Comments for Marriage Equality Bill Introduced in Minnesota »
Posted By Neophile 1 year, 7 months 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 »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 103 of 104 Comments
-
-
Neutral
Poulenc1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Niimki1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It only affects him because he feels the anxiety over his own homophobia. Its HIS sexuality that he is questioning.
Gay marriage does nothing to make a straight marriage suffer...If your marriages are falling apart start looking at yourselves as the answer. Maybe it's because you are ignorant and treat your wives like third rate citizens.
I happen to be straight and nothing about somebody being gay or lesbian threatens that for me. In fact it makes me even more reassured about who I am and what kind of marriage I have. I think anybody who is pretty secure in their own sexual orientation should be able to do that. Its just one more method of the fear factor to keep control of their narrow minded, uneducated ideologies.
Reply-
Neutral
Niimki1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
and if it is a religious argument you want to make, then maybe you should not include the government in your method of controlling the "rampant sin" you all want to preach about. Maybe you should try something else, like maybe having faith in your own teachings and perhaps praying for changes in people's attitudes. For a religion of love and hope, you sure do make a lot of people want to slap the crap out of you.
Reply-
Neutral
Shadowolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unAVMqRmUNw
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Spadecaller1 year, 7 months ago
-
Locky12Comment removed: Spammer, Abusive
-
-
-
Neutral
hamy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am not afraid of your lack of moral fiber. I just want you to answer my question. How does two people being married affect your marriage or family if you are not gay?
That's all. I just want to know what it is going to do to you personally that has gotten you so riled up that you have to use abusive language to get your point across.
Reply -
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree completely.
but that doesn't make what I said any less untrue.
your rights will be used as a pawn more by the right than by the left this election. whether you like it or not. and if we don't pay attention to the bigger picture, we might end up with a guy in the white house talking about a constitutional ban on gay marraige instead of a guy in the white house saying its up to each state to decide.
Reply-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It makes what you said politically expedient. That statement saddens me, as I am sure it saddens many gays and lesbians who have had to wait for government at all levels to accept us as humans. The doofus in the White House should go down in history as the worst President the US has never legitimately elected.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It could also be that these Republicans are actually conservatives. They read the law and decided it was discriminatory. I do believe that Arnold is a bit of a moderate when it comes to being a Republican... if he's the "average" California Republican, I don't find it difficult to believe that the California court would do such a thing.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yeah, but Arnold is an Austrian Republican :P
But seriously, I think Arnold has been rather consistent in his statements about gay marriage. He believes it should be up to the people and I'm not sure about his attitude about judges determining this.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That was what I thought. I wasn't quite certain about his position regarding the courts though. I think he is from a totally different cloth then Reagan was, a better one. We have a similar Republican getting ready to run for Governor here, I believe. I hope she wins... I suppose I'm not to prejudiced that she lives in my small town of 16k!
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The trouble with your method is we are playing defense. We should be offensively going state to state and fighting fire with fire. Where there are constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, fight for an amendment affirming marriage equality. I know it sounds stupid, but we need to be pushing the envelope in every state. We are definitely not going to win any ground if McCain is elected, but I fear we will not fare much better with Obama either.
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm saying don't play any offense. for now.
by all means, get out there, oppose any constitutional amendment talk and bills with religious defintions of marraige, but maybe don't push forward until after obama wins. then, the pro-gay marraige position on the board will be much much stronger, equality advocates can all switch to offense without fear of the govt overturning decisions made locally (like what happened in SF a few years back. newsome made a bold move then the fed govt yanked the rug out from under him)
in the meantime, alliances should be made with other groups fighting for other worthy causes in order to bolster numbers and help push through each other's positions when the time is right. which isn't far away.
a little patience could be the difference between complete victory and a great setback.
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"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-
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A state has no compelling interest in "love, lust, desire" between individuals. Although our heritage as a country was informed with Christian moral attitudes and thus we had sodomy laws in the past, I believe that they are now defunct. And they should be. If two men or two women wish to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their home, the state has no business in that at all.
