures equal protection under the law to the individual, not a group.

How to actually implement it? What Jim said would be a good start. Unfortunately, the political will for such an undertaking would require a major shift in political philosophy. It does appear, however, with the popularity of the libertarian movement we could be moving in that direction.

Correct, there would be nothing in Government that would define marriage. There would be NO marriage penalty in tax law etc.

The only marriage would be implemented in a church. The Government would not attempt to make anyone equal etc, they have NO CONTROL over marriage.

Of course there may be churches that decide they want to bless a marriage between same sex etc, that would be their choice and Government would have no influence over a church.

Don't ask me if that situation might lead to a war between churches, so be it.

So Jim, you're okay with discrimination in the US? BTW, this would include age discrimination.

Susan,

Think about it this way, There are many events that occur in a church. In fact many churches have activities that many would consider abnormal.

Some are: baptizms, communion, rolling on the floor, sacrificing animals, abusing women and children, worshipping the sun, taking shoes off in church, confessing sins, marrying multiple partners, marrying children, sacrificing women or children, corporal punishment, etc. I'm sure you can make your own list.

In any case these are religious activities with NO Government control, except where some activities are illegal in the US.

None of the legal activities are licensed by the Government. Why does marriage need to be licensed? Like a baptizm, happens all the time with no Government intervention marriage is no different.

Think about it, seperation of church and state applies. If a church wants to marry anyone they can do it, even animals, isn't some group doing that or some other service normally associated with humans?

I don't see how eliminating Government involvement in marriage is discrimination?

Jim, my comment about discrimination was in response to your comment:

"The Government would not attempt to make anyone equal etc".

I think Markus may be explaining it better regarding a contract, or civil union vs a marriage....I can see this, but because most of our law makers are married, this will not change...they will not alllow the tax benefits given to married couples to be taken away, and since that won't happen, then the playing field must be even, with all law abiding adults being able to get legally marry.

Susan,

In the context of my remarks regarding marriage if church functions were not under control in any way of government then government would have nothing to do with church functions. Separation of church and state. A church could marry anyone they please and government would have no control over it.

Isn't that what you are after?

Lawmakers, elected officials, work for the voters. Some work for bigger government and others work to mak government smaller, both mindsets come from DFL and GOP parties. Jessie Ventura eliminated the vehicle emission testing program, everyone saw the need to end that program but Jessie ended it.

I'm beggining to think I'm a libertarian.

Susan you say: "Another problem that I have is the voluntary association....this is where discrimination is the issue. Anyone would be able to discriminate at will, I can not accept that philosophy."

What is meant by your statement? Do you think that all churches should be mandated by government to allow same gender marriage? Do you feel that is a form of discrimination, any church not allowing same gender marriage?

I think you keep missing my point about the churches and marriage. Currently marriage is part of our legal system, it can also be sanctioned by churches. Churches should be able to decide, however they will, who to marry...from a religious standpoint.

From a legal standpoint (taking religion out of it), the government should ensure equal rights for all....but no, not forcing this on churches...two separate issues.

Markus, or another Libertarian can explain voluntary association much better than I can, but here are a couple links for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://www.lp.org/platform

Susan,

Marriage was originally a religious function. Government got involved and should get out of the religious function. Again churches perform many rites that Government has no control over, marriage needs to be another religious rite with NO Government involvement.

Government should have NO control over what a church does unless a crimminal law is broken like assualt etc.

Jim, believe me when I say that I understand what you are saying, but I think you are missing what I am saying...which is that I agree with you! On one level anyway - I don't think government should have any ruling authority over a church. But you also must realize that you are not going to dissolve marriages that are not sanctioned by a church. It is already part of our legal system, it is not going to magically disappear.

Whether it is called marriage, a civil union, or the government just requiring a contract between two people, it will continue to happen, and the government needs to ensure equal rights for all when it comes to these contracts.

Tim, I really like this idea, provided that those with civil unions are given the same rights (benefits) as those who are married. I think this would solve many problems as it seems using the word "marriage" may be why some Christians have a problem with this issue.

As far as why it hasn't been done...I have no idea, maybe because it makes sense, and our government doesn't always like to give common sense a try.

I am not sure how wanting legitimacy, whether in the secular world or religious circles, would be wanting "more" equal rights and benefits than those who are married. I would think that one would be drawn to a church that already accepts who they are...which would not necessarily have been their lifestyle "choice".

"And if the federal government should recognize same-sex marriages, domestic partnerships, civil unions, consensual contracts, or voluntary agreements of homosexual couples for tax, Social Security, and other purposes, then it should likewise recognize similar legal arrangements of heterosexual couples, whether male/male, female/female, or male/female."

"One’s opinion of same-sex relationships – whether wonderful, wholesome, unnatural, or disgusting – has nothing to do with the issue.

Libertarians as individuals may support or oppose the "marriage" or legal arrangements of same-sex couples – just like they may support or oppose the health benefits of Vitamin C or the use of child safety locks – but that doesn’t mean there is a libertarian position on it." Laurence M. Vance

So does this mean you will vote no? This article almost seems to be a lump of contradictions. The government should not be in the marriage business, yet if they are, every one should be treated the same, yet a Libertarian can hold their own personal beliefs on the subject, as the Libertarian party doesn't really have a position...

