Fellow Cotholic and Woodbury resident here. I just want to even out the Catholic vote and say vote yes to the amendment. I have discussed this issue with my Deacon and Priest and both agree that this amendment should be passed.

The more opinions the better.
We didn't ask the Priest for his opinion on 'yes' or 'no' on the Amendment. My colleague just asked a spur-of-the-moment question, which the Priest - long a Pastor at various places - answered, without any hesitation.
But what we do know, from long active lives in the Church, is that Catholic clergy are by no means of one mind on the issue, and many are afraid to say anything contrary to the official line of the Archbishop. I doubt you could even do a valid opinion survey of clergy about the question. Succinctly, from the standpoint of people in the pews of the Catholic Church (I'm not even considering here the two-thirds of Catholics who no longer come to church on any particular Sunday), the church opinion is divided and mostly what we hear about the issue is from Archdiocesan news releases.

And another Catholic voting no. I want my church out of politics, and politics out of my religion.

Dick's article was pretty good until you get to the end and he drops in the "mean spirited" comment which is predictable for Dicks articles.

Yes Dick; anyone who disagrees with you (and all Liberals positions) is a mean spirited racist biggotted homophobe.

Therefore I propose a ban on all new words while we try to make all existing words mean something new in an attempt to help people feel "included". Anyone thinking that just giving same sex couples the same rights as married couples and calling it a civil union was a perfectly acceptable solution should immediately report to the nearest Liberal Re-Education Center...... (formerly known as a public school until I changed the word)..

I am Catholic and voting No because of my faith not in spite of it. Catholics are encouraged to listen to the spirit and follow their consciences.

Jesus never spoke of same sex marriage, but did leave us these words:
"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."
Well, my neighbor and many more Minnesotans are gay and I don't want our constitution to exclude them with the addition of this hateful unnecessary amendment.
This Catholic is following her conscience, standing on the side of love, and voting NO!

Ha ha the fake Catholics are funny on this site . Find a new religion and stop hijacking mine.

Thanks for mocking my religion Mike. I guess tolerance only works in one direction. #doublestandard

Once again a liberal (Beth Ann) refers to the amendment as "hateful".... i.e. unless you agree with her you are a HATER!

Even funnier is STW's comment that states "I want my church out of politics, and politics out of my religion."........ except of course when it means a Politician (politics) telling her Pastor (religion) that the Pastor must go against the beliefs of his church and marry a same sex couple under penalty of laws and fines.

So predictable....

How am I mocking "YOUR" religion? I'm just glad you clarified it was yours.

Right... Mike you had a rough night. You better go to bed. You have a long day tomorrow bashing people's religious beliefs.

Please quote my bashing. Quit acting like a victim here.

Beth-Ann they already can't marry the person they love.
The amendment has nothing to do with it.
The amendment simply puts the eventual decision in the hands of the people rather than the courts or politicians.

Would you support a civil union if it granted same sex couples EVERY RIGHT a married couple has?

Are you aware there are no civil unions allowed in Minnesota either?

If you would NOT support a civil union rather than a marriage for a same sexed couple, please state why not (assuming the civil union would bestow all the same rights that a marriage bestows.

KS, would you accept a civil union for your most personal cherished relationship? If it's good enough for you, then it is good enough for a civil relationship between our fellow citizens who happen to be gay. If it's not good enough for you, it's not good enough for them.
You might enjoy the following clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8F0XFp9H8A&feature=BFa&list=PLVo18XcWcTZU8-Ps1p4ZzOTF8dtCK7_Vj

Beth yes I would accept a civil union which would bestow all the same rights enjoyed by married couples before I would attempt to change the definition of the term millions of people have come to know as defining their opposite sex union.

How do you feel about the French deciding the words mom and dad will no longer be used? They are now referring to them as parent 1 and parent 2 (which will allow for parent 3, 4, 5 and so on) ... seems pretty silly doesn't it?

By the way... I wonder if parent 2 in a certain relationship is a female and parent 2 in another same sex relationship happens to be a male, will the parent 2 in the first example be offended that they are designated as parent 2 and not parent 1?

KS Feel free to petition the legislature for civil unions for all couples wishing to share their happily ever afters together. As soon as you change your status and all the other laws so that civil unions are just like marriage, then I am sure Minnesota's gay couples will be right behind you at the courthouse to be unioned. I think it may be simpler to keep marriage out of the constitution (It's been working just fine that way for 150 years) and to vote NO on Tuesday. Then we can continue the statewide dialogue with our legislature and decide together what comes next.

Unfortunately the term marriage already has a definition which is why its incumbent on your side to change it.

Is there something you don't like about the eventual decision being decided by the majority of your fellow citizens rather than judicial activists or politicians seeking to curry favor?

Absolutely! Tyranny of the majority is not a part of this country's heritage. The judicial branch exists for several reasons one of them is to protect the rights of the minority. We do not govern by plebiscite in this country and amendments are a pretty ham-handed tool for making simple civil laws.

Clearly we won't agree. No point in continuing.

"Your vote NO on Tuesday will NOT make gay marriage legal. It will NOT force your church to perform gay weddings. It will NOT cause your hetero marriage to fall apart. It will NOT force schools to teach children about "being gay". And it will NOT make it okay for a man to marry 12 women. And nothing will EVER make it OK for me to marry my dog or you to marry your horse.

Your YES vote, however, will forever codify discrimination into the state constitution and pave the way for further erosion of your rights. It's a step backwards in time --- to when it was illegal for inter-racial couples to marry. To when it was illegal for women to vote. To when it was legal to own slaves. We've been there, done that as a society. We should be forever progressing forward as a nation.

If your reason for voting YES is because of your religion, I urge you to set that aside because we can't write OUR religion into the constitution unless we're willing to do it for EVERYONE. And I pledge that I will fully respect your right as a religious person to only perform rites for people who ascribe to your particular dogma. I only hope that your beliefs allow for the same tolerance and acceptance."

Funny it's not the Right advocating for the abolishing of the electoral college..it's the Left.
And let's not forget having Obamacare rammed down our throats via reconcilliation against the will of 64% of the people who thought the issue ended when Scott Brown was elected but later realized the Dems would do ANYTHING to get their way.

I am not an advocate for majority rule, but I am certainly not an advocate for a government that rules without the consent of the people.

As far as same sex marriage not affecting religious institutions, tell that to the Catholic church in Massachusetts who were forced to abandon facilitating adoptions because they would not abandon their teaching in order to comply with state rules requiring placing children with same-sex couples.

As I stated earlier, we will not agree. You argue your points very well but I am comfortable with my decision.

KS, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. In Massachusetts Catholic Charities accepted state subsidies for adoption of children in need. Over the years they successfully placed children for adoption with same sex couples. A diocesan decision was made to no longer place children with same sex parents. Because of this Catholic Charities was no longer eligible for state funding of their work and closed their adoption program rather than seek alternate funding.

"A diocesan decision was made to no longer place children with same sex parents. Because of this Catholic Charities was no longer eligible for state funding of their work and closed their adoption program rather than seek alternate funding."

In other words tax dollars were not given to Catholic Charities to promote their religious views just as they were not given to Mormon temples and Islamic mosques for their outreach efforts.
Freedom of religion is free but does not come with a government subsidy.