However, the state does have a compelling interest in the legal definition and recognition of civil marriage. I urge you to read the New York State Supreme Court discussion on this matter.
Reply -
Neutral
Coatl1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"However, the state does have a compelling interest in the legal definition and recognition of civil marriage."
That's exactly my point, the interest of any secular state should recide in the well being of their citizens. I still think my question is valid, why do people get married? In the answer is the key of wheter there is equality or not. If the people has no interest in equality it's ok to me, it's your country. But if you really want equality then you should explore that question.
Reply-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
My response is that the state is not in the business of figuring out "why" people get married. In this context, the state is in the business of defining, through its legislative process, what "civil marriage" is. For example, a state may legislate that the status of "civil marriage" can be provided to one man and one woman. Or, it may legislate that the status of "civil marriage" can be provided to any two individuals, regardless of gender. Or only between two individuals of the same sex. Or between as many individuals as care to enter into a "group marriage".
From the definition of that status, various other laws of the state, regarding property, taxes, etc., would be interpreted.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well this is one of those cases in which the state does have a legitimate interest. The primary reason for marriage is to raise the next generation. Considering technology and the foster care system being in the condition it is in, it would seem to me that the state's have a vested interest in allowing gay marriage. Particularly considering homosexual couples are equal to heterosexuals in parenting.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Marriage is not required to conceive or parent, clearly, as thousands of unmarried parents attest, and many married couples are incapable of reproducing, or unwilling, yet the state neither punishes the unwed patents nor refuses to licene the non-reproductive to marry, so again, where is the state's interest in this? Children are not really part of the equation, as they usually do not exist at the time of the licensing of a marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I stated the state's interest. I didn't state they were being logical in it. Its in the state's interests due to various benefits given to married couples as well. Why do they receive these benefits? Clearly its because it is thought you will be starting a family. Which a homosexual couple is perfectly capable of doing. Does that mean that they must? No, not really. The state takes a gamble that a couple will... I, for one, think most state's act irrationally. Its clearly in the best interests of the state to legalize this.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've addressed this issue a few times, but to reiterate for you tkyrchncs:
The state is a party in a civil marriage. The status of being "married" has meaning to the state. The state confers certain rights and responsibilities to those accorded the status of "married". If you disagree, then ask those proponents of same-sex marriage and you'll get an earful about homosexuals wanting to be accorded the same "rights and benefits" (for example, property rights) as married people receive.
Thus, yes indeed, the state has a very significant interest in how it defines civil marriage.
Reply-
Neutral
tkyrchncs1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That is not the point, I know how things ARE and understand why any couple might want the benefits accorded to married couples only. MY question is WHY the state does this. What interest of the state motivates this and makes it true? Why are all citizens not treated completely equally without regard to their marital status? What business of the state's is it if I marry? Why can't I just designate someone as my medical power of attorney, and my beneficiary? Why do I have to marry to do this, and why does marriage automatically carry these benefits? It is not because of children, because a marriage carries these benefits and others whether there are any children or not.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Radiofreeeuropa1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
scott42611 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
Neutral
SonOfTheMask1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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-
-
Neutral
Natureboy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The state should have no role in the business of religion. The "sanctity of marriage" horsesh!t should therefore be a non-issue in the three-party legal construct.
I support civil unions of both straights and gays. If marriage is a "sacrament," let the churches carry on about it, as the state has no business in the administration of sacraments.
Reply -
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree with your first few sentences SOTM. My question to you is what business is it of the state's if two men or two women wish to get married? How is the state getting anything less out of the deal? Considering that it could mean a boon to the foster care system, for those who do not wish to actually go through medical procedures to have children, the state would seem to have a vested interest in allowing same sex marriage!
Reply
-
-
Neutral
david_nwpa1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
kedirian1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
-
raats6662Comment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
ETproductions1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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: Retracted by user
-
-
Neutral
Mdiar1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
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 -
-
sailrComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
Shadowolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
...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 -
-
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.