can some other id,ot translate that for us please?

Marriage and the Christian Church fall hand in hand! We must remember that:

Humanity is created in the image and likeness of God. "It is not good that the man should be alone" (Genesis 2:18). For the Lord Himself is a pefect Communion of three Persons - The Father, Son and Holy Spirit - in one God. Therefore, "the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs," which "He made into a woman" and brought "to the man" (Genesis 2:21-22). It is for this reason that "a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" Mark 10:7; Genesis 2:24). This great mystery of holy marriage signifies Christ Jesus, the incarnate Son of God, and His Bride, the Church. Divorce and all manner of adultry contradict and undermine this sign, and in doing so, they confess a false Christ and a false Gospel. "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate" (Mark 10:9). In truth, Christ Jesus has atoned for all such sins, and He has perfected marriage in Himself "through suffering," that He might bring "many sons to glory" in His Resurection (Hebrews 2:8-10).

Now, those of you (that call yourselves Christians) who belittle the folks for their stance on this matter might do some deep thinking as to the inerrrancy of Gods Inspired Word which is found in the Word which we call Scripture or the Holy Bible !!!!!

Mr. Benson said, "We cannot continue to drive them from our churches and communities and see them later return ill, defeated, ruined, and without God." This is an absolutely correct statement. We are to invite them, with loving kindness, into our churches. They are, as we understand it, living in sin and should be helped to remove themselves from that lifestyle, and to as Christ said, "go and sin no more".

Just remember, when you go to the polls in November, vote YES on this constitutional ammendment!

Please go back and read your Bible.
Consult your history texts.
Then, review the law in the state of MN and in the US.

Marriage existed in many different forms in the Bible. If you are advocating for a Biblical marriage, you must allow concubines, forced marriage of slaves, rape with "marriage" as the penalty, polygamy and the infamous "widow doesn't have a son, so her brother in law gets to 'lay with her' to impregnate her with her dead spouses' child." Yes, all of these are found in your Bible.

In the history of the world, marriage has existed in many forms, not only in Christian places, but in pagan, Buddhist, animist, atheist, Islamic etc. cultures. I'm not throwing stones at the Mormons, but their early church infamously advocated for polygamy and used religious texts and Divine inspiration to justify it. To claim that marriage has always meant "one thing" is to assume your world view is the only correct possibility in a world. History and anthropology prove you wrong.

In Europe, it was not solely for procreation and family stability, as Muel would have us believe, but it was also a form of commerce. Families sold their daughters to relieve debts or promote peace between warring clans or tribes. Teens were sold to wealthy old Dukes in exchange for land rights etc (even if the Duke was beyond the ability to conceive), and to relieve families of the burden of caring for spinster daughters. Marriage was the "consequence" for caught rapists in medieval Europe.

And, it wasn't limited to opposite-sex couples. Up beyond the 12th century, Yale University researcher John Boswell uncovered same-sex marriage rites in catholic church documents and church friezes (wall sculpture.)

http://www.unknowncountry.com/news/gay-marriage-nothing-new-catholic-church

I'm guessing that's something that isn't being discussed in all those mailings the church has been sending out.

You to God as being at the center of civil law. However, the MN marriage statutes do not reference God. There is no requirement that marriage applicants receive a blessing from God or any religious institution. The license is paid in cash, filed at the courthouse, and does not require any religious intervention whatsoever. Atheists can legally get married! So can people incapable of conceiving. If the state's purpose for marriage was based in religion or procreation, they would have required it in the statues.

Some suggest that the purpose for marriage is family stability. Absolutely. Since there are already thousands of gay families in Minnesota (according to the last census, there is at least one gay family in every single county in Minnesota), then wouldn't it make sense to provide their children with the same rights and protections as all families receive?

Why is it ok for church groups to sink $10 million into this fight, if their real concern is for struggling families? This is their priority?

The church can limit who it will offer the rite of holy matrimony, but this is separate from the civil marriage license. The two have been separate since marriage was codified into law in the US. Couples regularly bypassed churches entirely and went to justices of the peace to get married. If a Catholic wants to marry a Jew, for example, the Catholic church may not automatically do so unless the Jew converts, the couple undergoes church couseling, and/or they agree to raise their children in the Catholic faith. That is that church's right. Whether gays ever have the right to marry in MN will not change the church's right to limit or select who it marries one bit. Ask churches in Iowa if suddenly they are being forced to marry people they do not want to and the answer you will hear is NO. In fact, this was recently profiled in a Star Tribune article. Their take in Iowa? There was a big, expensive fuss, and in the end, allowing gay people to marry hasn't changed a thing.

Muel says that eugenics studies were at the root of Loving vs. Virginia, the famous Supreme Court case that struck down miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws. But Mildred Loving, the wife in that case, stated clearly

“Not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ’wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others, especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
[– the late Mildred Loving, speaking out for marriage equality on June 12, 2007, the 40th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia announcement.]

There are over 400 churches that are coalition partners with MN United for All families. Ruthann, your statements suggest that you would like the law of the land to limit the religious freedom of churches who would marry gay people. Is it ok for one church's interpretation to overrule other churches' religious freedom? Because that will happen if this amendment passes.

I totally understand that people have deep and sincere religious beliefs, and I understand that they do not want to change. That is perfectly acceptable. Hold on to your beliefs, and worship how you see fit according to your faith.

