Articles like this one seem to display less logic and reason that I would hope for from a prelate of the Church.  Consider a few points:

1. “The Minnesota Catholic Conference, made up of the seven Catholic bishops from the state, support this amendment not for prejudicial or political reasons, but, rather, for reasons that are theological, biological and pastoral,” Nienstedt wrote in his June 9 column for The Catholic Spirit, the archdiocesan paper.

Prejudice and theology are hardly incompatible.  Theology is often used as a means to rationalize existing prejudice, and generates prejudice is situation where it is unwarranted. But to pretend that since theology has been utilized to support a position, that position is no longer prejudice is to do violence to the language and to logic.

2. The archbishop said that the definition of marriage predates any government or religious denomination. Marriage “reflects God’s plan for man and woman to share in his creative power of bringing new life into the world.”  If it predates religious structures or governments, then it cannot reflect “God’s plan” - given that different religions have had different opinions on the subject; as have governments.  And marriage has only very recently come to be understood as a ‘one man one woman’ structure. To claim otherwise shows either an ignorance of history or a desire to leave out nuance from history.

3. Both the biological and spiritual “complementarity” of the two sexes defines the reproductive nature of their relationship and enhances their “well-being and joy” as “a communion of life and love.”

Sad.  According to this logic two older people past child-bearing or an infertile couple CANNOT be married, since they have no reproductive relationship.  And if a communion of life and love is the basic requirement, then gays and lesbians have as much right to such a relationship as heterosexual couples do.

3. “Every scientific study,” he said, confirms the reality that children “flourish best” when they have both a mother and a father. While single parents “strive mightily” to raise children as normally as possible, it is “a proven fact” that boys and girls develop better under the influence of both a mother and a father living in the same home.

Congratulations; you’ve fallen prey to poor logic: those studies compared married hetero couples vs. single parents.  What little research we have on same sex couples indicates that they are as good if not better than straight couples in raising children.  Don’t compare apples and kangaroos if you wish to present a reasonable analogy.

4. The archbishop noted that Church teaching is always meant “to uphold and enhance the inherent dignity of the human person as a son or daughter of God.”

The Church’s teachings do not dictate the laws of a secular state.  Render unto Caesar, remember?

5. “Regrettably, the media and some secular commentators have chosen to mischaracterize this measure as anti-gay, mean-spirited and prejudicial. This is not the case or the intent behind the initiative,” he wrote.

To try to put a constitutional amendment in place to prevent people who love each from getting married is defintionally anti-gay, and mean-spirited.

6. The bishops’ defense of marriage drew hostile coverage from several secular media outlets, which highlighted the objections of Catholic dissenters.

And rightly so.

let us all do what is right in the eyes of God not humans. For we have all come short of the glory of God in one way or another . may God bless us all.

malchus - really, you’ve just proven your not Catholic - you don’t understand the meaning of the sacrament of marriage - but that’s fine, I pray you have time to figure it all out

The comment by Malchus underscores my reaction on reading the article: I think every time something is written or said on this subject, there needs to be an explanation of how it will affect society if we legally redefine marriage. Because it definitely will. It will end up changing insurance companies, textbooks, tax law, and worst of all, the concept of the family. We already lack the idea of generosity in having as many children as we naturally can, and can handle. We’ve already become a society that sees children as a burden, a hampering to my freedom to do what I want, or conversely an alternative to a new boat or car, a commodity (witness in vitro and other laboratory and artificial means of causing a new life to begin: a new life is treated like a product). Please those of you with greater knowledge write about this!!

Malchus said, “And marriage has only very recently come to be understood as a ‘one man one woman’ structure. To claim otherwise shows either an ignorance of history or a desire to leave out nuance from history.”
What is “very recently?”  If it’s in the past 150 years or so, perhaps you could produce some evidence that early Americans understood marriage as something other than what we consider it to be today.
—
“According to this logic two older people past child-bearing or an infertile couple CANNOT be married, since they have no reproductive relationship.”
Aside from the impracticalities of testing to determine eligibility for marriage based on reproductive capabilities, the logic does support the marriage of couples who may not be able to bear children of their own, for they are merely exceptions to the rule.  For same-sex couples, however, the rule and exception are reversed - it is the rule that they do not bear children (and the exception isn’t even possible by their own faculties) - demonstrating that such unions are something very different indeed than the union of a man and a woman.  And the biological and spiritual complementarity of the sexes remains, even if age or medical conditions suggest that a couple isn’t likely to conceive a child.
—
“you’ve fallen prey to poor logic: those studies compared married hetero couples vs. single parents.  What little research we have on same sex couples indicates that they are as good if not better than straight couples in raising children.”
The logic is only poor if you can show that it is merely the quantity of parents that provides the benefits in a 2-parent family, rather than contributions that are distinct to mothers and fathers.  Women and men are quite different.  It’s certainly not unreasonable to suggest that they will have different things to offer their children.
—
“The Church’s teachings do not dictate the laws of a secular state.”
If by that you mean that a law should not be passed that would be relevant only to those of a particular faith, then I agree with you.  But if you mean that a law should not be passed that happens to correspond with the teachings of some faith, but which can otherwise be found perfectly reasonable by someone not of that faith (or of no faith at all), then I say that there is no basis for such an idea in our country’s founding documents, or common sense.
—
“To try to put a constitutional amendment in place to prevent people who love each from getting married is defintionally anti-gay, and mean-spirited.”
Love is a prerequisite for marriage, but does not comprise the entire basis for it.  We’re all supposed to love our neighbor, but that doesn’t automatically mean we ought to be able to marry them.  When the state recognizes unions, they become a protected class.  That wouldn’t be much of a concern if same-sex “marriage” was a strong institution - if we could joke about it, criticize it and exaggerate it like we do with traditional marriage.  But same-sex “marriage” is a weak thing, because it’s not a true thing, and the weaker a thing to be protected, the stronger that protection must be. Thus same-sex “marriage” easily becomes a tyranny, which we’ve already seen in this country and elsewhere where it has become the law.