Some Minn. Lawmakers Face Gay Marriag...

Some Minn. Lawmakers Face Gay Marriage Conflict

There are 164 comments on the EDGE story from Nov 14, 2012, titled Some Minn. Lawmakers Face Gay Marriage Conflict. In it, EDGE reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#61 Nov 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>And again i have to point out to you that you could not be further from the truth. the state and religion cannot be further seperated on this issue, as reliion has abolutley nothing to do with legal marraige.
why can't you admit this basic fact? because it throws your entire argument and worldview into the junk file...
you get days of bedgering becuse you do not have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about.
I not only appreciate that fact I would say that by ceding the word marriage to the religious it FURTHER reinforces that marriage is religious talk with no legal result and civil partnership was the only legal thing...
it avoids the dumb fundies from thinking your are trying to change their religion!

OF COURSE religious marriage has nothing to do with it...I am saying make marriage a mere religious term and partnership be the ONLY LEGAL TERM for all people...
its your need to be snarky that makes you refuse to see this
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#62 Nov 15, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
We understand you're scrambling now that we've show we CAN win at the polls, just as predicted.
Your anti-gay world is just crumbling around you and now you're in a full panic.
Get used to it; there are many more states to come where we'll be getting MARRIED soon enough.
Why should we sign on to your cockamamie idea now? Too bad you didn't think of that 20 years ago.....
You are not rationally assessing your case...

ending marriage and making us all civil partnerships is like saying "get govt out of the marriage business" a plan i bet you would support but for the fact I suggested it and your bigotry against your opposition...

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#63 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
it was a mere hypothetical to see if you would accept ALL the right and just give up the name to be for religious ceremonies only...
guess how it turned out...
you guys acted insane as if we were really making some sort of deal...
do you think anything on this board really matters in reality?
yup, not even your posts do...
I could have told you (and in fact did several times) that your hypothetical would fail. The very premise was ridiculous, which is why you were attacked from all sides.

I think a lot of things on this board DO matter in reality; it's a way of sharing information among like-minded people. Unfortunately we often get sidetracked by responding to trolls such as yourself.

Btw, a nearly identical percentage of voters in Washington voted against marraige equality in 2012 as voted against civil unions in '09. So much for your theory that it's just about the word "marriage". Seems it's about the anti-gays opposing ANY rights for same-sex ocuples, just like I told you.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#64 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not rationally assessing your case...
ending marriage and making us all civil partnerships is like saying "get govt out of the marriage business" a plan i bet you would support but for the fact I suggested it and your bigotry against your opposition...
What's irrational is thinking for even one minute that the anti-gays will accept the govt treating their union the same as same-sex unions, regardless of what they are called.

As was shown in the Washington vote, the anti-gays will oppose ALL rights for same-sex couples. All we can do now is change those minds that can be changed, and hope for the rest of the anti-gays to die off soon. Luckily that's happening every day.

It's only a matter of time before the anti-gays will never be able to win another vote in any state. In fact, they may have already had their last victory in North Carolina earlier this year. We can wait.......

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#65 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not rationally assessing your case...
ending marriage and making us all civil partnerships is like saying "get govt out of the marriage business" a plan i bet you would support but for the fact I suggested it and your bigotry against your opposition...
No. you are the irrational one. how many times do i have to point out to you that gov't IS the marraie business. there is no ther game in town.

why can't you accept this basic fact. An *ahem* attorney would know thhat this is true... why don''t you?
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#66 Nov 15, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
I could have told you (and in fact did several times) that your hypothetical would fail. The very premise was ridiculous, which is why you were attacked from all sides.
I think a lot of things on this board DO matter in reality; it's a way of sharing information among like-minded people. Unfortunately we often get sidetracked by responding to trolls such as yourself.
Btw, a nearly identical percentage of voters in Washington voted against marraige equality in 2012 as voted against civil unions in '09. So much for your theory that it's just about the word "marriage". Seems it's about the anti-gays opposing ANY rights for same-sex ocuples, just like I told you.
I thought it was a nifty solution...
what is ridiculous about abolishing all legal marriages and calling them henceforth civil partnerships?
It has something for everyone...

maybe the vote is the same since you don't distinguish between your opposition and call them all bigots?
Also, your comments that you will never stop...if you get CU's you will keep going until you get marriage...
maybe its due to "your" tack as I have explained to you before...

and i know you all think this place is only for like minded individuals, but actually its quite the opposite...
unfortunately for you all opinions are proper...

you would all love to parrot each other all day and never be challenged...

to the point where, now, none of you really know how to respond to a challenge to what you said, but to attack the poster and all circle the wagons to try to banish them...ie bullying.
curious isn't it?

but as you can tell, I won't be bullied...
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#67 Nov 15, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
What's irrational is thinking for even one minute that the anti-gays will accept the govt treating their union the same as same-sex unions, regardless of what they are called.
As was shown in the Washington vote, the anti-gays will oppose ALL rights for same-sex couples. All we can do now is change those minds that can be changed, and hope for the rest of the anti-gays to die off soon. Luckily that's happening every day.
It's only a matter of time before the anti-gays will never be able to win another vote in any state. In fact, they may have already had their last victory in North Carolina earlier this year. We can wait.......
why don't you worry about how you would treat such an offer instead of pretending you can say what THEY would want without looking through your lense of hating them.