"just as government may not redefine our rights as individuals, it has no authority to redefine marriage." It has been said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. This is why I also said, and here reiterate, that "marriage has always been and will forever be the union of a man and a woman" and that "anything else is just cohabitation, fornication, civil union, voluntary contract, or domestic partnership, whether it is called a marriage or not."

From a previous article:

"But more importantly, and as I have also argued, the state should get out of the marriage business. Why do governments at every level require a license for people to engage in consensual, peaceful activity? And not only that, in some states there is not only a hefty fee to get a marriage license, but a required waiting period or recommended premarital counseling course. Why do two individuals need the state’s permission to get married? Who knows better if two individuals are fit to be married than the two individuals? If they want advice regarding their union, they can consult their pastor, parents, co-workers, and/or friends. It is none of the state’s business.

Continued...

Marriage predated the state. It needs no protection, regulation, or monitoring by the state to continue its existence."

From the Libertarian platform:

"Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

This all seems pretty succinct.

It all gets back to the right of freedom of association. You should be free to associate with whomever you choose and engage in any behavior you find acceptable as long as all parties are consenting adults and you're not hurting anyone else. Why do we need the government to sanction or approve it? In case you missed it, the author is advocating for the government to mind its own business when it comes to associations and suggesting the government has no authority to redefine marriage.

Supporters of homosexual "marriage" are seeking to re-define the term either to gain wide social acceptance, which will likely never happen, or to gain some sort of benefit (likely monetary). If it were merely philosophical, it's highly unlikely we'd be having this discussion.

Not sure yet how I will vote, but probably a reluctant yes simply because I don't believe the state has the authority to redefine what marriage has been traditionally known as. If I had the chance, I would definitely vote to get the government out of the marriage business altogether.

As always, a thoughtful and informative argument. I agree with your logic, but I have a hard time seeing government getting out of the marriage business. Whether it is acceptance, monetary, or simply wanting to be allowed the same rights as heterosexual married couples (under the law), I think it should be equal, and will vote no.

Hi Al,

Thanks for writing. Let me try to address your concern in a two-fold way:

1) While this issue may not be hyperlocal like a local city council or school board, I also wouldn't deem it "national/international." There is a clear Minnesota tie here, and as such, people in local communities will likely have an interest. Also, this more general post might (and hopefully will) encourage local religious leaders and others to blog on their respective Patch sites, further narrowing the scope.

2) Even with larger issues, we do encourage area residents to blog on their respective Patch sites. So if a St. Louis Park resident wanted to write about the presidential election, for example, on SLP Patch, I'd welcome that.

I hope this addresses your concern, Al.

-Michael Rose, editor of St. Louis Park Patch

Al, to offer another perspective, I thought I'd jump in and give you a different view. I'm Patch's Lakeville editor, and when it comes to content, I chose to run things I deem to be hyperlocal AND I run things of a regional and state nature that I know will resonate with my community. I've been a part of this town for nearly seven years and I know that there are some regional issues—from the Vikings Stadium to this amendment—that will be of interest to the folks here. So when you say that all issues aren't being discussed, I'd disagree and point to each Patch's coverage of everything from this amendment, to the new stadium, to right to work, to the Voter ID amendment, plus all the hyper-local items in between from sports to business.

As for the nature of the coverage: like all things, I think perspective is a matter of whose ox is being gored and where folks stand on an issue.

Down here in Dakota County I cover Congressman John Kline as a matter of routine. I suppose Democrats in this neck of the woods could wonder why I haven't given Mike Obermueller, who is running against him, a whole lot of attention beyond his winning the convention. On the other hand, if John Kline was a major player in a presidential election, I know my community, and those folks in Eagan, Apple Valley and other towns he represents, would have a keen interest in what happened with him and his candidacy, whether that be good or bad, flub or not.

That's just my two cents. Thanks for reading.

In other words, "Patch should be covering what I personally consider 'hot topics' and when I don't agree with what the article says I get very concerned (concerned that my own viewpoint may not be based in facts (typical if I'm a big Fox News viewer) or concerned that others have a different viewpoint from mine....I'm guessing it's one of the two.)" :o)

You can bet that freeing slaves, giving women the vote, giving black people the vote, letting black people ride in the front of the bus, not making 7 year old children work in dangerous factories, allowing mixed race marriage, etc... were all considered by many to be the decay of society, crazy "liberalism" run amok, etc...

For people who decry change they always will say "But this time its different" and they will state many reasons why but when you look back through human history every time there is change people who fight change will say "But this time its different" and will cite many reasons why...

Nothing changes, the fight is always the same, its just different issues that are fought over, but as with issues in the past, eventually gay marriage will happen, people will look around and realize that in fact the country continues on, their lives are not impacted at all, and then a few years later only the most bitter of people who lack enough of life to move on will still be fighting and complaining - and yet the vast majority of people will be asking "Now what was the big deal about that issue again?" and the younger generations will look back and shake their ends in wonder at how people could act so horribly towards another group of people.

I am all for Freedom of Speech and Non-Censorship. It's not a debate, news story, opinion, a comment or fact if you are restricitng people on what they can or can not say.

In reality there are just way to many weak people in this world and we allow people to be weak by protecting them.

Censoring "swearing or cursing" for example, are modes of speech existing in all human languages. They are simply descriptive words to express an emotion, feeling, thought, etc ... I am not "offended" by swearing in a conversation and hate it when an entire comment is censored because of one descriptive word.

Free Speech = Honest Debate