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.

heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1703 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Woodtick57- Notice I said homosexuals have never been SYSTEMATICALLY OR INSTITUTIONALLY segregated, deprived of housing, employment or educational opportunities, persecuted by the police, forced to drink from different water fountains etc.
I'm sure gays have been unfairly discriminated, but discrimination against gays has not been enshrined in laws that parallel the racist Jim Crow Laws.
Do you understand the difference between social and institutional discrimination?
yet, in many states (for example, Alabama & Texas), they can legally be barred from housing and jobs just for being homosexual. Until the Lawrence decision, they could be arrested for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes.

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1704 Jun 24, 2013
Lincoln shat on the constitution, especially concerning due process.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
My hope is that Americans will draw inspiration from Martin Luther King, Jr. to take up the cross and fight for morality, spiritual truth, and religious freedom, even in the face of adversity and vicious opposition. For “my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right.” Abraham Lincoln
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1705 Jun 24, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
yet, in many states (for example, Alabama & Texas), they can legally be barred from housing and jobs just for being homosexual. Until the Lawrence decision, they could be arrested for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes.
Your statement: "In many states (for example, Alabama & Texas), they can LEGALLY be barred from housing and jobs just for being homosexual":

Response: Prove it.

Your statement: "Until the Lawrence decision, they could be arrested for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes.":

Response: I agree with that, but sodomy laws applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals because sodomy can be practiced by both sexual orientations. In other words, sodomy laws did not specifically target homosexuals as the Jim Crow laws specifically subjugated and disenfranchised people of color.

Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people? If they did, then how can you explain the fact that people of color and LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities in the U.S.A?

Gays have conveniently compared their movement with the racial rights struggle, but comparison of the two is at best misleading, and at worst, dishonest.
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1706 Jun 24, 2013
cpeter1313 wrote:
Lincoln shat on the constitution, especially concerning due process.
<quoted text>
And in doing so he preserved the Union and made our country one of the greatest nations in the world. Lincoln' unfaltering allegiance to the will of God explains why U.S.A coins and bills continue to declare "In God we trust" not "In Man we trust."
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1707 Jun 24, 2013
And in doing so he preserved the Union and made our country one of the greatest nations in the world. Lincoln's unfaltering allegiance to the will of God explains why U.S coins and bills continue to declare "In God we trust" not "In Man we trust."

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1708 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
And in doing so he preserved the Union and made our country one of the greatest nations in the world. Lincoln' unfaltering allegiance to the will of God explains why U.S.A coins and bills continue to declare "In God we trust" not "In Man we trust."
ummm.....that was only put on our bills and most of our coins in the 1950's because some cult member pussies were afraid of the big bad godless commies.
same reason they destroyed our pledge with the "under god" insert that ruined the cadence, beauty and veracity of our national pledge of allegiance...
why don't you already know this? a real citizen would. you must not care enough about your country to learn about it, or you are too stupid to learn about it...too close to call, I'd bet it is both...

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1709 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Your statement: "Until the Lawrence decision, they could be arrested for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes.":
Response: I agree with that, but sodomy laws applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals because sodomy can be practiced by both sexual orientations.
Actually the sodomy laws in Texas were VERY SPECIFIC on who they were targeting......and it was clear to SCOTUS as well.....here is a bit of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's dissent:
The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person “engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” Tex. Penal Code Ann.§21.06(a)(2003). Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by §21.06.

The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct–and only that conduct–subject to criminal sanction.
http://www.la w. cornell. edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1710 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
Your statement: "In many states (for example, Alabama & Texas), they can LEGALLY be barred from housing and jobs just for being homosexual":
Response: Prove it.
Your statement: "Until the Lawrence decision, they could be arrested for having sex, even in the privacy of their own homes.":
Response: I agree with that, but sodomy laws applied to both homosexuals and heterosexuals because sodomy can be practiced by both sexual orientations. In other words, sodomy laws did not specifically target homosexuals as the Jim Crow laws specifically subjugated and disenfranchised people of color.
Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people? If they did, then how can you explain the fact that people of color and LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities in the U.S.A?
Gays have conveniently compared their movement with the racial rights struggle, but comparison of the two is at best misleading, and at worst, dishonest.
fired for being a homosexual :
http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-y...

loss of housing :

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013...

