Marriage Equality Bill Introduced in Minnesota »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 1 month ago in StyleThe Marriage and Family Protection Act was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, on Friday. The bill would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Read Full Story at minnesotamonitor.com »
143 Views Share Story 31 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Neophile
I'm a Propeller Scout so if you have any questions or concerns, send me a message and I'll be happy to help.
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 103 of 104 Comments (view all)
-
-
0%
Poulenc1 year, 1 month ago
Love the appropriation represented by the bill's name: The Marriage and Family Protection Act.
In re gay marriage, the motor has begun to accelerate. And, really, it's just a matter of time until people look back on resistance to its legalization as we do now on those who were anti-suffrage. Or against allowing people of different races to wed.
Reply-
0%
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 1 month ago
I'm a tee-totaler, but the same goes for this insane 'war on drugs'
ZERO CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy1 year, 1 month ago
Let's apply that same tolerance to every other deviation from justice: anarchy for all!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller1 year, 1 month ago
Hopefully the day will soon come when the ideologies of misguided religious zealots and homophobes will not interfere with the freedom of others to exercise their equal civil rights.
Reply-
0%
Locky121 year, 1 month ago
You might want to exchange the word "freedom" and replace it with "license".
Reply -
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
I'm all for any couple who wants to get married, and of course gay marriage is inevitable since its a civil rights issue.
but I fear that its a mistake to bring this out right now in terms of the big picture. this will do more to rally the far right conservative base than anything McCain could ever do or say. obama would be smart to simply say its up to the states and leave it at that.
Reply -
-
0%
NoWayMan1 year, 1 month ago
"how long should we wait?"
until november. until the moment after obama wins.
with obama in the white house and a dem majority in either the house or senate, there won't be any federal roadblock for any action taken by any states that want to legalize gay marriage. there won't be any talk about constitutional amendments, etc.
then you'll have a positive domino effect. and then, in ten years maybe when the US hasn't fallen into the pits of hell for granting gays the same rights as everyone else, we'll all look back and say how dumb it was to ban gay marraige in the first place.
but if McCain wins, you'll be asking "if not now, when?" for the next ten years.
this must be played with a long term strategy in mind.
Reply
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago
"Marriage equality" in this context is a marketing term, no different than "pro-life" or "pro-choice".
It is employed to generate sympathy for a particular viewpoint.
The reality is that marriage has been and should remain an institution defined by each state according to its legislature. If the state's constitution defines marriage as a status to be provided to one man and one woman, then marriage "equality" would be interpreted in that context. Namely, each person is equally able to marry one person of the opposite gender.
This viewpoint is exactly how the New York Supreme Court viewed that state's definition of marriage.
Reply-
0%
Coatl1 year, 1 month ago
Perhaps the point here is why do people want to get married. If love, lust, desire or legal recognition of a personal relationship is the answer, then there is no real equality in marriage, since gay people wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite gender anymore that I would want to marry someone of my own gender. It would be somethig like saying that there is freedom of religion since you're free to choose only between to be Sunni or Shia.
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 1 month ago
The constitution and it's bill of rights excludes no one in the nation. It's about time we honor the equality proclaimed in these remarkable documents.
Reply -
-
0%
scott42611 year, 1 month ago
One thing many on the right simply cannot wrap their heads around is the fact that one of the precepts underlying the Constitution is that the tyranny of the majority cannot trounce on the rights of the minority (but then, they also don't get that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental founding ideal that our Founding Fathers took from the Magna Carta and is a bedrock principle of our democracy).
Sorry to get so cerebral here, but I just don't understand what people don't get. If I choose to marry another man, that is MY business. And we should have all the rights and privileges of any straight married couple.
That is how I see it.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask1 year, 1 month ago
The issue of civil marriage is not a private matter. Civil marriage is legal construct between three parties: the two getting married and the state. Thus, the state has a compelling interest in the matter.
What IS a private matter is with whom you choose to consort and/or engage in sex with them.
There is a distinct difference.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa1 year, 1 month ago
SOTM, people marry daily and yet they do not necessarily have sex. Should the sterile be denied marriage? In theory, people on death row can wed prior to their execution, but the gay couple who has loved one another for 5 decades is denied? Your principles are simply warped, period!
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy1 year, 1 month ago
it's not a RIGHT. Apply your grey matter to the derivation of rights.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
0%
kedirian1 year, 1 month ago
Enlightenment has still quite a ways to go, but sooner rather than later the Christian's movement to then amend state constitutions and thus ensure their ancient belief is forced again on the overal population will be seen for what it is: a product of mean thinking, fear for the unknown, and the lack of generosity to let their fellow citizens live in mutual affection regardless of their ability to "bring forth children".
And in these days when the effects of Global warming - as a result of overpopulation and destruction of natural habitat - are evident from the midwest to Asia, it is clear that the old "dogma" is, in fact, against Nature.
Let Nature take its course, as observed among homosexual humans and animals, and we will find that same-sex relations are a necessary and valid brake on sacramentalized and unrestrained procreation with all the deleterious affects we are seeing all around us!
Reply -
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
Good for Minnesota and I do prefer to see it placed into the law through the legislative process rather then a judge ruling in its favor. Both are legal but a vote further legitimizes it in the eyes of many.
Reply -
0%
raats66621 year, 1 month ago
Minnesota and California have taken major steps in taken THE most important words from the Constitution "And justice for All".
Frankly, it the SAME step taken as when Black changed from being 3/5 of a person and Women were given the right to vote.
Reply -
0%
ETproductions1 year, 1 month ago
I've been married to the same woman for 32 years. But my attitude is it's no business of mine who somebody else wants to form a relationship with.
If the American people really want to write into the constitution a prohibition against homosexual marriage, fine. But don't claim that it isn't discrimination. It's no different than the anti-miscegenation laws of the past. It creates to separate and entirely unequal classes of people.
And I utterly reject the silly argument that permitting gay marriage will turn everybody gay. Baloney. My sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with the law of the land. I knew what it was before I had any idea what gay even meant.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
I hope that California's Supreme Court decision opens a flood gate of pro-gay marriage legislation. I'd prefer the legislation to the court decisions, or both if possible, to have both the judicial precedent and the laws in the record. I met a guy sometime last year and I think I may love him. Not really talked to him about those feelings for him though, at least I know he also likes guys and has admitted attraction for me. Oh well, I guess I'll see what happens in a few years. In no rush whatsoever to fall in love completely with anyone!
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy1 year, 1 month ago
Mari age is a sacrament.
Faggotry is an abomnination.
Ergo
Fags can never be married.
No amount of "laws" will make faggorty any less immoral or abominable.
Reply -
sailrComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
Shadowolf1 year, 1 month ago
...what gets me, is the hatemongers always attempt to de-humanize those in disagreement...it is slowly getting to the point where the majority of people are starting to recognize this tactic for what it is anti-Christian HATE...
Look, if David wanted to marry a cousin of mine, that's between THEM...it ONLY becomes my biz if they have a big fight at my place...or have my chair reupholstered without asking me...(KIDDING!!!)
Reply-
0%
Mdiar1 year, 1 month ago
If double posts, sorry... but Propeller has still ignored my last post, hah!
Your humor is like a light in the night. Much needed relief.
Reply
-
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.