Reasons Steele Countians should vote yes on the Marriage Amendment - Owatonna MN: Letters

  • Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard

Reasons Steele Countians should vote yes on the Marriage Amendment

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, September 29, 2012 10:31 am | Updated: 9:53 am, Mon Oct 1, 2012.

To the editor:

I will vote YES on the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment on Nov. 6.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



You must login to view the full content on this page.

© 2015 All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thank you for reading 15 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 15 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 507-333-3111. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?



More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Bucksnort posted at 10:01 pm on Sat, Oct 6, 2012.

    Bucksnort Posts: 47

    Reasons to vote Yes would include the continued support of:

    Hatred, in general
    Mindless FEAR!!!!
    Religious Zealotry
    False Idol Worship (oops the Catholics already do that)
    Lies, and made up facts.
    And an EMBARRASSING LEGACY for the children of Minnesota.

    If you just moved here or woke up after 30 years in a coma, Minnesota is a progressive state. If you don't like it, move to one of the 49 states that voted for Reagan instead of Mondale in 1984. Find your way out to that big road with the blue sign that says I-35 and stick your thumb out pointing south.....though you may have to go a ways. Iowa allows gay marriage. What happened to an all loving God?

  • pete5383 posted at 12:14 pm on Sat, Oct 6, 2012.

    pete5383 Posts: 1

    -- For the first thousands of years of humanity, marriage was based around polygamy and tribal food sharing arrangements. For the next 1500 years, marriage was a way to ensure inheritance and wealth transfers, mostly by selling daughters. About 200 years ago, it became an institution that allowed to people of the same race, and different gender, to come together in love. In the last 50 years, we dropped the racial restriction. in the next 50 years, we will drop the gender restriction. Marriage changes constantly, and if you think it has always been "one man, one woman, for love", you're just flat wrong.

    -- You say you want Minnesotans to decide the law, but this amendment takes away democratic powers from the future. Doesn't that concern you? Also, isn't it the courts job to strike down laws that violate the constitution?

    -- Are you in favor of banning marriage for barren couples, elderly couples, or even couples that don't want children? What do you say about the fact that studies consistently show children are raised as well, or better, by monogamous same-sex couples when compared to opposite-sex couples?

    -- The state said that you could vote if you were over the age of 21. Then, they changed the age to 18. The government adjusts requirements all the time.

    -- Were you equal outraged when the state was "forced to promote" racial-less marriages? If a teacher told a child they could marry anyone they wanted, no matter if they were black or white, would that upset you?
    Also, you claim all these terrible things are happening in other states...can you provide an instance of a church being forced to marry gays? Or a fine for not "accommodating same-sex couples"? When you make accusations like this, you should remember; we live in the time of Google, where lies are subject to almost instantaneous checking. You're private beliefs about what is happening in other states doesn't make them true, and any search engine would tell you that.

    You should just come out and say "I don't like gay people; they make me uncomfortable." At least then you'd be honest.

  • Meg posted at 9:32 am on Sat, Oct 6, 2012.

    Meg Posts: 20

  • BillJ posted at 4:56 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.

    BillJ Posts: 1

    His argument actually helps us instead.

    Yes, the state does regulate driver's licensing. Yes, the state does regulate civil marriage licensing. Operative phrase in both cases: the state. Not the church. Not the personal whims of a certain faith view. Not popularity contests. Not flawed arguments about reproduction and child rearing. But the state.

    Is a team, largely led by Catholics, waging a campaign wherein they pit personal theology against the civil licensing of certain, otherwise qualified drivers?

    Is this team, in its fury to keep certain citizens unlicensed, bringing up arguments about ancillary elements like whether or not the car has satellite radio or chooses to park in a garage?

    Is this effort still trafficking in fear rhetoric about what more cars on the road will supposedly do to the sanctity of the American family, even thought legally licensed counterparts in other states have already belied their hyperbole?

    Is it even okay to vote on the civil licensing rights of a minority population of drivers, subjecting deserved freedoms to majority tyranny?

    Within the obvious and resounding "NO!" that logically follows all of the above queries lies the problem with both the letter-writer's supposedly solid talking point and his larger "protect marriage" cause.

  • Meg posted at 2:43 pm on Wed, Oct 3, 2012.