But why is it that you want to limit how other people practice THEIR faith, in a church or a courthouse or a park, when it does not impact you? If your gay neighbors could get married, it wouldn't impact your marriage! And if your kids are straight, knowing that your gay neighbors could marry isn't going to change their marriages either!
Your kids are already going to school with gay kids, and you already see gay families in the community. What would change for you if they could get married? For that matter, alot of churches want to pin the degradation of society on gay couples seeking to get married. Is that really what's at the bottom of social angst? Really? Please explain how two people who promise to be with each other til death will send Massachusetts, or Iowa, or Canada, or Mexico or Minnesota crashing into the ocean?

If you don't like gays getting married, don't marry a gay person, and don't attend a gay wedding ceremony. Don't even send a gift. But why deny the civil rights and the promise to "love, honor and cherish the person you love until death do you part" for someone else? Especially if your only reasoning is that your religion is "more correct" than another religion with a different viewpoint.

Gay couple can take the same steps any other couple takes when they live together and are not married to safe guard themselves and their relationship. Go to an attorney and spell out your wishes, put it in writing. quit playing the victim.

Are Citizens and Free to Speak...

However, this is a gentle reminder...

Polygamy was not common. It occurred, and was known to happen, but was not common when compared to the population or the to the amount of one man/one woman marriages.

I see no reason that people in conventional marriages feel threatened by letting people of the same sex get married. It does not affect their marriage, it does not change their marriage unless they let it. All of us should have the same rights to happiness and the government plus the church should not have a say in what people do. It does not matter if same sex couples can not procreate many of them are willing and glad to adopt the unwanted children that are waiting for a home and family .

I am still voting no for this amendment.

So you follow the entire chapter of Leviticus? Or do you cherry-pick? Don't be lazy now...read the whole chapter and let us know.

Since you obviously believe in God---let me correct that. "God created man in His Image and Likeness." He created Adam and then created Eve as a companion. Man and woman carry on His work by procreating---not to populate earth but to populate God's heaven. Our purpose for being born on earth is to live according to God's Will that we might be with Him in heaven.

What is your point in answering a post if you ignore what is said in the post?

I said, "Marriage is as fundamental as all the men and women to whom it belongs." I suggest you look up the word "fundamental." Man and woman are "fundamental"---the essential components in marriage. Anything that isn't fundamental" is not marriage---it is a deviation from marriage
---an imitation of marriage. That includes all the deviations you mentioned in your post. Calling them "marriage" doesn't make them marriage---they're deviations---perversions of marriage.

I wrote," Marriage is a custom with a legal force and validity beyond any nation's laws." An ancient custom before there were any nations. That means it is a law unto itself---no one has the right to change it. It does not belong to any nation---it is not subject to any other laws. So why do you tell me to read Minnesota's laws which don't apply?

You said, "Go back and read your Bible." Read my first post again. I didn't mention the Bible. I did quote from the Bible this time to correct your statement that ---"we were all created in his name."

I Corinthians 6:9....Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the Kingdom of God. So since it states in the Bible that homosexual offenders do not inherit the Kingdom of God....why would God "make" people gay and then say they can't get into heaven? That theory doesn't even make any sense!

V6:12.....is on sexual immorality.The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for our body. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ & unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute becomes one? For it is said: The two shall become one flesh.

V18: Flee from sexual immorality.

V7:2 states since there is so much sexual immorality each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.

If being gay was accepted by God why then did God make woman for man in the beginning? Why didn't God make another man for Adam? Because God does not intend for man to have sex with another man.

...belongs in YOUR church, NOT in public square. The only interest the public has in marriage is when the marriage relationship results in children--it has no interest in love or in friendships.

I accept your right to allow gay marriage within your faith tradition, but I reject your claim that I and all other citizens should have to share that belief (which is what redefining the legal definition of marriage does).

The homosexuals think that it is about simple marriage and the hetrosexuals think it is about filth. Simple marriage it is not. There are legal items like health insurance for their filthy life styles that some employer is forced to pay for. These [filtered word]'s have given us aids. Isn't that enough? Aids, I believe was god's answer to exterminate these filthy creatures. Just think people, maybe next year it will be some male or female that wants to marry their dog or perhaps group marriages because they love all their friends! The arguments will be the same.

This is about protecting the rights of all people in our state. This is about respecting God's children--all of them. This is about looking at a human being and seeing who he or she is. This is about stopping once and for all the intense bullying that gay children receive from other children taught by their parents to hate. This is about saying that Minnesota respects all people--even those who are not like us. No heterosexual person is asked to state on a form who they have sex with--he or she can just say "married." If this becomes law, a homosexual person will have to identify his or her sexual preference to get partner benefits. Why would we ask a gay person to do that? Marriage is a word...just a word. Love, commitment, compassion, understanding, sharing, and caring make a partnership- Sex is only one aspect of a human being and one aspect of a union. To deny anyone anything solely on the basis of sex is incomprehensible.

This is about protecting the rights of all people in our state. This is about respecting God's children--all of them. This is about looking at a human being and seeing who he or she is. This is about stopping once and for all the intense bullying that gay children receive from other children taught by their parents to hate. This is about saying that Minnesota respects all people--even those who are not like us. No heterosexual person is asked to state on a form who they have sex with--he or she can just say "married." If this becomes law, a homosexual person will have to identify his or her sexual preference to get partner benefits. Why would we ask a gay person to do that? Marriage is a word...just a word. Love, commitment, compassion, understanding, sharing, and caring make a partnership- Sex is only one aspect of a human being and one aspect of a union. To deny anyone anything solely on the basis of sex is incomprehensible.