Somber Minnesota House sends gay marriage amendment to voters
May 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Voices broke with emotion Saturday night as Minnesota representatives engaged in a quiet and serious debate over gay marriage. Powerful speeches brought out hitherto unrevealed personal histories and brought tears to many eyes before the House voted 70-62 to allow Minnesotans to vote on defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Continue Reading
I had thought the Republican agenda was to cut spending and create jobs. Now I find they also had a hidden agenda of defining morality for everyone else in the state. A group so bankrupt with ideas that threatens to define how each of us lives is a party I do not particularly want to be a part of. I have no more right determining someones morality, than they have a right to determining mine. I at least grew up in a family that accepted peoples differences but for some they want to deny others those same basic privileges if it does not meet their standards. Such a party with no vision is a party again I will not be a part of.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
97 
49
“There has been a lot of progress in this country in the last fifty years, and we’ve been against every bit of it.”–Republican Party
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
89 
45
Remember the names of those that voted “yes”, they will go down in history as the bigots that they are. This is the “Strom Thurmond filibustering the Civil Rights Act” moment. History will judge them very very harshly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
81 
49
The republicans want smaller government and less government intervention (i.e., Michele Bachmann’s Light Bulb Freedom of Choice act) but it OK for the Republicans to dabble in the definition of marriage. Also, it is OK for the Republicans to force a purely religious issue into the state capitol when it suits them. The party of do as I say and not as I do. I thought their job was to create jobs and balance the budget not ramrod their partisan adgenda on the rest of us?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
79 
44
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
51 
91
What do you mean “marriage has always been between a man and a woman”? Polygamy was a common practice historically, and is still practiced some places. Polyandry has not been unheard of, but I don’t think it was ever very common.
Also, marriage as a romantic institution is pretty novel, historically speaking… one doesn’t hear of it becoming a recognized practice prior to the Italy of the early Renaissance. Time was that who you felt sweet on had little or nothing to do with who you married.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
16
**** brought tears to many eyes ***
Sober? Sounds like a bunch of hysterical idiots.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
15
The white men that settled in the Americas, and put down the foundation for the United States of America, were escaping religious persecution. BTW, the United States of America was also founded on a constitution that mandates separation of church and state.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
30
It was also founded by white, land holding slave owners that felt that only their class should be able to vote, meaning no women also. They are the ones who drafted the constitution. And yet the ignorant people of this country are proud of it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
31
Well, I’m sure this will fix our budget and unemployment problems. Congratulations to the Republicans for sticking to their campaign promises and focusing on the important issues.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
65 
30
Marriage as it has been practised and recognized by the government in our country is strictly a business issue. Who is allowed to automatically inherit from whom. Who has survivorship rights over whom. What domestic living arrangements have tax advantages and business (insurance) advantages. Who may speak for whom in regards to medical and funeral issues. Who may get spousal employment benefits of any kind. All marriage benefits deriving from acts of law must be applied equally to all citizens, under our national constitution.
Marraige is not about procreation. We have abundantly demonstrated that, not only in this country but around the whole world. Children come whether there is a marriage or not.
This new proposal will absolutely not defend marriage. Existing man/woman laws do not defend marriage. Marriages will still come apart. On the other hand, those who earnestly DO want to be married, cannot.
All objections to gay marriage so far, have been religious-based. Fine. Churches can and do define who may be married in a church. Churches however, may not decide who marries outside of a church.
tom koehler
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
56 
26
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
48
So we must legislate morality? We must amend constitutions in order to enforce morality? Because we are so immoral, the government must step in and define acceptable morality for us?
Hmm. I thought it was the liberals that wanted bigger more controlling government, and the conservatives who wanted smaller, less intrusive government. Go figure.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
18
Isn’t taking someones money away throuh taxes and giving it to someone else through social programs legislating morality?
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
29
There is not any necessary connection between social programs, like feeding the hungry and healing the sick – and legislated morality, like who may have sex with whom, and how.
In fact, if morality is correct behavior, then laws against stealing and killing are legislated morality.
tom koehler
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
13
I just made a connection and you couldn’t refute it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
22
Uh, no.
Like or Dislike:
13 
13
Uh,yes.
Like or Dislike:
11 
18
I used a specific example, not state spending in general.
Like or Dislike:
11 
15
Taking my state taxes to contribute to all sorts of state spending is not legislating my morality.
Like or Dislike:
18 
6
I don’t know how my 10:21 comment got in front of the comment it was in response to.
Like or Dislike:
4 
10
Well, your specific example does not justify the discrimination going up for a vote, to amend our state constitution.
Like or Dislike:
15 
9
It does shoot the heck out of your comment about the government legislating morality. The government legislating morality is nothing new.
Like or Dislike:
10 
13
I’m curious, harry – do you approve of your taxes being routed, in part, to social welfare programs?
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
There are some I approve of.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
I would guess that somebody’s version of “morality” is actually about the only thing we do legislate. All laws (at least the ones I know of) are based on what someone (or group of people) think is the “right” (or maybe you could call that “moral”) thing to do to achieve a good end result……whether you agree with the particular law or not, it’s still someone’s idea of the right or moral thing to do.
Am I wrong ?
Like or Dislike:
16 
4
I suppose we should be guided by the leaders of morality like assorted priests and the serial infidelities of assorted legislators and leaders of business, or maybe the grand theft actions of those who cheat us and steal with a pen, all the while contributing to the coffers of your favorite political party? You do not have the slightest idea of just what constitutes moral behavior. You may be an expert at being self-righteous, but there is no equivalency between morality and self-righteousness.
tom koehler
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
16
You just demonstrated your point very nicely.