(maps are identical, by the way)

denied service for being homosexual :

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_US_states_i...
(all but 18 states have laws stating that a business can refuse service to a homosexual)

insofar as the sodomy laws, show us just how many heterosexuals were charged with violating those laws, while having sex with an opposite sexed partner.

insofar as the similarities that are drawn between the two struggles - it's because both groups desired access to liberties that were historically barred to them. in homosexual's case, it is marriage and those 1300+ priviliges enumerated by the GAO a few years ago that are granted to legally married couples.

"Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people?"
because of the prejudice inherent in the laws that treat homosexuals differently (see the links above). further, just look through the threads in the homosexual section of topix & see how many people use their reigion as a bludgeon (read : reason) to deny that homosexuals deserve to be treated equally under the law, despite the guarantees written into the 14th amendment where it uses the word "ALL". i totally get it where some denominations, some religions, some faiths disagree about homosexuality. completely. however, that cannot drive our secular public laws. one faith may believe that women aren't as good as men & shouldn't teach males - does that mean that the public school system in that state shouldn't allow women to teach? that's a ridiculous accomodation to make...but if you want to use the "slippery slope", we can start there and go down hill if we begin making accomodations in our secular laws based upon a religion's belief.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#1711 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
And in doing so he preserved the Union and made our country one of the greatest nations in the world. Lincoln's unfaltering allegiance to the will of God explains why U.S coins and bills continue to declare "In God we trust" not "In Man we trust."
In God We Trust came many years after Lincoln.

We follow the Constitution; not the Bible.

Many learned Bible scholars have poured over the Bible for the last two-thousand years. There is still no agreement on its meaning.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1712 Jun 24, 2013
wow..having every single point fearless put up shown to be idiotic and false makes it look like he doesn't have clue as to what he is talking about.

its almost like he posts what he wishes were true as fact. truthiness, i think they call that now...
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1713 Jun 24, 2013
NorCal Native wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the sodomy laws in Texas were VERY SPECIFIC on who they were targeting......and it was clear to SCOTUS as well.....here is a bit of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner's dissent:
The statute at issue here makes sodomy a crime only if a person “engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.” Tex. Penal Code Ann.§21.06(a)(2003). Sodomy between opposite-sex partners, however, is not a crime in Texas. That is, Texas treats the same conduct differently based solely on the participants. Those harmed by this law are people who have a same-sex sexual orientation and thus are more likely to engage in behavior prohibited by §21.06.
The Texas statute makes homosexuals unequal in the eyes of the law by making particular conduct–and only that conduct–subject to criminal sanction.
http://www.la w. cornell. edu/supct/html/02-102.ZC.html
You evaded my last question.

*Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people?

*If they did, then how can you explain the fact that people of color and LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities in the U.S.A?

It’s quite absurd to argue that the prohibition of sodomy (a deviant sexual behavior) is historically comparable to the systematic denial of equal employment, educational, and housing opportunities to people of color.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1714 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You evaded my last question.
*Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people?
*If they did, then how can you explain the fact that people of color and LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities in the U.S.A?
It’s quite absurd to argue that the prohibition of sodomy (a deviant sexual behavior) is historically comparable to the systematic denial of equal employment, educational, and housing opportunities to people of color.
heart and mind gave you a great list...

every single one of your bigoted, fear and hatred induced fantasies of how the world is has been proven wrong.

you are making yourself look like an even bigger idiot than your prejudice makes you...
Fearless Contrarian

Saint Paul, MN

#1715 Jun 24, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
fired for being a homosexual :
http://www.businessinsider.com/states-where-y...
loss of housing :
http://www.theatlanticcities.com/housing/2013...
(maps are identical, by the way)
denied service for being homosexual :
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_US_states_i...
(all but 18 states have laws stating that a business can refuse service to a homosexual)
insofar as the sodomy laws, show us just how many heterosexuals were charged with violating those laws, while having sex with an opposite sexed partner.
An absence of laws to protect homosexuals is NOT the same as the enactment of laws to specifically discriminate homosexuals. The discrimination is social not institutional. Obese people are often cruelly and unfairly discriminated by society, but does that mean we need to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect the overweight?

Secondly, sexual orientation is not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc. so why is it imperative to enact laws for a group of people who are only distinguishable by their sexual preference?

When you have a job interview, apply for a loan, or visit a house for sale do you take off your clothes and express your sexual identity? My guess, and hope, is no. This explains why LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities as people of color; and are in fact better off, educationally, economically, and politically.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#1716 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
An absence of laws to protect homosexuals is NOT the same as the enactment of laws to specifically discriminate homosexuals. The discrimination is social not institutional. Obese people are often cruelly and unfairly discriminated by society, but does that mean we need to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect the overweight?
Secondly, sexual orientation is not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc. so why is it imperative to enact laws for a group of people who are only distinguishable by their sexual preference?
When you have a job interview, apply for a loan, or visit a house for sale do you take off your clothes and express your sexual identity? My guess, and hope, is no. This explains why LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities as people of color; and are in fact better off, educationally, economically, and politically.
if you do those two latter things as a couple, which most people do, then yes, their sexual orientation is pretty obvious...

you're really not able to think even the most basic thoughts through, are you?

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#1717 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
An absence of laws to protect homosexuals is NOT the same as the enactment of laws to specifically discriminate homosexuals. The discrimination is social not institutional. Obese people are often cruelly and unfairly discriminated by society, but does that mean we need to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect the overweight?
You can't have it both ways. Discrimination by the law, or even simply omission from constitutionally guaranteed equal protection of the laws, does not equate to being discriminated against by society.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
Secondly, sexual orientation is not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc. so why is it imperative to enact laws for a group of people who are only distinguishable by their sexual preference?
That homosexuality is not outwardly visible is utterly irrelevant to equal protection of the laws.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
When you have a job interview, apply for a loan, or visit a house for sale do you take off your clothes and express your sexual identity? My guess, and hope, is no. This explains why LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities as people of color; and are in fact better off, educationally, economically, and politically.
Do you really think this is a valid, logical argument? If so, you truly are at sea.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1718 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
An absence of laws to protect homosexuals is NOT the same as the enactment of laws to specifically discriminate homosexuals. The discrimination is social not institutional. Obese people are often cruelly and unfairly discriminated by society, but does that mean we need to enact anti-discrimination laws to protect the overweight?
Secondly, sexual orientation is not an outwardly visible characteristic such as color, gender, age etc. so why is it imperative to enact laws for a group of people who are only distinguishable by their sexual preference?
When you have a job interview, apply for a loan, or visit a house for sale do you take off your clothes and express your sexual identity? My guess, and hope, is no. This explains why LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities as people of color; and are in fact better off, educationally, economically, and politically.
what part of no protections do you not get? an employer's personal opinion about homosexuality can get your fired in any of 29 states (my home state included). a landlord's opinion about homosexuality can still keep you from being able to rent a home or an apartment in any of 29 states. and there's nothing the person fired or denied housing can do about it.

"outwardly visible"....yet many straights express derision over the "flamboyantly gay" males or the "overly butch" woman.

in a job interview...presumably you fill out an application. normally, there's questions relating to being married or single. if the employer doesn't like that your name is "Joe" and your spouse's name is "George", poof there goes the job opportunity. likewise, if you already work for the employer but perhaps put "single" in the slot on the application and your employer catches wind of you referring to your same sex boyfriend or girlfriend, pooooof, there goes your job. just because they don't like having a homosexual working for them - in any of 29 states.

so, losing a place to live or a job doesn't affect a homosexual in economic or social way? try living without a job or as a homeless person for a week & then get back with us.

