Priest takes quiet stand against marriage amendment
September 1, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Minnesota’s Catholic dioceses have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But 45 miles west of Duluth, in tiny Floodwood, a priest has taken a quiet stand against the amendment. Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
48 
74
What is simple is the majority of MN Catholics oppose the amendment. What is also simple is many Catholics have lost faith in their church leadership for using church paid publications and donating money to help this discriminatory amendment see the light of day. I’m not sure who is dividing and conquering here. My church essentially took a position that leaves me on the outside, Is there anything more divisive than that? I have friends and family who are of the LGTB community. For you or me to say they they can’t marry who they love is senseless. God knows there are enough loveless “straight” marriages out there.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
97 
71
Really????? This is YOUR opinion.
“What is simple is the majority of MN Catholics oppose the amendment. What is also simple is many Catholics have lost faith in their church leadership for using church paid publications and donating money to help this discriminatory amendment see the light of day.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73 
55
Funny. Those voting “dislike” show me how lefty’s OPINION is supported by facts. I am merely pointing out Lefty’s opinion is just that an opinion.
Hot debate. What do you think?
58 
55
Yes megyn, this is my opinion. I didn’t realize I couldn’t post it here. As far as becoming more like Christ, it would be nice if people would try it instead of distorting bibilical passages to suit their beliefs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
73 
50
Hi lefty, yes to leaving opinions. Mine is an opinion too. Your entry read to me more like there is factual material to support your opinion.
As far as becoming more like Christ….I fall short everyday. Christ wants us to love unconditionally….as He would.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
57 
36
Yes love unconditionaly, but he told those caught in sin that he forgave them, and to go and sin no more. Homosexuality is sin just like all the other things that Christ plainly states in his word. So read them and if you are participating in them, ask for forgiveness then turn from your sin and rely on Christ to help you to have victory over the sin.
Hot debate. What do you think?
59 
62
Instead of asking Christ to become more like “us”….”we” should become more like Christ.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
77 
23
The amendment is nice, and it will pass, but in the end it will fail. The SCOTUS will settle this issue. It is too big for any other body to handle.
Remember in the eyes of the law a marriage is a legally binding contract. It is not a religious based institution. It cannot be, there are simply too many religions in America. Trying to make marriage religiously based is a de facto assault on people’s first amendment rights.
If marriage is religious in the eyes of the law, and the majority of the state where I live is Mormon, does that mean I must be married in a Mormon church? Or a Mosque if the majority of the people in my area are Muslim?
No, in the eyes of the law a marriage is secular. It is a contract. That means under the constitution, a contract entered into in one state must be enforced by all other states. MN or ND cannot unilaterally decide they are not going to honor contracts entered into in New England or California.
Since marriage is a contract, contract law will be used to decide its fate. Unless someone changes the constitution, the law is clear: you must honor other people’s contracts.
MN and ND can pass all the state constitutional amendments they want, but since this is a national, not a state issue, it will be settled on the national stage.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
68 
31
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
42
There is a little discussed flaw in the premise that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It is not discussed much because it is scientific and a little complicated. The problem is that nature and evolution (or god if you prefer) has put gender on a spectrum as vast as skin color. God and/or evolution do not limit its human creations to mere male and female. As anyone who has read the best-selling book Middlesex (or any of numerous college genetic textbooks) now realizes… there exists a whole pallet of sexes. There are genetic and body combinations greater than we can count. One simple example is humans born with a genetic combination such as x-x-y (which happens more often than most imagine.) Additionally, what about babies born with both a penis and a vagina… or a vagina that later at puberty turns into a penis? (Yep… happens.) This is why this amendment makes no sense on scientific grounds. There was a time when the Catholic Church decreed that the heavens revolved around earth. Making it a law did not make it true. This proposed legal amendment is no different. I know some readers will give this post a thumbs down. If you are one of those people, please take time to point out what it is about the science with which you do not agree. Thank you.
Hot debate. What do you think?
54 
56
Just dropping in to give Rev. Peter Lambert my support. While it may have been a silent notion, I stand by you and all those who will choose to vote “No” against this amendment! I choose to raise my daughter’s in the light of tolerance towards those things which you may not understand. It is refreshing to hear of clergy standing up against the over-culture it exists within. Many blessing to you, Reverend!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
64 
35
Personally, I think any church that has done any preaching on this issue, raised any money toward it or in any way tried to influence the vote using any means tied to the church should lose it’s tax exempt status.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
All IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches
and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
■ their net earnings may not inure to any private
shareholder or individual,
■ they must not provide a substantial benefit to private
interests,
■ they must not devote a substantial part of their
activities to attempting to influence legislation,
■ they must not participate in, or intervene in, any
political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)
any candidate for public office, and
■ the organization’s purposes and activities may not
be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.
Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature,
any local council, or similar governing body, with
respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as
legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the
public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional
amendment, or similar procedure. It does not include
actions by executive, judicial, or administrative bodies.
A church or religious organization will be regarded as
attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges
the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or
opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the
adoption or rejection of legislation.
Hot debate. What do you think?
54 
45
Hi Katy…I said exact same thing…but hadn’t seen your post or would have just given ya’ props…any Church that messes with influencing our laws and trys to influence our politics, absolutely should lose their tax free exemption…
Folks think that our separation of Church and state is to prevent the Gov’s dictating to churches but it’s more to keep the Churchs from influencing the Government…folks don’t know their history and the Church of England and where we came from…yada,yada…
Like or Dislike:
12 
9
If something is happening in the government that could and will directly affect what a church does and operates and stands for, they have every right to speak against it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
I sincerely hope that bringing his donation to the attention of the public does not negatively impact Father Lambert, especially where his job is concerned.
Hot debate. What do you think?
46 
35
Have to worry a bit. The vatican is not happy that American nuns are simply keeping silent on the issues of abortion and gay marriage and sent a bishop to get them in line. Father Lambert went a bit farther, and may be disciplined. But I will pray the controversy passes him by. Perhaps he could argue that he was supporting the secular rather than the religious notion of marriage (though it seems likely the church hierarchy would not accept such an argument).
Hot debate. What do you think?
30 
39
The Vatican then should also be unhappy that the vast majority of American Catholics use birth control. It would seem that the all male, all old, leaders of this church are not responding to the needs of their flock. We no longer burn “witches:” can’t we let women handle their own fertility?
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
One mans opinion no matter what his occupation has zero influence on my vote for this Amendment. It is a shame we have had to even discuss it. I love my mother, but I surely do not want to sleep with her, same goes for my father..
Hot debate. What do you think?
43 
36
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
29 
41
Quite clear your the twisted mind bringing in incest. Seems you feel one can pack peanut butter, and call this love, but I must not love my parents.. Best sort the meaning of love and lust..
Hot debate. What do you think?
34 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
25 
38
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
43
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
36
Loving my Mother is incest? Surely not, as I stated I did NOT want to sleep with her, which would be incest.
Some claim it is love that brings them together for their lust and want to justify it by a marriage, to be accepted. The truth is all they desire are the financial benefits of we formerly knew as a marriage. devilschild seems to have a close understanding.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
38 
19
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
18 
37
RickM you are going off on a tangent in regard to Bob. All right already.
Also, same sex couples can call their commitment what ever they would like. If I am a straight single person and decide to go and “marry” my same sex platonic friend so I can share financial / employment benefits that come from a private or government job would that be wrong and how could this be stopped? With obama at the helm and government employment growing at a crazy rapid rate can you imagine what this would add to the deficit? Going to hit 16 trillion within 24 hours.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
37
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
32
Obama has had a 5.1% increase in federal government employees.
143,000 federal jobs created during his term.
So what’s your point? Thanks for the article link it agreed with me.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
33 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
24
Duh??? The link that bandr attached. That’s why the article includes “catch 22″ in it’s title.
Your just having a fit.
I wouldn’t say you long winded. I just think there isn’t a lot of substance to what you have to say.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
24
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
25
Marriage is a religious institution, so there is no reason for the government to get involved.
If a church wants to marry a gay couple, they should be able to marry a gay couple. The only thing the government should do is issue the paperwork.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
24 
36
Well said.
The intent of my statement was not to limit the definition of the term “Marriage” to just religion. My intent was to use the thought process that drives most who are opposed to gay marriage in order to gently guide them towards another train of thought.
The initial response by most people is generally “my religious beliefs are against gay marriage, so I must be as well”. They tend to get fixated on that, and avoid considering other aspects of the issue. By appealing to their feelings on religious freedom, I was hoping I could get some people to look at it from another angle.
The secular aspect is the sticky wicket. Forcing business owners to honor domestic partnerships, and pay the associated costs, is really the only sticking point of this argment for those that are not biased.
That and the term “Marriage” which seems to hold some extra significance to some people. Some people are for gay marriage, some are against… Others just don’t want them to use the term.