    Meg Posts: 20

    Joe, We will stand with you on voting "Yes". I am glad you pointed out other countries as why we should vote"yes", the vote "no" folks(some of them) have used other countries as why we should vote "no". After much debate with friends and family on this I have learned something. Those who have already made up their mind on which way they will vote. For the most part wont change, its the ones who are yet undecided and still sifting thought the Mountains of information on both sides before they vote. I am glad you have pointed out that States that have voted on a constitutional amendment to their State has passed. For those who think this will bring more Gov involvement to your lives?? I don't see it, I also can't see the future. This is and always has been about more then two same sex adults wanting to be in a long term relationship. I draw my conclusion on that the most of the people voting "no" are either in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex or married. When you look at the Majority of the population less then 3% is declared they are Homosexual. For the Vote "no" what does what calender year it is have any relevance to how we should vote.

  • slOwatonnan posted at 6:45 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    slOwatonnan Posts: 247

    Kluwe sums it up so well.

  • slOwatonnan posted at 6:44 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    slOwatonnan Posts: 247

    So much nonsense so little time.

  • Thinking posted at 1:46 pm on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    Thinking Posts: 80

    Thanks Joe. I will also vote yes. People can say, "We need freedom and justice for all". Freedom for or from what? Freedom to keep watering down this and that?

    I want to be part of a country with guts. I really prefer men to act like men and women to act like women. I want my children and grandchildlren to see and know there is a difference. It is getting more and more difficult to tell some men and some women apart. In looks and in actions. God said, "It is not good for a man to be alone, I will make him a helper. God made a woman and brought her unto the man." Genesis 2:18 & 22. She was a woman, not another man!

    I believe in the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible said HE DOES NOT CHANGE! and He said HIS WORD DOES NOT CHANGE! Some of the so called Christian churches have become gutless and they have insulted God and His word by ripping out sections of the Bible and they are now saying "anything goes". If some of you don't like to obey the Bible and live the way it is obviously natural and commanded in God's word, well that is too bad for you. But don't think I and some others like me are going too be gutless, watered down, push overs. Being fair and sweet is very nice. But no way am I going to ignore God's laws and the natural physical laws on how our bodies are created. And I am going to resist as much as I can this promotion of what is unnatural as I want nothing to do with it and I don't want it in the eyes of my loved ones that I am trying to bring up in the way of the Lord Jesus Christ. Love - YES. Forgive - Yes. But to vote to disobey God? - NO NO NO! and NO! Fair is fair but disobeying God and nature is not fair. God is first and being whimps and acting like gutless people saying we got to be fair - I don't give a rip. If one does not line up under God's laws then it does not matter and it does not count. If one thinks it is not fair - so what. GOD IS FIRST!

  • slOwatonnan posted at 8:13 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    slOwatonnan Posts: 247

    Momma! Donkey Punch called me a name!

  • slOwatonnan posted at 8:12 am on Mon, Oct 1, 2012.

    slOwatonnan Posts: 247

    Because it's a relatively new phenomenon right? *rolls eyes*

  • itsmeuc posted at 11:46 pm on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    itsmeuc Posts: 632

    This amendment really solves nothing. Right now in our state, gays are not allowed to marry. Why change a whole founding document, our state constitution, that basically will say the same as the laws already on the books?

    I don't like the idea of changing our state constitution willy-nilly. The legislature needs to go to work on changing the law instead of making a permanent change in our constitution. I believe in legal equal rights for everyone. These "side social issues" deflect from the real problems we have in this state and country.

    That is why I am voting NO.

  • Sucker Punch posted at 12:20 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    Sucker Punch Posts: 67

    They couldn't have imagined this issue when the pledge was written.

  • Sucker Punch posted at 12:12 am on Sun, Sep 30, 2012.

    Sucker Punch Posts: 67

    Push "abnormal" all you want. Cool aide drinker.

  • alleycat posted at 6:42 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    alleycat Posts: 237

    If this does pass and is later challenged in court, would the tax payers of the state then be required to defend this with their tax dollars? I would not want my tax dollars wasted on defending this.