that risk of losing one's home or job looms over our lives and is a direct threat to us. all on the whimsy of someone's personal opinion of whether or not they agree with homosexuality. try living with that for a week or two see how much you like it.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#1719 Jun 24, 2013
heartandmind wrote:
<quoted text>
what part of no protections do you not get? an employer's personal opinion about homosexuality can get your fired in any of 29 states (my home state included). a landlord's opinion about homosexuality can still keep you from being able to rent a home or an apartment in any of 29 states. and there's nothing the person fired or denied housing can do about it.
"outwardly visible"....yet many straights express derision over the "flamboyantly gay" males or the "overly butch" woman.
in a job interview...presumably you fill out an application. normally, there's questions relating to being married or single. if the employer doesn't like that your name is "Joe" and your spouse's name is "George", poof there goes the job opportunity. likewise, if you already work for the employer but perhaps put "single" in the slot on the application and your employer catches wind of you referring to your same sex boyfriend or girlfriend, pooooof, there goes your job. just because they don't like having a homosexual working for them - in any of 29 states.
so, losing a place to live or a job doesn't affect a homosexual in economic or social way? try living without a job or as a homeless person for a week & then get back with us.
that risk of losing one's home or job looms over our lives and is a direct threat to us. all on the whimsy of someone's personal opinion of whether or not they agree with homosexuality. try living with that for a week or two see how much you like it.
Cry me a river, you sissy. The majority of landlords and bosses know that you're not going to be a crummy tenant or poor employee based solely on your sexual perversion. If there are a few that do, then that's normal. Normal people get offended by people with sexual perversions, and more so by the ones who advertise it.
heartandmind

Moline, IL

#1720 Jun 24, 2013
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>Cry me a river, you sissy. The majority of landlords and bosses know that you're not going to be a crummy tenant or poor employee based solely on your sexual perversion. If there are a few that do, then that's normal. Normal people get offended by people with sexual perversions, and more so by the ones who advertise it.
hey loopy....how's that insane assilum working out for you? like the fashion statement those straight jackets make? they're so YOU, for sure!

“A JOURNEY OF A THOUSAND MILES”

Since: Aug 08

MUST BEGIN WITH A SINGLE STEP!

#1721 Jun 24, 2013
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You evaded my last question.
*Even if Sodomy laws were enacted to target homosexuals, how did they systematize a number of economic, educational and social disadvantages for LGBTQ people?
*If they did, then how can you explain the fact that people of color and LGBTQ people do not share similar economic, social and educational disparities in the U.S.A?
It’s quite absurd to argue that the prohibition of sodomy (a deviant sexual behavior) is historically comparable to the systematic denial of equal employment, educational, and housing opportunities to people of color.
You've been shown, you just refuse to accept it....that's your issue not mine!!!

“Reality is better than truth.”

Since: Nov 09

Indianapolis

#1722 Jun 24, 2013
So the constitution is just a convenience to you? Maybe, instead of due process, he should have revoked religious rights.

BTW--lincoln was also a spiritualist and regularly held seances--something proscribed by christianity. His abuses created the civil war.
Fearless Contrarian wrote:
<quoted text>
And in doing so he preserved the Union and made our country one of the greatest nations in the world. Lincoln' unfaltering allegiance to the will of God explains why U.S.A coins and bills continue to declare "In God we trust" not "In Man we trust."

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 Obama: Notion that being armed would have saved... 3 min WasteWater 895
News Sanders: Don't blame Islam for Orlando shooting 16 min Rosa_Winkel 582
News Chicago Reacts to Orlando Shooting 40 min WasteWater 9
Is Fa-Foxy a Catholic? 47 min Tequila 374
News Drag queens raise holy hell in Jerusalem's only... 53 min rampart 3
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 55 min WasteWater 12,948
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr TomInElPaso 37,239
News Man Accused Of Firing Paintballs At Stockton Ga... 2 hr Uncle Festus 47
More from around the web