Minnesota to put Gay Marriage ban on 2012 ballot

phillyhangin

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Posts
207
Media
3
Likes
19
Points
103
Location
Philadelphia, PA
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Isn't even simpler than that? You are not them.
Exactly. Government intervention that benefits them and their positions seems to be fine (especially if it requires other people to support their positions); government intervention which does not benefit them directly - even if it benefits society in general - is evil and oppressive and must be abolished.

Of course, conservatives also accuse liberals of using the legislative process to force them to support liberal causes - and they're right; it's pretty much an unavoidable outcome in a two-party system. I don't think it matters whether the legislation is proposed by a liberal or conservative; the real test should be whether or not it is consistent with the principles of the US Constitution.

In the case of the gay marriage debate, passing a legislative or constitutional ban perpetuates a structural inequality that creates two classes of citizens - those who enjoy marriage rights and those who do not; granting gay citizens access to marriage rights corrects an existing structural inequality and thus is consistent with Constitutional principles. So in this case, the liberal cause passes the test and the conservative one does not. Argue all you want about whether or not marriage should be about procreation, but the fact is, many of the marriage rights have nothing to do with procreation whatsoever (i.e. survivor partner benefits, visitation rights) and therefore should not be dependent on a procreative union for access.
 

Intrigue

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Posts
1,423
Media
12
Likes
9
Points
73
Location
Florida
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I don't need to say a thing... Maxcok and a few others have said it for me. The issue shouldn't be one. They have every right to be together and share the same benefits hereto couples do. The fact that they don't proves how far we have yet to go to abolish inequality
 

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Sadly it passed 10-7, but what an awesome speech from Rep. Steve Simon!!

Minnesota lawmaker’s gay marriage defense goes viral - Yahoo! News

Thanks for the good news

State law already confines marriage in Minnesota to one man and one woman. But supporters of that definition said the extra protection is needed to guard against judicial rulings like one that legalized gay marriage in Iowa in 2009. Critics said it would enshrine discrimination in the state's most important document, and that the debate between now and November 2012 would be divisive and a distraction from more important issues facing the state.
 
Last edited:

B_Marius567

Sexy Member
Joined
May 30, 2004
Posts
1,913
Media
0
Likes
30
Points
258
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Good news? :rolleyes:
Has it dawned upon ANYONE besides myself that hungshyman is a homophobe? How many more anti-gay comments can this "guy" make?

I do not like men but some are ok. men will screw over there best friend. I do not trust men at all. women are nice and sweet. men will just screw you over.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I do not like men but some are ok. men will screw over there best friend. I do not trust men at all. women are nice and sweet. men will just screw you over.

Whom you con or bribe into touching your genitals is not the issue here. Save that useless information for someone who gives a damn about your sex life. The fact that you prefer pussy over dick in bed should have no bearing as to whether or not two other adults can marry. And quite frankly, watching you continually troll this board for gay themed threads to express your homophobia is beyond fuckin' tired.
 

D_Freddy Bender

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Posts
78
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
43
I hope they enjoy their home-run for the next few years. I'm 26, and people my parent's age don't realize that when they rail against people who were born gay/lesbian/bi/transgender they look like governor Wallace in 1960 standing in the way of the National Guard who was forcibly integrating high schools.

The prejudice of people my parents age are the reason these ballot initiatives become law, it has little to do with religion.

I hope they enjoy their gay marriage bans until they get old and die, b/c it won't be that much longer till the gay community is treated fairly and these hateful laws are reversed.

A huge majority of my generation supports gay people being treated fairly, including the right to marry. 68% of people born after 1980 voted to keep gay marriage legal in California in 2008 when gay marriage was on the ballot then.

The prejudice of people my parents' age has a shelf life, it will only last as long as they do.
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
53
Gender
Male
Nice little speech, but I don't like the 'nature vs nurture' argument. Does it matter? What should matter is 'how am I harming other people by doing it?' If the answer is 'not at all', fuck just legalizing it. Don't even talk about it 'cause it's none of the government's business what you're doing with your life.
 

D_Freddy Bender

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Posts
78
Media
0
Likes
10
Points
43
Lucidbass it wasn't meant to be a speech. It's just the facts!

I agree with the principle of what ur saying (which seems to be, that if a person's actions rnt harming someone, why should we care?) I could care less if polygamy, for example, was legalized.

The main point of my 'speech' as u call it wasn't that people r born gay;

It was to point out that the religious groups have been successful with their ballot
initiatives against the gay community b/c of older people, not because American society in general is on a moral crusade against the gay community.
 

lucidbass

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Posts
284
Media
0
Likes
8
Points
53
Gender
Male
Oh I know, I was just ranting about that one little thing. That one part he mentioned about nature vs nurture just kinda set something off and I felt like ranting.
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
322
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
You don't vote on people human rights. (At least not in a civilized country) I'm sure there are lots of people would still vote to ban inter-race marriages but you wouldn't put that to a vote would you? The USA likes to pretend it's a great free country for all but that is simply not the case. I'm not saying Canada is perfect but our charter of rights looks at issues reguardless of peoples political, religious opinions. Fairness and rights should not be decided on by a vote.

