Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK ga...

Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage

There are 1876 comments on the Fox News story from May 14, 2013, titled Minnesota becomes 12th state to OK gay marriage. In it, Fox News reports that:

As a crowd of thousands roared from the lawn of the state Capitol, Minnesota Gov.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#1599 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right but there is an underlying association between what we traditional define as marriage and the ability to procreate.
We are discussing law here, not "underlying association", whatever that is. If it ain't in the law, it ain't in the law. Period. You know why all those states passed laws or amendments? They did it because same-sex marriage was not specifically denied in the first place.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1600 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
You're right but there is an underlying association between what we traditional define as marriage and the ability to procreate.
That's irrelevant as it has never been codified in law. saying that there has been a commonly accepted component, which has never been legally applicable as proven by the fact that infertile heterosexuals have always been able to marry, is not a valid purpose to deny equal protection of the law for same sex couples to legally marry.

In fact, it is little more than a non sequitur.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1601 Jun 20, 2013
The Coal Handlers Son wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you an idiot with blinders on too?? You don't know crap about me except that I'm right and all you can do is skate around the truth! You say there is no democracy but you will see that the people who are against gay marriage will prevail! All you gays do is cry about rights, but let me tell you, you've got more rights than I do in this country because of your sick sexual perversion! Now that's wrong!!!
you dolt, you're the one that said it in the first dang place! if YOU say it then of course we know you said it because the post exists! you're the one with blinders on if you think you can fool us into thinking you didn't say something when in fact you did!

and again, our system of government is set up such that private citizens do not vote on the the rights of others. we didn't vote on the civil rights bill of 1964, for example.

name one right that i have that you don't. the GAO has listed over 1300 priviliges extended to legally married people that are not available to me as i cannot marry my spouse, legally. so there's at least 1300 advantages that you can, if you choose to get married, prevail yourself upon.

and again, as other posters have pointed out - public opinion about same sex marriage has shifted dramatically over the past few years - to the point that some polls say 57% for and 43% against. every single poll released in the past few years has shown increasing number FOR same sex marriage. you are on the waning flailing and faultering side, with their last gasp of breath coming in the near future.
The Coal Handlers Son

Shelbyville, IN

#1602 Jun 20, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>you dolt, you're the one that said it in the first dang place! if YOU say it then of course we know you said it because the post exists! you're the one with blinders on if you think you can fool us into thinking you didn't say something when in fact you did!

and again, our system of government is set up such that private citizens do not vote on the the rights of others. we didn't vote on the civil rights bill of 1964, for example.

name one right that i have that you don't. the GAO has listed over 1300 priviliges extended to legally married people that are not available to me as i cannot marry my spouse, legally. so there's at least 1300 advantages that you can, if you choose to get married, prevail yourself upon.

and again, as other posters have pointed out - public opinion about same sex marriage has shifted dramatically over the past few years - to the point that some polls say 57% for and 43% against. every single poll released in the past few years has shown increasing number FOR same sex marriage. you are on the waning flailing and faultering side, with their last gasp of breath coming in the near future.
Settle down princess! I can't wait to say I told you so though!!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1603 Jun 20, 2013
No marriage law required sex to begin with. Incest laws include marriage, on the other hand.

We haven't redefined marriage; we have only made access equitable. Maybe you see marriage as just about bennies, but we don't.

It's a "clear case of descrimination [sic]" because you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that should be easy now that gays have redefined marriage and removed any underlying notions of sex and procreation that may have been associated with marriage in the past. Again, sex is not involved so I don't see how any law against incest is applicable to my situation. This is strictly about receiving spousal benefits and to deny us that opportunity in light of how we define marriage now seems to be a clear case of descrimination.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1604 Jun 20, 2013
So post-menopausal women can't marry?
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
You're right but there is an underlying association between what we traditional define as marriage and the ability to procreate.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1605 Jun 20, 2013
14yo's can marry in several states. Would you do some freaking research instead of tossing off inane examples?
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
My scenario is hypothetical but rest assured that there are plenty of people out there who feel much stronger than I do on this issue and they will work to force the courts to define who can and can't marry.
What about age descrimination? How do you legally deny spousal benefits to fourteen year old kids if you allow same sex couples to legally marry?
I'm not against same sex marriage, myself, but I believe there is a way to allow same sex couples to receive certain spousal benefits while still preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
Follower of the way

Saint Paul, MN

#1606 Jun 20, 2013
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> Your holy book does NOT define marriage as between one man and one woman, by the way. I dare you to read the book and find anywhere in it where marriage is described that way.
Actually the Bible does define marriage as between one man and one woman. In Matthew 19:4-6 (NKJV), my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ said, "4 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’5 and said,‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh."