I feel that is akin to forcing the GLBT community to use different drinking fountains.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
41
Good for him! We need more people like this to stand up against this.
Those of you who seriously think this is “God”‘s work by passing this amendment, think again. You are trying to divide, hate, and discriminate against people, which is 100% against Jesus’s teachings.
History plays a big part in Leviticus and who the passage was ment for, it was meant for the priests, the Levites. It was not meant for the everyday people.
Back in the early days of Christianity, gay marriage was practiced and also a common thing. Even Saint Sergius and Saint Bacchus were married together in the 4th century
People need to learn their biblical history before distorting The Word and making it into a Word of hate.
Hot debate. What do you think?
37 
31
If someone, because of the bible does not believe in gay marriage, I get that. I also hope they follow Mark 10:1-10 and also look for a ban heterosexual marriage after divorce. With that being said I do not understand how a Republican can want the government to interfere with two sane people entering into a legal contract. I understand if your church did not want it, but not the government. Would the banning of atheists be next?
Hot debate. What do you think?
31 
35
Government regulates and licenses marriage primarily to protect the interests of children. It does not license or regulate any other kind of intimate or sexual relationship… people are free to live together, and have intimate relations without any sort of government interference. Marriage exists between a man and a woman because it is only a man and woman who are able to produce children. Marriage creates the best hope for a lasting family unit that we hope provides education and opportunity for the children that are results of marriage. Gay people cannot have children together.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
14
Did you ever think people are against same sex message even if religion is taken out of the equation?
In regard to adoption…if a same sex couple is not chosen by birth parents for adoption my guess is it has nothing to do with which box is check.
Why is it implied that if I vote yes to the amendment that I must judge same sex couples. I realize that men and women would not choose this. It goes without saying they have a rough road to travel.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
36 
10
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
34
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
35
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
22 
36
Oh my goodness RickM.
Whew! Do you feel better?
Open minded???
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
31 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
27
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
27
RickM, are you sure this is not Jim Oberstar..? A lot of words saying nothing..!
Hot debate. What do you think?
25 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
25
I have seen no question, just you telling me I have had an incestuous relationship with my mother because I love her. Now I am concerned, as I also loved my mother-in-law, but never wanted to marry her nor did it entail any lust.
Oh yes I did state this individual who donated funds to the anti crowds opinion meant basically nothing to me and would not change my vote, as who is he, just a priest, no more different than me believing your opinions.
Like or Dislike:
14 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
22
Are you that thick as to not understand the comparison of love makes it okay for the same sex communities excuse as why they have a right to marry.. I see my choice of comparison confuses the liberal minds.
I’ll throw out another to confuse you, next, polygamy to be okay right..? It’s love right??
Like or Dislike:
11 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
23
Vune , just what the “jell” are you rambling about..? Angry, you have been humoring me with you ranting.. Please go on with it..!
Like or Dislike:
12 
11
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
14 
29
or short version…LMAO….Stop evoking Gods name for a political agenda, Jesus wasn’t a conservative.
Hot debate. What do you think?
19 
23
exactly. Jesus is as liberal as they come….. But most of today’s Christians won’t believe it.
Hot debate. What do you think?
17 
26
Maybe, maybe not, but since you’re telling who He wasn’t, maybe you’d take the time and explain to the rest of us who He is. We’re curious.
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
13
naw, you’re just clueless, that’ not the same thing.
“You can teach an old dogma, but you can’t teach it much”..Dorothy Parker
Like or Dislike:
6 
12
How typically liberal, trashing something you know nothing about. It’s a good thing his name wasn’t Jack, cause you don’t know Jack, either.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Homosexual behavior has been around since the beginning. So has marriage. But only in the last decade has the gay lobby tried to equate same sex unions with traditional marriage. Why? Where in the last several millenia has marriage meant anything BUT a union between opposite sexes? What we are experiencing here is a very small segment of society, generally assumed to be between 1% and 3% of the population, attempting to redefine marriage. It doesn’t work that way. The ancient Greeks are known to have been accepting of homosexual liaisons, but they never considered same sex relationships to be on par with marriage. That the gay lobby is quiet concerning the history of these relationships raises questions about their motive and the integrity of their arguments advocating for gay marriage. You can put lipstick on a pig and call in a fashion model, but it’s still just a pig. Changing the legal definition of marriage to accommodate gay relationships doesn’t change the traditional understanding of what marriage is, a union between opposite sexes.