Frankly, a lot of the religious think the change in law will mean their churches have to perform weddings and other ignorant crud like that...by GIVING them the name marriage, the fear you guys will infiltrate their religion would be addressed (even if it was never going to happen anyway)

By making all civil relationships partnerships, we acknowledge them to be what you want them to be. two people a piece of paper and some assets...
let religion try to mold society...

its classic solution theory, cut the baby in half, give the NAME to the religious, and all the rights EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, which is the bone thrown to you...
and maybe you would win the fight in the long run, but this would settle it NOW...
so again, instead of inferring what the other people would do, why not just ask yourself if YOU could support this....
Jane Dough

Barre, VT

#68 Nov 15, 2012
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No. you are the irrational one. how many times do i have to point out to you that gov't IS the marraie business. there is no ther game in town.
why can't you accept this basic fact. An *ahem* attorney would know thhat this is true... why don''t you?
hey clown....
this is a proposed CHANGE...it is a compromise....
I do not see how your refusing to hear me means anything about me...
I'd say your post shows more about you...

you gotta a question about what i am saying or do you just want to stick to the 4 grader girl tactic of pointing and laughing and hoping it makes me feel bad about myself?
(psst, it doesn't...)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#69 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
hey clown....
this is a proposed CHANGE...it is a compromise....
I do not see how your refusing to hear me means anything about me...
I'd say your post shows more about you...
you gotta a question about what i am saying or do you just want to stick to the 4 grader girl tactic of pointing and laughing and hoping it makes me feel bad about myself?
(psst, it doesn't...)
No, it is not a compromise at all. you would need another vested party in this discussion to have anyone to compromise with. You do not have that. this is a silly non-issue made out of whole cloth that you will not let go as it would prove your world view is incorrect.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#70 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
you guys are all a one trick idiot...
you refuse to read and then use that to attempt to diminish me...
yes, i finally insulted someone, all of you....and it is the truth.
Read the original idea again without an autoresponse to hate and see how nothing would be separate except religious marriage from legal marriage...
the SIMPLE idea is to abolish legal marriage for all...
why would the athiests go for it?
it further separates church and state..
why would the fundies do it?
they get the Name they care so much about
why would gays do it?
they get the SAME INSTITUTION/SAME NAME legally speaking and yes if religious potentially the name "married".
so HATEFUL an idea isnt it?
But I get days of badgering for even suggesting it...
you guys are something else!
if you understood, you would apologize!
Nope. Whine all you want but you're NOT getting an apology other than saying how sorry I am you're you.

You say the simple solution is to ban marriage altogether and get everyone to agree with civil unions. If that idea was so popular among heterosexuals it would have passed already. Oh wait it has.

And the results were more disasters. And in many of those States SSM is now the Law.

Didn't anyone ever tell you insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Looks like that lesson has escaped you, the Republicans and their coalition of religious conservatives.

In 7 years we've had wins in nearly a dozen States. You can act like Caligula all you want and try to order the tides to obey your will, but the tides turned against you.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#71 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
hey clown....
this is a proposed CHANGE...it is a compromise....
I do not see how your refusing to hear me means anything about me...
I'd say your post shows more about you...
you gotta a question about what i am saying or do you just want to stick to the 4 grader girl tactic of pointing and laughing and hoping it makes me feel bad about myself?
(psst, it doesn't...)
MY 4th ggrade tactic?!?! YOU are the one that will not admit you ave made an argument thhat makes no sense. You will not admit tat you really do not understand what leal marriagge is. YoU have to name call. how 4th rade is that? I just use facts in a calm, rational manner.

you shhould try it sometime.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#72 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought it was a nifty solution...
what is ridiculous about abolishing all legal marriages and calling them henceforth civil partnerships?
It has something for everyone...
maybe the vote is the same since you don't distinguish between your opposition and call them all bigots?
Also, your comments that you will never stop...if you get CU's you will keep going until you get marriage...
maybe its due to "your" tack as I have explained to you before...
and i know you all think this place is only for like minded individuals, but actually its quite the opposite...
unfortunately for you all opinions are proper...
you would all love to parrot each other all day and never be challenged...
to the point where, now, none of you really know how to respond to a challenge to what you said, but to attack the poster and all circle the wagons to try to banish them...ie bullying.
curious isn't it?
but as you can tell, I won't be bullied...
You really think you're the first to bring up civil partnerships for all?