Like or Dislike:
10 
10
Ok – but here’s the thing – the government is not “simply” legislating morality in this case. Instead, they are asking we, the people, edit our founding principles, and write it into our state’s constitution.
Like or Dislike:
12 
10
There is no right for gays to marry right now so how would maintaining the status quo be legislating something different?
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
Enacting a law, or passing legislation is not the same as amending our constitution.
So, what happens if the amendment is voted down? Does that mean that we will then get the opportunity to vote on an amendment that would define marriage as being between two adult consenting humans, regardless of gender?
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
13
I don’t think anybody ever thought this discussion would be taking place 30 or 40 years ago let alone when the Constitution was written. The fact that consenting adults in any configuration immaginable is in vogue right now in no way changes the basic norms of behavior generally acceptable for the last 200 plus years. Does everyone follow those norms, no. Should variation away from those norms be etched in stone as a specifically potected class? I personally don’t think so. In this case it looks like the electorate is going to decide.
Like or Dislike:
15 
11
…looks like our thread got bumped, harry… not sure how my comment landed down here, but…
Like or Dislike:
6 
7
All I’m going to say on this issue is….Oh Well!
Like or Dislike:
7 
10
It will be interesting to see how well or sick society has become.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
16 
1
It’s utterly ridiculous that this society is so homophobic that they would go to the extent of trying to define marriage. How are gay people hurting anyone??? THEY are not attacking YOU. YOU are attacking THEM.
Hot debate. What do you think?
35 
28
Not only is this legislated morality, it is also legislated discrimination. We are going to pass, in the constitution, a law MANDATING that some people are less equal than others. In America?! WTH?
Hot debate. What do you think?
32 
19
3 major problems with this legislation…
1. It is BAD FOR BUSINESS. 89% of Fortune 500 companies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Most high-ranking business people will think this legislation is moronic.
2. It shows that the legislature is wasting a lot of time on a major sideshow that does not help the economy (it actually hurts it). They promise to focus on the economy, and then do this!!!???!
3. It is disrespectful to the people from all walks of life, from all professions and backgrounds, who are gay or family or friends of a gay person, which is many of us.
Hot debate. What do you think?
29 
16
I’m glad we can’t pass a budget or create any jobs but at least we can bring this hate-legislation to the public!
Hot debate. What do you think?
28 
15
I’m going to vote against gay marriage just because it bothers so many other people. They haven’t been through enough persecution yet. When we start burning them at the stake for being heretics, then I might concede.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
15
Yeah, but once the people have spoken – will anyone stop and let this gay marriage thing die? Or, is this a vote and once the voters have spoken, keep up the whining and crying about what you did or didn’t get? Enough. Live together, have same sex all you want, have a marriage in name only – if the vote fails. And, if it passes, even if you can’t accept a union between the same sexes, shut up and let it die. I think it’s a great test to see what people really, really think and want. In that booth it’s truly how you feel – just YOU, the paper and pencil, that’s what I love about this country. We can freely vote as to how we feel. So, once all the votes are counted and the people have spoken – accept your fate and move on! There are way more important issues at hand than if two people of the same sex can get married! Aarrgghh! I can’t wait to vote.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
Saw the word homophobic again. Like normal people have the sickness. Guess I’m a murdererophobic too.
Mind your business and nobody will bother you. No one pays attention to an unlit match. So why keep trying to strike it?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
The Republicans keep striking it because (as far as I can tell) they care more about getting people to the polls during a Presidential election year and not about solving the vital problems of the state and nation.
Like or Dislike:
9 
5
True, attacking gay people is supposed to be a vote getter here in Minnesota. Attacking minorities of various sorts at various times in history have gotten votes. Look at what Southern politicians were doing in the 1950′s. In 1999 in South Carolina, John McCain (then the front runner for the republican primary) was accused of having fathered a “black baby,” and he lost a lot of votes as a result.
Appealing to bigotry towards minorities in order to get votes is nothing new.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Here is the juice, and those who feel that I am wrong then speak up while you try and disect my opinion. If marriage is sacrite union between a man and a women, then why stop there, what about divorce, masterbation, Porn, and affairs? I mean if you are targeting one aspect of what is governed by the Church, not the state, then why stop at gay marriage? You know why, because some of the same hypocrites attacking gay marriage maybe guilty of one or more of the other so called unholy acts. We already know there were some GOP caught having sex with gays or soliciting gays for sex, and it was quietly dealt with, and the person involved resigned. Senator Craig was very out spoken about gays and gay marriage, he even publicly went after Clinton then wanted Clinton impeached. However the good Senator didn’t think he would get caught himself when he was tapping on the restroom floor at the airport, something people did who wanted gay sex. The police officer who arrested Senator Craig called the Senator a bold face liar, when the Senator completely denied everything. He later however plead guilty to a lesser charge. As the incident became public, the good Senator thought it wise to try and retract his guilty plea, something that is usually never successfully done after the case is disposed of. Of course tax payers picked up the 200 thousand dollar legal fees and he later resigned. If you are gay so what, but as a Politician you believe standing up against gays gives you votes, and shows you are standing up for the so called moral values of this nation. Who determines what that is, when our history shows how we had an ever changing attitude towards sex, even engaging in sex with numerous women, as well as having had numerous wives. The Catholic Church does not recognize gays, or gay marriage, yet they in turn claim all people are Gods children. Somewhat hypocritical wouldn’t you say? So what if you are not Catholic, then why are our law makers forcing people to follow anyone Religion? Yes lets preserve the sancity of marriage while divorce continues to climb. When we go down this road where does it end? How about just leaving people alone to live their lives?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1