Some Minn. Lawmakers Face Gay Marriage Conflict

Nov 14, 2012 Full story: EDGE 164

ST. PAUL, Minn. - More valuable than any poll, Minnesota lawmakers got a strong pulse of their constituents this week on gay marriage through district-by-district, town-by-town results of a vote that rejected a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage.

Full Story
First Prev
of 9
Next Last
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#1 Nov 14, 2012
Gee.... they have to choose between doing the right thing and bigotry? This should be interesting.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#2 Nov 14, 2012
Mona Lott wrote:
Gee.... they have to choose between doing the right thing and bigotry? This should be interesting.
You betcha !
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#3 Nov 14, 2012
""When you bring up an emotional issue like that, it takes center stage and steals everyone else’s air, and everything else has to take a back seat," she said."

How about we focus on say jobs or the economy instead?

"Democrats are sure to find squeamishness in their own ranks, especially among the 26 members from districts where voters expressed a clear preference for reserving marriage as between a man and a woman."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#4 Nov 14, 2012
A lot of that vote resulted from the view that since existing Law banned Marriage Equality, a State Constitutional Amendment is unnecessary.

Don't read too much into the results, "EDGE".

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#5 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
....How about we focus on say jobs or the economy instead?....
Agreed. But the only way marriage equality is going to not be an issue anymore will be to simply grant it and move on.

At what point would you expect a group to stop fighting for equal rights?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#6 Nov 14, 2012
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. But the only way marriage equality is going to not be an issue anymore will be to simply grant it and move on.
At what point would you expect a group to stop fighting for equal rights?
How about a compromise where you get ALL the rights and in return cede the name Marriage to the religious?

so is it really about the rights, then?
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
How about a compromise where you get ALL the rights and in return cede the name Marriage to the religious?
so is it really about the rights, then?
The religious can have "holy matrimony" as they've always had. Using any other legal term than marriage may allow companies to still discriminate gay people when it comes to benefits, etc. Since marriage is a term used in legal documents and taxation, the term "marriage" for legal and governmental reasons needs to be the same as straight couples. In fact many people marry without a religious ceremony and it's still called a marriage. Churches should not be able to define marriage in terms of the law, it is really over reach by the Vatican, a nation state, into the legal affairs of the United States of America. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of influence on our government by any other nation.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
How about a compromise where you get ALL the rights and in return cede the name Marriage to the religious?
so is it really about the rights, then?
1. You provide nothing to support the idea that a majority would be willing to give up the name marriage for "civil unions".

2. Why would or should non religious straight people give up the title recognized around the world?

3. Gay couples would still get the name marriage in many churches. Giving up the legal name would not keep gay people from getting married in many churches, just as they do today.

4. Separate can never be equal and denial of equality harms those being denied.
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#9 Nov 14, 2012
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The religious can have "holy matrimony" as they've always had. Using any other legal term than marriage may allow companies to still discriminate gay people when it comes to benefits, etc. Since marriage is a term used in legal documents and taxation, the term "marriage" for legal and governmental reasons needs to be the same as straight couples.In fact many people marry without a religious ceremony and it's still called a marriage. Churches should not be able to define marriage in terms of the law, it is really over reach by the Vatican, a nation state, into the legal affairs of the United States of America. We wouldn't tolerate this kind of influence on our government by any other nation.
they would ALL be civil partnerships there would be no legally recognized "marriage" for anyone...just civil partnerships..so all of this would be addressed...
so you agree with it, right?
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#10 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
they would ALL be civil partnerships there would be no legally recognized "marriage" for anyone...just civil partnerships..so all of this would be addressed...
so you agree with it, right?
No, because I don't believe religion owns the word marriage and should dictate its definition to our government. I doubt you are going to get everyone that is currently "married" to give up the name marriage for all their legal documents. If this was such a a big issue for the church why wasn't there this type of backlash for marriages being performed by a Justice of the Peace? Perhaps it is because it's not constitutional for a religion to be promoted by our government.
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#11 Nov 14, 2012
PS. What about all the churches that support gay marriages, are you going to have one church dictate to another the definition of marriage?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#12 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
they would ALL be civil partnerships there would be no legally recognized "marriage" for anyone...just civil partnerships..so all of this would be addressed...
so you agree with it, right?
And you actually think that's likely to happen in all fifty states, DC, the federal government and the rest of the world? Why do you keep making unappealing proposals that are even less likely to come about than the equality that we are seeking?
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#13 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You provide nothing to support the idea that a majority would be willing to give up the name marriage for "civil unions".
only because I asked you guys first. you are welcome..
its all civil partnerships, new language to get rid of the old baggage
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

2. Why would or should non religious straight people give up the title recognized around the world?
so gays can be equal and to further clarify the separation between church and state...a bone for every athiest.
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

3. Gay couples would still get the name marriage in many churches. Giving up the legal name would not keep gay people from getting married in many churches, just as they do today.
well alrighty then, why all this resistance?
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>

4. Separate can never be equal and denial of equality harms those being denied.
you are just stuck on this stuff aren't you....while you make some great legal arguments, the separate is unequal one is not a strong one...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#14 Nov 14, 2012
nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
And you actually think that's likely to happen in all fifty states, DC, the federal government and the rest of the world? Why do you keep making unappealing proposals that are even less likely to come about than the equality that we are seeking?
its a sweet deal for the gays and even they reject it, so prolly not...
BUT the hypothetical was useful for me to see that without the name, the rights mean very little to you guys...