Jesus’ omission of a man and a man or a woman and a woman or three, four, five etc. people becoming “one flesh” implies that heterosexual monogamy is God’s ideal form of marriage. Whether people decided to follow God’s law during Jesus’ time is not relevant.

Please check your facts before you post.
Follower of the way

Saint Paul, MN

#1607 Jun 20, 2013
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> By comparing gay marriage with incest, you are showing you know little of reality.
Water Nymph - Try telling that to Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee.

“If you say that marriage is a fundamental right,” Justice Sotomayor challenged Ted Olson, the lawyer urging the court to invalidate California’s Proposition 8 defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman,“what state restrictions could ever exist?” If the Constitution won’t permit marriage to be limited to spouses of the opposite sex, then how can it allow “state restrictions with respect to the number of people ... that could get married” or “the incest laws?” Presumably states would still be free to ban child marriages, she said, but other than that,“what’s left?”

In other words, if it’s arbitrary and unjust to forbid same-sex marriage, isn’t it just as arbitrary and unjust to forbid plural marriage? Or sibling marriage? Once the right to “marriage equality” is enshrined in law, how could any union of consenting adults be denied a marriage license, regardless of traditional norms or definitions?(Jeff Jacoby, the Boston Globe)

Source: < http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/05/29... ;
The Coal Handlers Son

Kenosha, WI

#1608 Jun 20, 2013
Imprtnrd wrote:
<quoted text>Is that what happened to yours? DO TELL!
No, I dress up like Tina Turner and sing ," what's love got to do with it?" at our local eateries . It's a living!
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1609 Jun 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep dodging the question......is what is going on in that which I posted acceptable to you?
If a teenage boy is allowed to expose his chest that may have a more developed chest because of being over weight......what is wrong with a girl who is not as developed going topless? or are you saying that a woman's breast is somehow more sexual than that?
I am not the judge of what others do......and if public nudity doesn't offend anyone, can it truly be considered indecent?
Now, that being stated, I do find exposing the private area of either sex offensive in public.
NorCal Native- I think it's really creepy that you posted a URL linking to pornographic images. Yet, being a moral relativist, somehow I'm not surprised by your crude behavior.

In response to your question, "if public nudity doesn't offend anyone, can it truly be considered indecent?" Yes because regardless of social attitudes, I believe it is absolutely wrong for women and men (especially in an aroused state) to exhibit their erogenous zones in the presence of children.

When the libertarian nudist movement gains momentum, you'll probably be at the forefront of the "liberation from clothing" campaign because your morals are a function of pop culture and whatever the media elite (i.e. Hollywood) wants you to believe.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1610 Jun 20, 2013
Banned wrote:
<quoted text>
My scenario is hypothetical but rest assured that there are plenty of people out there who feel much stronger than I do on this issue and they will work to force the courts to define who can and can't marry.
What about age descrimination? How do you legally deny spousal benefits to fourteen year old kids if you allow same sex couples to legally marry?
I'm not against same sex marriage, myself, but I believe there is a way to allow same sex couples to receive certain spousal benefits while still preserving the traditional definition of marriage.
14 year old can already get married in some states with Parental consent, or didn't you know that?

I seriously doubt that there are "MANY" who will try to marry their blood relative......but folks like you always try the doom and gloom approach when in reality it's just a red herring.

I've been legally married to my wife for almost 5 years now......we haven't prevented one straight couple from getting married or from any straight couple from having children regardless of their marital status.......and we certainly haven't made any straight person more procreative responsible......so, if this is all ya got......then you really have nothing!!!

Oh and the word DISCRIMINATION is not spelled this way descrimination.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1611 Jun 20, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
In response to your question, "if public nudity doesn't offend anyone, can it truly be considered indecent?" Yes because regardless of social attitudes, I believe it is absolutely wrong for women and men (especially in an aroused state) to exhibit their erogenous zones in the presence of children.
When the libertarian nudist movement gains momentum, you'll probably be at the forefront of the "liberation from clothing" campaign because your morals are a function of pop culture and whatever the media elite (i.e. Hollywood) wants you to believe.
Sorry, but how was that pornographic? That picture has been posted on topix before especially when folks like yourself make comments regarding supposed Gay nudity in public......yet you can't seem to answer the question posed to you......interesting!!!

By the way, it has NOTHING to do with my morals or values.......but it has to do with making a point regarding your position on kids seeing Gay men in the nude!!!