I know it's been said here^^^, but I truly don't believe that a person's civil rights should be subject to a popular vote.

We live in a republic, not a democracy, though it's been turned into a mobocracy over the last ~30 years. This a continuing shame on that great experiment known as the United States.
 

Redwyvre

Cherished Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2011
Posts
608
Media
0
Likes
320
Points
128
Location
Minneapolis (Minnesota, United States)
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
According to May 13, 2011 front page story in the Minneapolis StarTribune, "A majority of Minnesotans oppose amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage. 55 percent of respondents oppose adding such an amendment while 39 percent favor a constitional ban."
Interestingly, the poll also reflects the generation divide that Dandyd032000 noted in his posting. 60 percent of age 18-34 oppose the idea. 51 percent age 65 or older are in favor of it.
And Lucidbass IMO acknowledging gay people has never been a nature vs nurture argument it has always been a religious argument. Seems like many people choose to belong to hateful religious groups.
 

Average_joe

1st Like
Joined
May 10, 2004
Posts
120
Media
1
Likes
1
Points
238
Location
Minnesota
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Male
Thanks for the good news

State law already confines marriage in Minnesota to one man and one woman. But supporters of that definition said the extra protection is needed to guard against judicial rulings like one that legalized gay marriage in Iowa in 2009. Critics said it would enshrine discrimination in the state's most important document, and that the debate between now and November 2012 would be divisive and a distraction from more important issues facing the state.

Another reason they're trying to ram it through with an amendment to the state constitution is an attempt to bypass a certain veto from the democratic governor. He cannot veto an attempt to put an amendment on the ballot, so this is a way of sneaking in a law, as well as making it difficult for the courts to rule on it.

The one bright point with this whole thing is when it comes to the public voting on a state constitutional amendment, abstaining from making a choice is the same as a "no". In order for this to pass, the majority of people voting have to consciously vote "yes", otherwise it will be defeated. This means those that are ignorant or simply voting for the presidential election and are not paying attention will count against the amendment passing.

The other thing that might help is there are some people who are not fans of gay marriage, but are also not fans of using the state constitution to legislate in this way. They might support a ban passed by the legislature, but will be appalled at having something that like this added to the state constitution, as it has no place ever being there.
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
So then how does it change?

It's been one way for a long time. We vote in America. That IS how we change things. Why is this hard to understand?

Not every vote will be won. In 10 years the vote wont even be close or probably even be needed by then. In the meantime, things are changing.

A vote............majority rules..........but...........I don't remember us ever taking a vote on the slavery issue! Did we vote on that?? I missed that chapter in my US History class. And then in 1964 --- I didn't remember a vote on Civil "Rights" issues -- fair housing.....integration in schools banning "red-lining".

Let's consider this: If gay people are denied "Rights" --- I believe we "2nd class citizens should just stop paying our taxes to a government that says we have no "right" to be equal to.......I LUV IT!! YOU get to "vote" on whether or not I have a "right" -------- tell me: What "Minority" under the tyranny of the Majority would be given "ANY" right -- ever????
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
341
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Exactly. Government intervention that benefits them and their positions seems to be fine (especially if it requires other people to support their positions); government intervention which does not benefit them directly - even if it benefits society in general - is evil and oppressive and must be abolished.

Of course, conservatives also accuse liberals of using the legislative process to force them to support liberal causes - and they're right; it's pretty much an unavoidable outcome in a two-party system. I don't think it matters whether the legislation is proposed by a liberal or conservative; the real test should be whether or not it is consistent with the principles of the US Constitution.

In the case of the gay marriage debate, passing a legislative or constitutional ban perpetuates a structural inequality that creates two classes of citizens - those who enjoy marriage rights and those who do not; granting gay citizens access to marriage rights corrects an existing structural inequality and thus is consistent with Constitutional principles. So in this case, the liberal cause passes the test and the conservative one does not. Argue all you want about whether or not marriage should be about procreation, but the fact is, many of the marriage rights have nothing to do with procreation whatsoever (i.e. survivor partner benefits, visitation rights) and therefore should not be dependent on a procreative union for access.

The argument concerning "procreation" is strictly held by the Catholic Conservatives but definitely NOT the Protestant ones. Protestant Christians seem to have NO conscience about using Birth Control. Sex for Protestants can JUST be for pleasure without an "outcome!"

By the way -------- read read read all the grandiose arguments that they will put forth concerning how important it is to protect the institution of marriage. But if you substitute the word "gay" with "divorce" -- well -- you just don't see many Protestant legislators stepping forth to propose a ban on divorce!! (Wouldn't THAT really be a major step in protecting the family unit! --- and Jesus definitely had SOMETHING to say on THAT issue! (Mark 10!)