32 states dude...las vegas isn't putting odds on you winning...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#15 Nov 14, 2012
Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because I don't believe religion owns the word marriage and should dictate its definition to our government. I doubt you are going to get everyone that is currently "married" to give up the name marriage for all their legal documents. If this was such a a big issue for the church why wasn't there this type of backlash for marriages being performed by a Justice of the Peace? Perhaps it is because it's not constitutional for a religion to be promoted by our government.
you refuse to really hear the offer so you can be snarky about it...
religion dictates nothing to the govt...

where did you get that from?

and religions dont accept each others marriages NOW...

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#16 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its a sweet deal for the gays and even they reject it, so prolly not...
BUT the hypothetical was useful for me to see that without the name, the rights mean very little to you guys...
32 states dude...las vegas isn't putting odds on you winning...
Do you think blacks would accept separate busses? That doesn't mean a bus is useless. It just means you insist on discriminating, and we aren't going to stand for it.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#17 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
only because I asked you guys first. you are welcome..
its all civil partnerships, new language to get rid of the old baggage
<quoted text>
so gays can be equal and to further clarify the separation between church and state...a bone for every athiest.
<quoted text>
well alrighty then, why all this resistance?
<quoted text>
you are just stuck on this stuff aren't you....while you make some great legal arguments, the separate is unequal one is not a strong one...
Jane...how sad. you have to go to other pages to spread the lies you were already called out on? pathetic.

that seperation of church and state on this issue could not get any farther apart, as religion has NOTHING to do with legal marriage. Zip. Nada.

they didn't even have the concept until they glommed onto the state run social construct.

give your tired, non-issue a rest...you know no religious opponents would care what it is called, they would still oppose it.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#18 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
only because I asked you guys first. you are welcome..
its all civil partnerships, new language to get rid of the old baggage
<quoted text>
so gays can be equal and to further clarify the separation between church and state...a bone for every athiest.
<quoted text>
well alrighty then, why all this resistance?
<quoted text>
you are just stuck on this stuff aren't you....while you make some great legal arguments, the separate is unequal one is not a strong one...
While this may be a new idea to you, it has been around a long time, as has been the failed concept of "separate but equal". There is no reason to believe the straight majority would be willing to give up the word "marriage". And, again, no reason nor motivation for them to do so.

It is irrational to expect atheists to give up what they currently have.

The harm that results from "separate but equal" institutions is well documented in science as well as law, and I have provided a sample of that well documented harm. I have more if it would help. This is nothing new.

Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman, declared, "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is."

Julian Bond testified: "When I'm asked if gay rights are civil rights, my answer is always:'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives, the right to equal treatment before the law.... There's no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in enjoying these rights."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#19 Nov 14, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
its a sweet deal for the gays and even they reject it, so prolly not...
BUT the hypothetical was useful for me to see that without the name, the rights mean very little to you guys...
32 states dude...las vegas isn't putting odds on you winning...
The rights are extremely important, especially for those who have children. This is why many have been willing to accept "domestic partnerships, civil unions", or whatever, for the time being. Some rights are better than no rights. Yet anything less than full equality is stigmatizing and harmful, as well documented in history, science, and law.

The Ca. Supreme Court: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (In re marriage, p.117)

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

#20 Nov 14, 2012
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
The rights are extremely important, especially for those who have children. This is why many have been willing to accept "domestic partnerships, civil unions", or whatever, for the time being. Some rights are better than no rights. Yet anything less than full equality is stigmatizing and harmful, as well documented in history, science, and law.
The Ca. Supreme Court: "While retention of the limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples is not needed to preserve the rights and benefits of opposite-sex couples, the exclusion of same sex couples from the designation of marriage works a real and appreciable harm upon same-sex couples and their children." (In re marriage, p.117)
You're wasting your time and effort. You will never convice haters liker this person, or anyone who thinks like them. They're a waste of effort.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 9
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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 22 min Cali Girl 2014 50,053
US judge upholds state same-sex marriage ban, r... 27 min DaveinMass 1,008
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 31 min Reverend Alan 675
Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 51 min Terra Firma 3,491
SF gay pride event celebrates 40th anniversary (Jun '10) 52 min MarmotaCaligata 95
Divorce Law Out Of Synch With Same-Sex Marriage 1 hr Fundies R Mentall... 37
State of Alaska defends gay-marriage ban 1 hr Sgt Common Sense 161
Gay Marriage and the Limits of Tradition 2 hr NorCal Native 1,027
Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? 3 hr Frankie Rizzo 2,269
What if high court rejects gay marriage cases? 3 hr Fundies R Mentall... 12

Gay/Lesbian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE