[SmithL]

And as someone from the ELCA, he’s convinced this is about the people who have left, and not the damage that the ELCA has caused.

[Colonel_Flagg]

For the record, I oppose the amendment. From a government perspective (which is the reason for our state constitution), I see marriage as a contract between two consenting adults. Beyond that, let your religion (if any) define it for you; don't use your religion to define it for everyone else.

What a shock. Left-wing stooge refuses to support 3,000 years of social order. Film at 11? Hopefully not.

[pnh102]

Yet given that people and faiths see homosexuality differently, the views expressed are varied. Intended or not, many of them -- regardless of view -- come off as harshly judgmental.

And what about the hateful language from the left that goes to attack the people who support traditional marriage? Or is it only "judgmental" when the right does it?

Personally, I do not believe that the state should be sanctioning any form of personal relationships, as that is the domain of God, but I am so disgusted and put off by the outright hate that I get for holding the religious views that I do about marriage that I'd vote for a this type of amendment just to stick a fork in the eyes of the people who hate on me so much.

[Sherman Logan]

our state will join dozens of others in telling two gay, consenting adults that they are not entitled to the same legal status as two straight, consenting adults.

I am continually astonished by the implication that something is being taken away from these people.

They do not have and never have had this status. That is very different from taking away something.

[rockrr]

I'm writing because I see nothing but bitterness, pain and even hate arising in the next 17 months -- and not going away for a long, long time.

TRANSLATION: "Why don't you just do things my way so as to avoid all this unpleasantness?!"

[capt. norm]

Randy Krebs...sounds more like it was written by Maynard Krebs:

"Gonna find me a little island, somewhere, and settle down."

[kingu]

For the record, I oppose the amendment. From a government perspective (which is the reason for our state constitution), I see marriage as a contract between two consenting adults. Beyond that, let your religion (if any) define it for you; don't use your religion to define it for everyone else.

From a government position, the only interest the state has in marriage is ensuring the continuity of the family through legal recognition of the children of that union. The state has zero interest in anything else having to do with marriage, and most especially, has no need to give a piece of paper to two gays shacking up that reads 'marriage' on it.

The same thing I'd ask this author is the same thing I ask any other activist who wishes to make words lose meaning: If you can change marriage from 'a union of a man and a woman' to 'a union between two people', what is to stop it from being three people, ten people, your donkey, that goldfish over there...

Oh, and the usual come back is that's not going to happen. Right, state governments aren't going to recognize Muslim polygamist marriages? Please, there's already exceptions in Canadian law to recognize it, how long until it comes here?

[rhema]

Randy Krebs: "While I do admire these folks for their commitment to their beliefs, I respectfully ask two questions. How is their decision not a judgment on the people with whom they had worshipped? And what did they gain by leaving?"

Two forthright answers:

1. No, it's a judgment on the ELCA's blatant bowdlerization of the Bible.

2. Respite for their souls from apostasy. "Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them. 18For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting." [Rom. 16:17-18]

[Amberdawn]

He states that “faiths see homosexual marriage differently”. Just what religions have ever sanctioned gay marriage?

[jonascord]

The last thing the Fairy Queens want is to let the peasants express their desires. They prefer to rule by dictat.

[RJL]

...or our state will join dozens of others in telling two gay, consenting adults that they are not entitled to the same legal status as two straight, consenting adults.

A lie purposely told. They have the exact same rights as anyone, but they want more rights than others.

[tlb]

>>> With marriage amendment, no one wins

That’s the truth though not so much for the reasons cited. The issue will ultimately be decided not in state legislative initiatives like this, but in the US Supreme Court. Most probably in the Prop 8 appeal already working its way up in the courts.

If the court rules that gay marriage is a right, initiatives like this will be voided as being contrary to the federal constitution. The fight will have been for nothing.

If on the other hand the court rules that there is no guaranteed right to gay marriage, current Minnesota doesn’t permit such anyway. So again nothing is really gained.

The political capital to fight on this issue could be more profitably spent on more immediate and lasting issues. Budgets, unions, etc.

[longtermmemmory]

religion has NOTHING to do with this.

society rewards the institution not the individual.

homosexual conduct is only about recreational sex and how an INDIVIDUAL achieves gratification. Marriage is about an institution which benefits the future of society.

the author must be a flamer because they simple do not get it. homosexual conduct produces zero benefits for society, it only produces costs.

it is not about consent to recreate with adults, it is how to adults will best model the production of offspring for society. homosexuals engaging in the chosen recreational conduct do not produce offspring. They can only buy or recruit offspring.

this amendment is a benefit to society.

the author is just pushing the fiction of “born that way” (ala lady gaga’s song where he sings born that way)