Patch Readers Respond to Passage of Gay Marriage Bill

Gov. Mark Dayton’s signature Tuesday didn’t end the heated debate around same-sex marriage.

Whatever side of the debate you fall on, there’s no denying that this week’s passage of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage was a historical moment. Minnesota became just the 12th state to sanction gay marriage when Gov. Mark Dayton signed the bill Tuesday.

Patch readers quickly wrote in to share their thoughts on the moment.

Eagan Patch reader Kathi Malone echoed the view of legislators who voted yes in seeing same-sex marriage as a civil right:

I am so happy that finally gay people will be able to have the civil right to marry. This is truly an American vote for freedom.
I applaud Sen Clausen and all other legislators who voted for this historical bill.

James N added:

Thank you Senator Carlson and the entire MN legislature for extending marriage rights to everyone living in MN. Now 1000s of same gender couples and families with children will be valued and have equal legal protection under the law. That is what family values is all about.

Roseville Patch reader Dale Howey quipped:

I am thankful that the senate had more sense on this than on gun regulation.

But Eagan Patch reader TurningPoint thought same-sex marriage was an example of “regressive” policy:

This bill which legalizes gays to marry is another symptom of a declining culture and not to be mistaken as progressive. Like most things in the liberal DFL party it is really regressive. As the "far left" has hijacked the Democratic party, the few gay activist have tried to mainstream deviant behavior and I guess they have succeeded. Part of the gay effort has been to redefine "tolerance" which used to mean ignoring particular behavior and not demonstrating bigotry or prejudice. Now the definition seems to be embrace and help promote the behavior other wise you are labeled a bigot or prejudicial. This bill is divisive and it accentuates the split between peoples in the U.S. and now MN. The whole DFL party is about division of peoples and control and this is just another example. The party has done a masterful job with "political correctness" and "social engineering" to weaken this country.

Apple Valley Rosemount Patch reader Mark Opseth said legislation can’t change the true definition of marriage:

So call them civil unions, not marriages. Marriage has already been defined (by God) and it has been defined this way for centuries.

Gays don't just want tolerance, they want all-out acceptance. So the next phase is to silence churches and Christians, calling it hate speech if anyone speaks out against homosexuality, which is already taking place in Canada and Europe. Until then, people will resort to name-calling and mischaracterizations (like Sen. Hall living in fear).

Southwest Minneapolis Patch reader Southwest Dad thought it wouldn’t take long for acceptance of same-sex marriage to be the norm:

As one of the tweets in the article says, what is going to happen now is - nothing. In much less than a year, marriage for all will be the default position of our society. Everyone will simply move on, live our lives, practice (or not) religion as we always have. Things will be the same...except for that group in our state who has finally achieved equality, and who deserve to be ecstatic today. Congrats and thanks to Senator Dibble and all of the elected officials and others who made this happen.

Minnetonka Patch reader Jonathan Dough predicted that the measure would drive up the cost of social services:

Ya know. This is still The United States of America. We are allowed to have differing opinions. While I don't agree with this legislation, I am willing to accept it as state law and move on. I am sure Senator Hann would agree. How will it affect me in a negative way? I will now be paying more. Same sex couples and their "children" are going to be loading up on social services and welfare at my expense. I estimate this change in state law will cost me an additional $750 per year.

But another Minnetonka Patch reader, Krista Krahn, was quick to respond:

Actually, that's the opposite. Couples living together but NOT married can have one person on welfare while the other works. Not so with married couples. If you want to know numbers, use facts. Also, as it's been shown again and again, LGBT individuals usually have their finances in order moreso than the average American. So you should be glad they live in your area to pay for roads and schools. http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/06/pf/gay-money/index.html

Many critics of the bill worried that business owners with religious objections would be forced serve gay couples. St. Michael Patch reader 1anthropos was one of those:

And yet there are existing law suits in several states against business owners who don't believe that same-sex marriage is morally right and refuse to provide their services to same-sex couples. Senator Kiffmeyer is absolutely correct and it will only be a matter of time before our 1st amendment rights are ignored if we oppose same-sex marriage. However, the double standard prevails as those who believe same-sex marriage is their right will have no problem shoving their opinions down the throats of anyone who doesn't agree with them. It is a sad day in Minnesota.

But after Sen. Warren Limmer worried about similar issues, Maple Grove Patch reader Derrick Berg had this to say:

Wow. I am speechless. Sad.

What do you think about the new law? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

Orono July 04, 2013 at 05:22 PM
Dan said: "I too, am disappointed." Yawn. Dan, you are the one who lacks the ability to see anything but you point of view. Mike B has a different point than you. You disagree with his perspective. There are more people who agree with Mike B in this country than there are that are gay. You dont have to accept his perspective but, it doesnt automatically make his point evil or whatever label you choose to use. Pretend you were the CEO of Chick fil a and you declared your chicken the best hands down. But Mike B the CEO at KFC also claims his chicken is the best. Neither of you are 100% correct. Neither of you are willing to bend on your position and accept that the others chicken is even slightly pleasing to the taste. Perfectly acceptable. However, instead of simply sticking to your position, you also are name calling Mike B. Not only does his chicken taste terrible, he is an evil chicken maker that rips the head of kittens.
Susan July 04, 2013 at 05:52 PM
Orono, I've not found this to be the case with Mike H., in fact, quite the opposite, but we are all entitled to our opinions, I just didn't think you would continue with the "same old" when it came to those you see as liberals. You are right though, I came late to the party and did not read all the comments, I only went back about one hundred. To the joy of many, I have been commenting less often unless I see a new person, with a new perspective on the conversation--the regulars already have a good idea of where we all stand on the issues. I will also jump in when seeing those continuing to promote the disingenuous idea that being gay is a choice or that human sexuality can be defined as simply a behavior. BTW, I actually like your (sarcastic) description of Dan's description of Mike B. much better than the original, but I don't think even Mike B. would stoop so low. HAPPY FOURTH!!
Dan Johnson July 04, 2013 at 05:56 PM
Orono. His position is that I should be arrested and imprisoned. I am not making any similar claim for him. These are two very different positions. They are not opposite sides of the same coin. Not two kinds of chicken.----- Nor have I used any of the dehumanizing pejoratives he employs to describe me, toward him. I simply point out the well documented scientific and historical fact, his prejudice and desire to use the law to discriminate results in needless suffering and death, and he has no argument on the merits to support the harm he would like to impose by law.
Joyce July 04, 2013 at 06:01 PM
Orono wrote: 'Mike B has a different point than you. You disagree with his perspective. There are more people who agree with Mike B in this country than there are that are gay. You dont have to accept his perspective but, it doesnt automatically make his point evil or whatever label you choose to use.' The difference, Orono, is that Mike B. advocates policies which cause harm to millions of Americans by denying them their constitutionally guaranteed equal rights. I would not call Mike B.'s opinions evil - evil as a concept is too religiously charged - but I would most certainly call them harmful.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »