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 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of164
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Sheeple, you know a lot more about MN than I,do. But it seems to me you predicted the amendment would pass.
From what I can see, a measured approach is warranted in MN. maybe civil unions in 2014 and marriage equality in 2016 or 2017?
I live here, and all along i knew it would be close from the information available.

i think Sheeple has a good take on us here. the GOP had both our houses on a jobs, jobs, jobs mandate, and they passed that by to immediately pus this amendment proposal of hate. They got te boot. We want the lege and ov. to take care of our fiscal situation, then we can work on thhis issue.

by that time a popular vote should easily make SSM leggal here.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

i seem to be havin issues with my 'g' and 'h' keys...

Too many cheetos and goldfish crumbs in there?
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Nov 15, 2012
 
woodtick57 wrote:
i seem to be havin issues with my 'g' and 'h' keys...
Too many cheetos and goldfish crumbs in there?
I love goldfish!

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

snyper wrote:
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".
Thank you. I've been saying that for a few months now on every thread that involves the MN SSM debate.

I urged people to vote against it by pointing out that SSM would remain illegal.

Looks like my message got through all the noise.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad your parents came around and voted against. It will result in much less strain over the holidays.
BTW: I had an "aha moment" on election day. We met a woman walking down the street who was truly conflicted about her vote. She had gay friends and family members whom she wanted to support, but she didn't want to "redefine marriage." We went through all the standard talking points, with which she was already familiar. It seemed like she would head to the polls still in doubt, which usually translates into a "no."
As we parted, I pointed out that we didn't redefine "soldier" when we inducted women into the military. She seemed to like that. I'm sure it changed her outlook as she headed to the polls.
I wish that comparison had occurred to me.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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?
Why should we be forced to surrender a concept we were raised with?

Though I agree perhaps making "marriage" solely the property of churches sounds good to folks like you it doesn't change the fact that we are discussing civil marriage which is conferred by the government not churches.

As a so called lawyer I'd think you'd understand that. But then you've proven me wrong on that account nearly every time you post something.

Why the insistence on re-defining everything?

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Truth wrote:
PS. What about all the churches that support gay marriages, are you going to have one church dictate to another the definition of marriage?
That's the way it appears it is today.

And that is the main problem. Marriage is a government institution. The State controls it not the Church.

Though I hate to bring her up, the LSP doesn't see how much she supports a christian version of Sharia Law, though Sharia Law is one of her favorite slogans.

Jane D'Oh suffers from the same problem.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

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...
You say separate but equal isn't the best argument yet it the one you are pushing.

Makes no sense.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

It's part of pushing the "redefine" meme.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
But you never point out when I'm Fair. And Balanced.
:(
That should give you a hint then.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm glad your parents came around and voted against. It will result in much less strain over the holidays.
BTW: I had an "aha moment" on election day. We met a woman walking down the street who was truly conflicted about her vote. She had gay friends and family members whom she wanted to support, but she didn't want to "redefine marriage." We went through all the standard talking points, with which she was already familiar. It seemed like she would head to the polls still in doubt, which usually translates into a "no."
As we parted, I pointed out that we didn't redefine "soldier" when we inducted women into the military. She seemed to like that. I'm sure it changed her outlook as she headed to the polls.
Love the soldier analogy. BRILLIANT!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

Mona Lott wrote:
<quoted text>
I love goldfish!
"Don't eat the green ones...They're not ripe."

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

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?
Because, as has been proven over and over, under our current legal and political systems, you CAN'T get "ALL the rights" without the name.

And because the only reason to HAVE a different name is so that the two groups can be treated differently.

You, being an attorney (cough, cough) should understand that, shouldn't you?
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

nhjeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
WHAT is separate?
you guys are so set to hate you are not even reading...
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, as has been proven over and over, under our current legal and political systems, you CAN'T get "ALL the rights" without the name.
And because the only reason to HAVE a different name is so that the two groups can be treated differently.
You, being an attorney (cough, cough) should understand that, shouldn't you?
go back and read the 100 times I said ALL people get a civil partnership...not just gays... ALL PEOPLE...

can you at least drop your blind rage for one second and grasp this point?

the institution of civil partnership would be the only recognized legal institution...marriage would be only a religious term...
100 times I have written this and you refuse to hear it?

why do you think that is John?

Also, I could swear up and down that you are an illegal immigrant, but since your not, how much would you care?

That's how I feel about you guys guessing what i do for a living...

I don't need to be anything to make my point, the person most interested in saying what i do is Mona...but she doesn't mind insisting on delusion....
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DNF wrote:
<quoted text>Why should we be forced to surrender a concept we were raised with?
Though I agree perhaps making "marriage" solely the property of churches sounds good to folks like you it doesn't change the fact that we are discussing civil marriage which is conferred by the government not churches.
As a so called lawyer I'd think you'd understand that. But then you've proven me wrong on that account nearly every time you post something.
Why the insistence on re-defining everything?
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!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
go back and read the 100 times I said ALL people get a civil partnership...not just gays... ALL PEOPLE...
can you at least drop your blind rage for one second and grasp this point?
the institution of civil partnership would be the only recognized legal institution...marriage would be only a religious term...
100 times I have written this and you refuse to hear it?
why do you think that is John?
Also, I could swear up and down that you are an illegal immigrant, but since your not, how much would you care?
That's how I feel about you guys guessing what i do for a living...
I don't need to be anything to make my point, the person most interested in saying what i do is Mona...but she doesn't mind insisting on delusion....
B.S.

This is just your latest incarnation, now that we've proven we can win marriage equality at the polls.

Before you kept suggesting civil unions just for same-sex couples; now it's civil unions for all?

NO ONE is stopping you from working on a national civil unions bill. GO FOR IT.

Meanwhile we'll be passing marriage equality in IL, DE, RI, HI, MN, etc, etc, etc.

Better get busy, I know the religious freaks are really going to embrace your idea of giving up their preferential treatment of their marriages. It's not about the rights, it's about them insisting on putting their unions on a higher pedestal than same-sex unions, regardless of what they're called.

Btw, I was wrong- turns out ALL FOUR ballot measures won, instead of just 2 as I predicted! I just LOVE being wrong like that!!!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Nov 15, 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!
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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Nov 15, 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!
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.....
Jane Dough

Bellows Falls, VT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Nov 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
B.S.
This is just your latest incarnation, now that we've proven we can win marriage equality at the polls.
Before you kept suggesting civil unions just for same-sex couples; now it's civil unions for all?
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...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 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.

•••
•••