Minnesotans United Plans 'Massive Sta...

Minnesotans United Plans 'Massive Statewide Effort' as Gay Marriage Vote Looms

There are 31 comments on the Patch.com story from Jul 27, 2012, titled Minnesotans United Plans 'Massive Statewide Effort' as Gay Marriage Vote Looms. In it, Patch.com reports that:

A Sunday, July 29, will mark 100 days untilA Minnesotans have an opportunity to vote on a proposed constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman in the state constitution .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Patch.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#21 Jul 31, 2012
Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow - paranoid much? Let's see - grade 12 and nothing further?
Explain to me, Canadian to Canadian, how you are better than me, how you deserve more than I do, and how your right to marriage is in any way affected by my right to marriage.
You shame the both of us.
What you call your "right to marriage" redifines the very insitution in question for the whole of society.

“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”5

5 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)

PURELYCANADIAN

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#22 Jul 31, 2012
Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow - paranoid much? Let's see - grade 12 and nothing further?
Explain to me, Canadian to Canadian, how you are better than me, how you deserve more than I do, and how your right to marriage is in any way affected by my right to marriage.
You shame the both of us.
CANADIAN TO CANADIAN

I never said I was better, but okay then. I AM BETTER!

As far as your rights go. I do believe you should seek mental health treatment. Yes, homosexuality is a disease. It is perverted and no different than pedophilia or any other kind of perversion. I believe that even heterosexual men who are addicted to sex, that allow it to ruin there lives/marriages/families, are also ill. You all need to seek help.

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#24 Aug 1, 2012
PURELYCANADIAN wrote:
<quoted text>
CANADIAN TO CANADIAN
I never said I was better, but okay then. I AM BETTER!
As far as your rights go. I do believe you should seek mental health treatment. Yes, homosexuality is a disease. It is perverted and no different than pedophilia or any other kind of perversion. I believe that even heterosexual men who are addicted to sex, that allow it to ruin there lives/marriages/families, are also ill. You all need to seek help.
You're the one who needs help, honey. Start with an education, then examine why the idea of gays doing their thing affects you so much. The answer may be more disturbing than you are willing to accept.

“Child of the Universe”

Since: Aug 09

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

#25 Aug 1, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call your "right to marriage" redifines the very insitution in question for the whole of society.
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”5
5 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
So? Sounds like marriage needs redefining. Mine is about love and commitment. Yours reduces it to a breeding program.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#26 Aug 3, 2012
Leftatalbuquerque wrote:
<quoted text>
So? Sounds like marriage needs redefining. Mine is about love and commitment. Yours reduces it to a breeding program.
Mine can account for both...Yours has to ignore the massive implications of nothing short of the wellspring of new life.

Thats the sort of "implication" you dont want to be responsible for ignoring.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#27 Aug 3, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
What you call your "right to marriage" redifines the very insitution in question for the whole of society.
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”5
5 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.

This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill)
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#28 Aug 3, 2012
Allowing gay couples to participate under the rules currently in effect does not alter what marriage is for straight people. None of the rules that determine what marriage is change. Only the "who" is changed.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#29 Aug 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
"In sum, this court is soundly convinced, based on the foregoing analysis, that the government's proffered rationales, past and current, are without "footing in the realities of the subject addressed by DOMA." And "when the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. Because animus alone cannot constitute a legitimate government interest, " this court finds that DOMA lacks a rational basis to support it.
This court simply "cannot say that DOMA is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which this court could discern a relationship to legitimate government interests. Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.
In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, "there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects" from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is only irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution." (Gill)
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...
Your supposed answer comes from a Mass court & does nothing to adress the issue raised in the N.Y. case as to both what marriage is and why its very definition is rooted in why it is a fundemental right to begin with.
Fitz

Mount Clemens, MI

#30 Aug 7, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
Allowing gay couples to participate under the rules currently in effect does not alter what marriage is for straight people. None of the rules that determine what marriage is change. Only the "who" is changed.
This is simply factually incorrect. There is no gay or straight marriage in states that have changed its definition.

ALL marriages now go from being the union of a man & woman to the union of two people of any sex.

Marriage as an institution is changed at its very core for everyone in the culture as a matter of law.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#31 Sep 6, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
This is simply factually incorrect. There is no gay or straight marriage in states that have changed its definition.
ALL marriages now go from being the union of a man & woman to the union of two people of any sex.
Marriage as an institution is changed at its very core for everyone in the culture as a matter of law.
None of the over 1,138 rights and protections of marriage change. Only the "who" is changed, and then only by gender. All of the other rules and requirements remain in full force and effect.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#32 Sep 6, 2012
Fitz wrote:
<quoted text>
Your supposed answer comes from a Mass court & does nothing to adress the issue raised in the N.Y. case as to both what marriage is and why its very definition is rooted in why it is a fundemental right to begin with.
The NY case is moot as it is no longer an issue in NY.

Additionally, the excuses for discrimination offered by the NY court have been rejected as irrational by subsequent decisions. Prejudice is not a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal treatment under the law.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brainerd Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Nisswa students pack meals for Kids Against Hun... Dec 6 Addison Lullo 25 1
News Juno winner Francey to perform at Nisswa Jul '16 Beware place like... 1
News Juno winner Francey to perform April 15 in Niss... Jul '16 Beware place like... 1
News Brainerd man drowns in Gull Lake (Jul '08) Jul '16 Ginny 29
News Bodhi Edie Returning To Canadian Superbike Cham... (Mar '16) Mar '16 Elise Gingerich 4
looking for alicia moe (Jun '14) Dec '15 GPK 3
News August 5, 2015 - (Aug '15) Aug '15 rodney neslson 1

Brainerd Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Brainerd Mortgages