Some Minn. Lawmakers Face Gay Marriage Conflict

Nov 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: EDGE

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.

Comments (Page 6)

Showing posts 101 - 120 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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!
Your proposal is unrealistic. You will never get the majority to give up what they already have, and there is not reason to do so other than to accommodate in irrational and destructive prejudice.

By Accommodating and indulging prejudice, you also perpetuate it.

Because it accommodates, indulges, perpetuates, and promotes a harmful, even deadly prejudice, your proposal is demeaning, stigmatizing, and insulting.

If you understood that, you would realize it is you who should be apologizing for suggesting we indulge that harmful, irrational prejudice.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#106
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your proposal is unrealistic. You will never get the majority to give up what they already have, and there is not reason to do so other than to accommodate in irrational and destructive prejudice.
By Accommodating and indulging prejudice, you also perpetuate it.
Because it accommodates, indulges, perpetuates, and promotes a harmful, even deadly prejudice, your proposal is demeaning, stigmatizing, and insulting.
If you understood that, you would realize it is you who should be apologizing for suggesting we indulge that harmful, irrational prejudice.
The work marriage is largely understood to be between a man and a woman. You can call me intolerant, bigoted, whatever you want, but I don't think you get to use legislation to redefine a word. Civil union, gayrriage, whatever, get your own word. I don't deny anyone the same rights, privileges, etc, but it isn't the same, and a different word to define it should be fine. Or do you all want to be called heterosexuals now?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#107
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>The work marriage is largely understood to be between a man and a woman. You can call me intolerant, bigoted, whatever you want, but I don't think you get to use legislation to redefine a word. Civil union, gayrriage, whatever, get your own word. I don't deny anyone the same rights, privileges, etc, but it isn't the same, and a different word to define it should be fine. Or do you all want to be called heterosexuals now?
Since when do you own the definition of marriage?

We CAN and HAVE used legislation, the courts, and now a vote of the people to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.

It's doesn't really matter if you like it or not. It's happening anyways. Minnesota will almost certainly pass a marriage equality bill in late 2013 or early 2014 now that the people of Minnesota have rejected the constitutional ban and the DFL has taken back the House & Senate there.

Welcome to the club.......
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#108
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you own the definition of marriage?
We CAN and HAVE used legislation, the courts, and now a vote of the people to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
It's doesn't really matter if you like it or not. It's happening anyways. Minnesota will almost certainly pass a marriage equality bill in late 2013 or early 2014 now that the people of Minnesota have rejected the constitutional ban and the DFL has taken back the House & Senate there.
Welcome to the club.......
You get to do as you like. Over reach at your own peril. The DFL won't even discuss this issue in 2013, you will be lucky to get consideration in 2014, and likely will swing the house and senate back to the R's.
non-starter

Burnsville, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#109
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you own the definition of marriage?
We CAN and HAVE used legislation, the courts, and now a vote of the people to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
It's doesn't really matter if you like it or not. It's happening anyways. Minnesota will almost certainly pass a marriage equality bill in late 2013 or early 2014 now that the people of Minnesota have rejected the constitutional ban and the DFL has taken back the House & Senate there.
Welcome to the club.......
While you are at it, why don't you get the phrase "math challenged" redefined as "democrat"?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#110
Nov 16, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when do you own the definition of marriage?
We CAN and HAVE used legislation, the courts, and now a vote of the people to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples.
It's doesn't really matter if you like it or not. It's happening anyways. Minnesota will almost certainly pass a marriage equality bill in late 2013 or early 2014 now that the people of Minnesota have rejected the constitutional ban and the DFL has taken back the House & Senate there.
Welcome to the club.......
Don't buy into his "redefine" crap!! You know better!!

"Marriage" is NOT redefined at all.

Only the Criteria-for-Participation are expanded a little.

A very little.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#111
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>You get to do as you like. Over reach at your own peril. The DFL won't even discuss this issue in 2013, you will be lucky to get consideration in 2014, and likely will swing the house and senate back to the R's.
There's no gain without risk.

Since marriage for same-sex couples is already banned in Minnesota, we have nothing to lose.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#112
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't buy into his "redefine" crap!! You know better!!
"Marriage" is NOT redefined at all.
Only the Criteria-for-Participation are expanded a little.
A very little.
The trolls don't understand the nuances of terminology.

Sometimes you have to speak to them in terminology they can understand to get a point across.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#113
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

non-starter wrote:
<quoted text>The work marriage is largely understood to be between a man and a woman. You can call me intolerant, bigoted, whatever you want, but I don't think you get to use legislation to redefine a word. Civil union, gayrriage, whatever, get your own word. I don't deny anyone the same rights, privileges, etc, but it isn't the same, and a different word to define it should be fine. Or do you all want to be called heterosexuals now?
"What marriage is has been redefined many times throughout history. The wife and children are no longer the property of the man. It now includes inter-racial couples.

But the "what" of marriage is not changed by allowing same sex couples to participate. Only the "who" of marriage is expanded.

When you use a different word to describe the same set of rules, you are indicating the "other" is not of equal worth, and is therefore different.

All marriages are unique. The difference you wish to enshrine in the law is one based on nothing more than an irrational and harmful prejudice. You don't get to use legislation to enshrine your irrational and harmful prejudice, at the expense of other Americans.

"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional." (Perry)

"In the court’s final analysis, the government’s only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."
http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA...

"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.

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)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#114
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The trolls don't understand the nuances of terminology.
Sometimes you have to speak to them in terminology they can understand to get a point across.
Their argument hinges on the concept.

Don't let them have it.

Never concede or stipulate the opposition's arrogation to select, structure or define vocabulary (nor to even set the agenda for debate), ESPECIALLY when that is precisely what they have done and are doing, all the while while accusing us of so-doing.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#115
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Their argument hinges on the concept.
Don't let them have it.
Never concede or stipulate the opposition's arrogation to select, structure or define vocabulary (nor to even set the agenda for debate), ESPECIALLY when that is precisely what they have done and are doing, all the while while accusing us of so-doing.
Whatever, I'll let you obsess over it.

No matter how many times you say it, you'll NEVER convince him we're not redefining marriage, so you'll just be talking past each other.

At least I can explain it to him in terms he can understand.

“ WOOF !”

Since: Nov 12

33.00, -111.51

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116
Nov 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever, I'll let you obsess over it.
No matter how many times you say it, you'll NEVER convince him we're not redefining marriage, so you'll just be talking past each other.
At least I can explain it to him in terms he can understand.
My parents redefined marriage when my Lutheran mother married my Catholic father. And then she CONVERTED him !

:)

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever, I'll let you obsess over it.
No matter how many times you say it, you'll NEVER convince him we're not redefining marriage, so you'll just be talking past each other.
At least I can explain it to him in terms he can understand.
You are operating on the assumption that they believe it, rather than merely being dupes to a Jesuit meme.

Power comes from staying grounded in bedrock reality.

WE are not "redefining" anything.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#118
Nov 18, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Your point works better without conceding the language.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#119
Nov 19, 2012
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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.
a hypothetical is not an argument...
that you took offense is because you are childish...

classic is you thinking your responded rationally, far from it...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#120
Nov 19, 2012
 
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>

The battle lines have been clearly drawn; you're about 2 decades too late.
So NO COMPROMISE, ALL OR NOTHING, and on and on we will go FOREVER...just like with abortion...

I already have my rights, so go right ahead...
We'll all wait...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#121
Nov 19, 2012
 
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, WHY should non-religious, civilly married couples give up the legal term marriage to appease a small group of religious fools that can't bring themselves to understand the difference between civil and religious marriage?
easy, so you can have the rights you whine daily that you don't get...unless thats not what you are really interested in obtaining...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#122
Nov 19, 2012
 
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your proposal is unrealistic. You will never get the majority to give up what they already have, and there is not reason to do so other than to accommodate in irrational and destructive prejudice.
By Accommodating and indulging prejudice, you also perpetuate it.
Because it accommodates, indulges, perpetuates, and promotes a harmful, even deadly prejudice, your proposal is demeaning, stigmatizing, and insulting.
If you understood that, you would realize it is you who should be apologizing for suggesting we indulge that harmful, irrational prejudice.
yup, but by putting everyone in the SAME GROUP, all of what you said is not applicable!

And I disagree, the religious get their precious name "marriage" the non-believers get a clear divide between religious relationships and legally recognized ones...

But the fact is, that YOU guys are rejecting the idea and claiming its because THEY would reject it...

it makes me think the rights are collateral to what you really want...

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#123
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
yup, but by putting everyone in the SAME GROUP, all of what you said is not applicable!
And I disagree, the religious get their precious name "marriage" the non-believers get a clear divide between religious relationships and legally recognized ones...
But the fact is, that YOU guys are rejecting the idea and claiming its because THEY would reject it...
it makes me think the rights are collateral to what you really want...
For many, the rights are primary. Collateral is the removal of the enshrinement of prejudice in the law, but many realize that is an important, even essential, goal. You can't have one without the other. Your proposal accommodates, perpetuates, and promotes that irrational, destructive prejudice.

Your desire to dismiss the fact that we are seeking equal rights in addition to an end to government endorsement of a deadly, irrational prejudice appears to be an excuse to maintain your prejudice.
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#124
Nov 19, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Your proposal accommodates, perpetuates, and promotes that irrational, destructive prejudice.
how?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 101 - 120 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

51 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 5 min Frankie Rizzo 200,227
Dozens of Gay-Marriage Licenses Issued in Colorado 8 min Jumper The wise 10
Philly Fun 10 min Jumper The wise 5
Singapore backs call to destroy gay-themed books 11 min Belle Sexton 16
Is Vladimir Putin Another Adolf Hitler? 15 min Frankie Rizzo 21
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 16 min WasteWater 1,862
Republican governors' words shift on gay marriage 18 min WasteWater 6
Indiana Won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages 25 min WasteWater 63
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 26 min Bruno 50,728
Biggest Gay Lies 2 hr Dave 954
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••