I've explained why it won't work; the overwhelming majority of people WANT marriage to be recognized by the government. They see no reason to change that. The ONLY people who ever bring it up are the few true libertarians and now the few desperate anti-gays who think it's the only way left to keep gays from marrying.

Again, the people you need to convince are the 90% of the country who are straight.

Personally I don't care what they are called, as long as they are all called the same thing and treated the same by the govt. But since I know the anti-gays will NEVER accept giving up govt recognition of their religious marriages, it's a moot point.

The battle lines have been clearly drawn; you're about 2 decades too late.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#73 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>

do you think anything on this board really matters in reality?
yup, not even your posts do...
Well as far as that is concerned I started over 2 months ago pointing out that a no vote in MN would still mean SSM was illegal there.

Guess what. Most people in MN seem to have agreed with me. And rejected you.

But since you believe nothing you say on here matters hopefully that means you see how worthless your own opinions really are.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#74 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
it was a mere hypothetical to see if you would accept ALL the right and just give up the name to be for religious ceremonies only...
guess how it turned out...
you guys acted insane as if we were really making some sort of deal...
do you think anything on this board really matters in reality?
yup, not even your posts do...
You lost and now you call us idiots and one trick ponies?

LMAO!

Cry me a river.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#75 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
hey clown....
this is a proposed CHANGE...it is a compromise....
I do not see how your refusing to hear me means anything about me...
I'd say your post shows more about you...
you gotta a question about what i am saying or do you just want to stick to the 4 grader girl tactic of pointing and laughing and hoping it makes me feel bad about myself?
(psst, it doesn't...)
I seem to remember someone who wrote: "its your need to be snarky that makes you refuse to see this"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#76 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
why don't you worry about how you would treat such an offer instead of pretending you can say what THEY would want without looking through your lense of hating them.
Frankly, a lot of the religious think the change in law will mean their churches have to perform weddings and other ignorant crud like that...by GIVING them the name marriage, the fear you guys will infiltrate their religion would be addressed (even if it was never going to happen anyway)
By making all civil relationships partnerships, we acknowledge them to be what you want them to be. two people a piece of paper and some assets...
let religion try to mold society...
its classic solution theory, cut the baby in half, give the NAME to the religious, and all the rights EQUALLY TO ALL PEOPLE, which is the bone thrown to you...
and maybe you would win the fight in the long run, but this would settle it NOW...
so again, instead of inferring what the other people would do, why not just ask yourself if YOU could support this....
Fine, then change it now.

We're waiting.........

Straight people are the overwhelming supermajority in this country; they can change the law to civil partnerships for all at any time.

Let us know when that's done.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#77 Nov 15, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, then change it now.
We're waiting.........
Straight people are the overwhelming supermajority in this country; they can change the law to civil partnerships for all at any time.
Let us know when that's done.
I've often pointed out that even rats are smart enough to leave a ship that's sinking.

Jane D'Oh doesn't seem to be a smart as rats.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#78 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
hey clown....
this is a proposed CHANGE...it is a compromise....
I do not see how your refusing to hear me means anything about me...
I'd say your post shows more about you...
you gotta a question about what i am saying or do you just want to stick to the 4 grader girl tactic of pointing and laughing and hoping it makes me feel bad about myself?
(psst, it doesn't...)
I heard the NIH is using lawyers now because there are some things even a rat won't do.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#79 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
I not only appreciate that fact I would say that by ceding the word marriage to the religious it FURTHER reinforces that marriage is religious talk with no legal result and civil partnership was the only legal thing...
it avoids the dumb fundies from thinking your are trying to change their religion!
OF COURSE religious marriage has nothing to do with it...I am saying make marriage a mere religious term and partnership be the ONLY LEGAL TERM for all people...
its your need to be snarky that makes you refuse to see this
OK Jabe D'Oh time for me to get snarky.

You claim to have a law degree. I don't. I'm a high school grad with one year of college that has been giving you a run for your money on many legal points.

What does that say about your "expertise"?

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#80 Nov 15, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
the SIMPLE idea is to abolish legal marriage for all...
A far simpler idea is to KEEP marriage legal for all! There is nothing "simple" about your suggestion. It has to be approved in each of fifty states, DC, territories and proectorates, and the federal government. After that, your civil whatchamacallits still won't be understood here, much less the rest of the world.

You're really quite full of yourself, aren't you?

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 4 min Doctor Who 42,977
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 10 min Doctor Who 2,239
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 24 min who cares 22,538
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 27 min June VanDerMark 12,299
News Is Same-Sex Attraction a Sin? 40 min No Teq Cok 8
News Trump's staff picks disappoint, alarm minority ... 43 min WasteWater 270
News Woman Hangs Rainbow Christmas Lights to Protest... 1 hr I Hate Queers 4
More from around the web