Tim Kelly and John Kriesel, St. Paul, Minn., letter: GOP should reject marriage amendment
October 25, 2011 at 7:04 pm in Grand Forks Herald
Republican donors, volunteers, activists and elected officials have joined Minnesotans United for All Families, a coalition that is focused on defeating the proposed constitutional amendment restricting marriage. Continue Reading
“As Republican lawmakers, we believe that limited government, individual liberty and personal freedom are core principles on which our country was built. Measures that limit that liberty should be resisted.”
I could not agree more. Unfortunately, too many of your Republican compatriots have been hijacked by a far right social agenda. I am glad to see that some Republicans still have their priorities straight (no pun intended). I often disagree with my liberal colleagues on social issues, but I will fight to the end to support their right to have and express those views.
I would only add one thing: with personal choice and freedom comes responsibility. I don’t mind you smoking or drinking, just don’t ask me to pay your disability while you wait around for a lung/liver transplant that I am also unwilling to pay for. Actions have consequences.
Most social ills would solve themselves if we went back to making people accept the logical consequences for their actions.
Like or Dislike:
17 
6
flyingnurse->”Most social ills would solve themselves if we went back to making people accept the logical consequences for their actions.”
—–
Declining marriage rates, increasing rates of adultery, divorce, abortion, unwed child births, teen pregnancies, single parent households, welfare rolls, juvenile delinquency, unwanted children, pornography, increased prevalence of homosexuality, general sexual irresponsibility, and more, can all be traced to a morality problem.
You can’t solve social ills like those listed by redefining marriage and morality around a counter-moral sexual ideology.
That would simply send the message to youth, “traditional sexual morality is officially dead, anything goes now,” throughout the entire society.
And what harm could that possibly cause?
It would tell youth to keep the same course that brought about the list of social ills, mislead more youth onto that same path, amplify the problems listed, and add keep adding new social ills to the list.
As a society we are heading toward a wall and we need to put the brakes on. A same sex marriage law floors the gas pedal instead.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
22
What “b.man” is saying is that to “protect the will of the people” we should get rid of the Bill of Rights (which protects minorities against the tyranny of the majority after all).
What “b.man” is likely afraid of is that the measure will fail. Perhaps he cannot abide the thought that his moral indignation will represent the minority view?
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
20
Impose same sex marriage against the will of the people? I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we impose any marriage, same sex or not, on anyone. The only people that should be concerned with whether or not two legal adults marry each other are the people that are considering being married.
Like or Dislike:
18 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
The following except is from an article that explains why North Carolina needs the marriage amendment.
Its general enough to explain the need for Minnesota and virtually every state:
—–
“Although our current laws define marriage as between a man and a woman and prohibit persons of the same sex from marrying, only an amendment to the state constitution will keep marriage from being redefined. Judges in Massachusetts, Connecticut, California, Iowa, and Hawaii have re-defined the word “marriage” without any regard for the will of the people.
Homosexual couples began requesting marriage licenses on Oct. 3 from city clerks who legally cannot grant them. These couples are setting up our state for a lawsuit. Only an amendment to the state constitution will keep marriage from being redefined, and our legislature acted proactively to allow the people of our state to protect marriage from being redefined.”
The article is also worth reading because it shows how a poll was manipulated to make it “appear” a majority supported same sex marriage.
http://www.jdnews.com/articles/poll-96104-elon-press.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Actually b.man, my argument is against your notion that the majority should always prevail. The Bill of Rights often protects minorities against the “tyranny of the majority.”
This issue will likely soon be moot anyway — because public opinion is clearly shifting. I’ll wager a beer that this bill will fail in Minnesota. The times are a changin’ — whatever the moral indignation of bible-thumping bigots!
Like or Dislike:
15 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
Well b.man, I’m glad you agree that minorities have rights. Your first post didn’t say that. In fact, your posts taken together seem to suggest that you want it both ways? When the courts agree with you it appears to be OK — but when they don’t, it’s “a handful of government officials who imposed it on the people.”
My opinion? My 2c is that nobody is harmed by same sex marriage (unless moral indignation constitutes harm), and the tide is turning towards acceptance anyway. I’ll wager a beer that this going the same way as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
In the meantime, neither the “will of the people” nor the legal issues appear to have been unequivocally determined.
Like or Dislike:
12 
4
justasec->”Well b.man, I’m glad you agree that minorities have rights. Your first post didn’t say that.”
—–
There are plenty of things my first post did not say.
