Marriage amendment may pass, but arguments don’t hold upPublished 8:26am Monday, May 21, 2012 Updated 10:32am Monday, May 21, 2012
So we had some complaints about a story from last week about those representing Minnesotans for Marriage, in support of the constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Essentially the complaints were that the article contained no “counterpoint,” that made the argument for voting no.
We hope that the article we ran Wednesday (Gay marriage advocates to hold fundraiser in FF) balanced our coverage.
It is important that our news coverage be balanced, giving both sides the opportunity to state their case.
My opinion regarding the amendment, howeer, does not. As I have written in this column before, I am absolutely opposed to the amendment. I listened carefully to the arguments the Minnesotans for Marriage representatives made, and believe they can be summed up as follows:
The majority of people are opposed to gay marriage. History shows that the majority at one time were in favor of slavery, the right of women to vote and “separate but equal.” A republic, and that’s what we are, is supposed to protect the rights of minorities and minority opinion.
The best families are ones with a mother and father, and that a two-parent family with two females or two males will be harmful to children. Of course, many gay couples already have children by one way or another, so the toothpaste is already out of that tube. And considering the number of screwed-up families right now without allowing gay marriage, it was hard for me not to crack up when they made that argument.
By allowing gay marriage, the government at the same time will require schools and other public institutions to promote the idea that gay marriage is OK, thus forcing a belief upon those who do not agree with it. In a country based on the separation of church and state, I find it difficult to believe that such a scenario would happen here.
You can couch it in any way you want, but the “definition of marriage” amendment does nothing other than limit the rights of our fellow residents.
That said, the “defining marriage” amendment has passed in essentially every state where the vote has been taken. People vote for it, I believe, out of fear and a lack of understanding. But they vote in favor of it. The majority of Minnesotans likely will vote in favor of it as well.
Those trying to justify the amendment are wasting their breath.
n n n
This year, I have decided to get out of the rat race.
Well, at least I’m going to avoid being in “race” mode while running in the rat race known as the Fargo Half Marathon.
Those who are familiar with running long-distance races and are in it to set personal records know the drill. You have a number in mind that would get you your personal best. You break it down into a per-mile pace, set up your handheld timing device (or write it on your arm) and then push like daylights during the race to make it.
That attitude has done me more harm than good in the past few races. Considering that my knees have been giving me trouble and limited my training, and it was supposed to be hot and windy Saturday, I decided I would ditch the watch, and just run.
Running is supposed to be fun right? I guess we’ll see what happens. You can check my time on the sports page if interested (unless I didn’t finish, which is certainly possible.)
Joel Myhre is The Journal’s publisher. E-mail him at email@example.com