Typically those who are nude.......don't walk around with hard-ons......all one has to do is go to a nude beach and see for themselves.......because these people enjoy not wearing clothes doesn't mean they get excited by seeing others regardless of gender.

Actually if it DOESN'T offend anyone......the law says IT'S NOT INDECENT EXPOSURE and therefore no one cares!!!

Again, regardless of what you think......you'd be wrong about my personal beliefs or decisions regarding this issue. I don't go to nude beaches and I have NEVER truly seen total nudity at a Gay Pride Parade!!!

I believe that my body is for the eyes of my wife to see and only her.......it's not for the public to see....period!!!
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1612 Jun 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt that there are "MANY" who will try to marry their blood relative......but folks like you always try the doom and gloom approach when in reality it's just a red herring.
You're probably right there are not "MANY" who will try to marry their blood relative, but maybe 1-3% of the adult population would. Hey, that percentage reminds me of another demographic.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1613 Jun 20, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
I've been legally married to my wife for almost 5 years now......we haven't prevented one straight couple from getting married or from any straight couple from having children regardless of their marital status.......and we certainly haven't made any straight person more procreative responsible......so, if this is all ya got......then you really have nothing!!!
The "consequential neutrality" argument can also apply to other non-traditional forms of marriage, for example plural marriage:

Argument: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists’ right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1614 Jun 20, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
The "consequential neutrality" argument can also apply to other non-traditional forms of marriage, for example plural marriage:
Argument: Permitting men to marry at least two wives (polygyny) or women to marry multiple husbands (polyandry) will not in any way infringe on monogamists&#146; right to marry only one spouse. Therefore, polygamy should be permitted because of its neutral consequence to other valid forms of marriage.
Again, not my fight, not my issue and those marriages STILL will not affect me or my marriage.......and if polygamist want to fight to get the right to marry more than one other person.....I wish them all the luck in the world!!!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1615 Jun 20, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You're probably right there are not "MANY" who will try to marry their blood relative, but maybe 1-3% of the adult population would. Hey, that percentage reminds me of another demographic.
Again, if these so called individuals are out there and want to marry a blood relative......then they need to go and fight for that right......again, not my issue, not something I see happening and I wish them all the luck in their fight!!!

Actually, no one truly knows what the percentage of the population is Gay and Lesbian.......it could be 1% or it could more.......frankly, it's not a big issue except to people like yourself who seem to have issues with supposedly a small percentage of the overall population of this Country!!!
Some Never Came Home

Tempe, AZ

#1616 Jun 20, 2013
Follower of the way wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the Bible does define marriage as between one man and one woman. In Matthew 19:4-6 (NKJV), my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ said, "4 “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’5 and said,‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?[c] 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh."
Jesus’ omission of a man and a man or a woman and a woman or three, four, five etc. people becoming “one flesh” implies that heterosexual monogamy is God’s ideal form of marriage. Whether people decided to follow God’s law during Jesus’ time is not relevant.
Please check your facts before you post.
And just who gives a flying F what the bible says about the definition of marriage! It is completely irrelevant to the topic of marriage equality! We live in a secular nation and NOT a theocracy! So keep that bible babble to yourself and stop trying to make others who believe differently than you live by your evil book! And under our constitution that is our right! Sorry but constitution trumps your bible in this country,look up separation of church and state!

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1617 Jun 20, 2013
Some Never Came Home wrote:
<quoted text>
And just who gives a flying F what the bible says about the definition of marriage! It is completely irrelevant to the topic of marriage equality! We live in a secular nation and NOT a theocracy! So keep that bible babble to yourself and stop trying to make others who believe differently than you live by your evil book! And under our constitution that is our right! Sorry but constitution trumps your bible in this country,look up separation of church and state!
LOL. You don't know anything about the constitution or how religion played a part in how our founding fathers built this country. Try and educate yourself. You sound silly.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1618 Jun 20, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. You don't know anything about the constitution or how religion played a part in how our founding fathers built this country. Try and educate yourself. You sound silly.
why did they create a secular nation then?

look at the nations that are the least religious, they are the healthiest and the happiest. they have the best standards of living and the best educated kids...

religious cults and governance do not go together...keep your cult in your tax subsidized church where it belongs...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Gay man denied marriage license hopes to unseat... 52 min Wisdom 45
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr positronium 14,689
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 1 hr Kyle 8
News Supreme Court declines to consider Houston figh... 3 hr RalphB 5
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 6 hr Hudson 65
News Opponents in LGBT case agree: It's not about we... 11 hr Wondering 30
News Supreme Court, baker vs. gay wedding case takes... Sat Christian Fumblem... 19
More from around the web