  • Special Ed posted at 5:17 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    Special Ed Posts: 1032

    I believe Michigan defines marriage as one man, his sister, three chickens and a goat.
    "Passage of the amendment ensures the people of Minnesota themselves, and not activist judges or politicians, will decide how our state will define marriage in the future." NO, passage of the amendment means that YOU get to decide for the rest of Minnesota. What's the difference between an "activist" judge or politician and an "activist" church member? An activist is an activist. Aren't judges to interpret and apply the law and politicians to create it? How does government work in your world?
    NOWHERE in any marital law in America that I've ever heard of does it require or even imply that kids are a result, requirement or even a part of marriage. The laws only address the legal joining of two adults (regardless of how 'adults' is defined or interpreted).
    "The state has the right and duty to regulate who can marry because society has a vested interest in the welfare of children and the stability of families. If the state can regulate who should have a driver's license, surely it should regulate who can marry (e.g., only those over a certain age, not from the same family, and, yes, only two people of the opposite gender).
    So, you are saying that the state knows best as long as it coincides with your incredibly narrow set of standards? You honestly believe that a driver's license is comparable to this? If that's the case, then the state should have the authority to follow China's example and be allowed to determine not only who can marry but who can reproduce and how many of each gender your remarkably heterosexual and legally defined couples can produce during their state defined marriages.
    This is very interesting because it comes from someone who is staunchly conservative and is certain to scream "socialist!" at every liberal, progressive or Democratic standard. Amazing example of hypocrisy.
    Why would the government have any say in who the churches can rent out their reception halls to? Have you lost your mind?
    This measure HAS to be defeated if for no other reason than allow us to move on to a few trivial things facing this country right now: The national debt, the pending second wave of the recession, the grossly under reported unemployment rate and how to get this country back on track.

  • 2young2die posted at 4:40 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    2young2die Posts: 398

    Where did you get your talking points from? It's darn close to a brochure I found in my door.

  • slOwatonnan posted at 2:03 pm on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    slOwatonnan Posts: 247

    Time to get out of the house more Joe. Gays and lesbians are NOT the people you think they are. They are just like you. The difference is that YOU deem it necessary to invade THEIR bedroom. So much for liberty and freedom.

    BTW, how does a business "accommodate same-sex couples"? Hilarious and ridiculous simultaneously!

  • alleycat posted at 11:37 am on Sat, Sep 29, 2012.

    alleycat Posts: 237

    I keep thinking about the last phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance " with liberty and justice for ALL"

    Sorry Joe but I will be voting no.


Online poll


Reader ToolBox

Forms, Contests and Special Content

Owatonna Peoples Press Forms

Contact Us


Ron Ensley, Editor and Publisher, 507-444-2367,


Debbie Ensley, Advertising Director, 507-444-2386,

Betty Frost, Advertising Assistant, 507-444-2389,

Shawnea Hull, Advertising Consultant, 507-444-2385,

Steve Arnold,  Advertising Consultant, 507-444-2383,

Alisha Davidson, Advertising Consultant, 507-444-2388,

Jennifer Sorenson, Advertising Consultant, 507-444-2395,

Bonnie Nguyen, Classified Ad-Visor, 507-444-2397,

Danielle Schmitz, Classified Ad-Visor, 507-444-2396,

Tawn Eikel, Digital Media Sales Specialist, 507-444-2398,


Carol Harvey, Circulation Manager, 507-444-1561,

Crystal Grovdahl, District Manager, 507-444-2362,

Melissa Johnston, District Manager, 507-444-2361,


Jeffrey Jackson, Managing Editor, 507-444-2371,

Tony Borreson, Chief Copy Desk Editor, 507-444-2373,

Kelli Lageson, Copy Desk/Paginator, 507-444-2377,

Ashley Stewart, Reporter, 507-444-2378,

Matt Hudson, Reporter, 507-44-2372,

Editorial Assistant, 507-444-2379,

Obituary Notices, 507-444-2370,

Kaleb Roedel, Sports Editor, 507-444-2374,

Jon Weisbrod, Sports Reporter, 507-444-2374,

Samantha Schwanke, Editorial Assistant, 507-444-2379,

Kim Hyatt, 507-444-2376,


Kelly Kubista, Creative Services Supervisor, 507-444-2391,

Jenine Kubista, print/web ad design, 507-444-2390,

Naomi Kissling, print/web ad designer, 507-837-5452,

Nicole Gilmore, print/web ad designer, 507-444-1565,

Keeley Krebsbach, print/web ad designer, 507-444-1564

Lauren Barber, Print/ Web Designer, 507-444-1563,


Dianna Schmidt, Bookkepper, 507-444-2365,

Paula Engebretson, Bookkeeper, 507-444-2364,

The Owatonna People's Press is published daily Tuesday-Saturday.

Business hours are 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Phone: (507) 451-2840

Fax: (507) 444-2382

Mail: 135 W. Pearl St.

Owatonna, MN 55060

Sponsored Links

5,000 Guns at Ahlman's

Browning products on sale for Black Friday

Looking for good holiday ideas?

Your local Hy-Vee has them. Click here to see

Follow us on Facebook