Anyway, its at least understandable that you interpreted it the way you did since “majority rule by default” (my view) is at least similar to what you were expecting me to say (majority rule always).
This still means your “bill of rights” comments did not address my actual view, however.
justasec->” In fact, your posts taken together seem to suggest that you want it both ways? When the courts agree with you it appears to be OK — but when they don’t, it’s “a handful of government officials who imposed it on the people.”
When two groups disagree on the same point its logical to presume only one of them is correct.
Since I suppose the majority of high courts are correct on this issue, should I also suppose that a minority which disagrees with them is correct too?
justasec->”My opinion? My 2c is that nobody is harmed by same sex marriage …”
The question of harm is how it would hurt society after the new counter-morality became the norm.
For example, how does it hurt you if a couple across town divorces? Not much to say there.
Now ask how it hurts society if divorce was commonly practiced. Here, there is much to say.
When asking about the harms of ssm, then, we must look at society as a whole.
Did you know, for example, that feminists support same sex marriage because they want marriage to collapse as an institution?
If that occurred, what harm would it cause?
The point, simply, is that a huge potential for harm exists in that scenario, and much could be said about it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
Can’t for the life of me understand why two people who love one another enough to put up with all the “slings and arrows” shouldn’t be granted the freedom to have the benefits of legal marriage.
What’s the big deal here? Just who does it affect?
Other than one or two nutcases who aren’t all that sure about their sexuality?
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
What’s it to ya? Live and let live.
Like or Dislike:
17 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
16
b.man wrote: “A same sex marriage law would authorize government to indoctrinate children with the idea, “same sex sex is acceptable behavior” via the public schools. ”
Let’s have a reality check here b.man. Most of the people who agree with that idea are campaigning to erode the establishment clause of the 1st amendment so they can indoctrinate captive schoolchildren children with their particular religious ideology — and anti-gay dogma is usually part of that ideology!
Totalitarianism? Yep, that’s just what the religious right is all about!
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
4 
14
There are a lot of people who agree with you b.man but I think you are wasting your time arguing with “progressives”. Let the chips fall where they may when it comes to time to vote on the amendment.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6
So, this comes down to YOUR opinion that gay people are immoral and that you believe MY children should be “indoctinated” to believe that.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
Or could it be YOUR opinion that gay sexual acts are okay and that you believe MY children should be “indoctrinated” to believe that? Nah. You indoctrinate your kids anyway you want. I was just saying a lot of us are going to vote for the amendment and don’t care what the opinions of Tim Kelly and John Kriesel are.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Just another Republican non issue attempt to drum up the sever right to the polls….These issues only come up at the party level around election periods. There are so many very important issues that need immeadiate attention and once again they want to waste their time on this old gem…..Why does anyone even take them serious anymore?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
3
Yep.
The whole thing will be forgotten after the election.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Just like their false interest in creating jobs-where are the job bills boys? Still waiting…….
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
And that has WHAT to do with the marriage amendment Jeff H?
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
b. man: What’s your Craigslist m4m profile? You sound like you have a wide stance…if you know what I mean.
Like or Dislike:
14 
3
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
3 
15
b.man/woman.
The surest way to lose all credibility on these forums is to quote Bible verses to try to support your lame ideas.
You’ll see.
Like or Dislike:
14 
2
Jeff H 10:30 b man knows just enough about debating to be dangerous
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
Is he a master debater? Perhaps he’s gotten some master debater coaching, maybe in a public restroom or from someone he hired to “lift his luggage?”
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
bac->”The surest way to lose all credibility on these forums is to quote Bible verses to try to support your lame ideas.”
—-
See my previous post.
Like or Dislike:
2 
10
Ezekiel 23:20: There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Talking about the harlot.
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Do you go to Craigslist m4m often Kobold? You seem to be pretty familiar with it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Is there a problem if someone does?
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
You tell me. You seemed to be insinuating b.man was for no reason other than apparently you thought that would be a funny comment.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
You tell me. You were the one who made up the allegation about b.man being on there. It makes some people feel better about themselves when they try to bring other people down I guess.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
My first reply didn’t show up immediately so I posted another. Sorry for a bit of duplication.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Ah, an expert on the subject at last!
Like or Dislike:
0 
3
For a very solid defense of bride-groom marriage, see the dismissal motion by Attorney Paul Clement defending DOMA:
http://www.nylj.com/nylawyer/adgifs/decisions/080311blagmemo.pdf
Like or Dislike:
3 
3