Recent polling indicates that this amendment will pass with about the same support as others States where the people were allowed to vote on it. I believe the gay community would be better served if they refrained from the “in-your-face” attitudes and went about their living their lives just like every one else. One can only imagine the outcry if straight folks decided to conduct themselves with the same in-your-face hostility that so many gays do.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
12
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
26
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
23
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
24
Humor us amendment proponents for a moment and cite the reasons for gay marriage, and I will respond accordingly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
26
People can’t always have what they want. I think many people want many things. That doesn’t mean the entire fabric of our society should change and our entire conception of marriage should be redefined just because of the desires of some people.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
18
Then how do you reconcile the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of the free practice of religion when forcing gay marriage on someone clearly violates that? If the State recognizes Gay marriage, it by default forces its citizens to also recognize gay marriage? Our US Constitution trumps State Constitutions, and there is no right to gay marriage in the US Constitution. In Fact, I believe you’d have a difficult time proving that marriage ever meant anything but the union between opposite sexes, especially in 1789.
Like or Dislike:
19 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
Perhaps I should have said forcing the recognition of gay marriage on everyone. Consider that if I occupy one unit of a duplex and refuse to rent to a gay couple, if they were “married”, they could sue me, which would violate my 1st amendment right to the free practice of my faith. Any law that forces people to ignore their faith by forcing them to officially recognizing behavior deemed deviant and in violation of their faith runs the risk of violating the 1st amendment.
As to the 1789 reference, look up the date of Sept 17th, 1789 and see what you can learn. I must admit to not being surprised by your ignorance.
I understand that liberals have contempt for what our founding fathers created. Those same folks fail to grasp the genius of the Document. Or maybe, there is a more sinister explanation. Maybe they DO realize the power it gives to the people, and thereby the limits it puts on the gov’t. O’bummer himself said that our Constitution is a document of “negative liberties”, straight from the lips of Saul Alinski. If the left succeeds in neutering the constitution, who or what stops them from dictating every facet of our lives? If a gay guy wants to do his boyfriend, so what, just don’t ask me to accept it as normal, endorse it, or celebrate it. Let them do what they want, but in private. It is the official recognition and state endorsement of what most people deem to be deviant behavior that bothers them.
Question: are, or are not the people of the state allowed to determine what types of behavior are acceptable, endorsed, criminal, or other? Are we not allowed to determine what path we will corporately follow? Or is a 1% minority entitled to dictate to the remainder? If you agree with the Occupy Wallstreet Protests, you would have to side with the 99%ers, right?
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
bandr, just so we understand you, do you believe that faith based organizations should be forced to include people whose behavior in inconsistent with the practices of the organization they want to join? Example, gays suing to become pastors in evangelical churches, athiests suing to be allowed to join/lead college christian groups? What about a devout straight christian seeking to join a local GLBT chapter? Should that person whose beliefs are anathema to gay behavior be allowed to join even if local members oppose it?
Like or Dislike:
13 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
Hugh, I think you are deliberately obfuscating. I do believe that religious organizations should be able to exclude anybody they want, for whatever reason is consistent with their religious beliefs. (And GLBT groups are not relgious organizations, so they don’t really fit in your list.) I’m not aware of gays suing to be in evangelical churches, although there have been lots of internal church battles about those issues. I’m also not aware of athiests suing to be allowed to join or lead christian groups. If those lawsuits are actually out there, I would be very surprised if the religious groups lost. I think it would be weird for anyone to want to join a group whose beliefs they don’t agree with, but generally I think private groups get to decide who’s in or who’s out. That still has nothing to do with whether a state should issue a civil marriage license.
Like or Dislike:
5 
14
I don’t think you get it. Your apparent zeal in advocating for gay marriage seems to have affected your powers to reason. Ultimately, what you or I think is irrelevant (“…….I think it would be weird for anyone to want to join a group ……). What the law says will be the final judge, and if gay marriage becomes law, people of faith will be bound by law to respect that law.
I’m beginning to feel like I’m engaged in a dialogue with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (if that were even possible, since she never shuts up when interviewed except to grab another breath).
You support gay marriage. I get that. But I don’t for reasons already stated. But how do you support denying me a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution by creating a right that isn’t mentioned?
Like or Dislike:
14 
8
Ok, Hugh. I think you and I are the only people at this party anymore, so this is my last comment. I think my reasoning powers are pretty good, but I’m with you that what you or I think is irrelevant. BUT, it’s disingenuous to quote me saying “I think it would be weird for anyone to want to join a group” as evidence that what I think should affect anything, when I followed that statement by saying that private groups get to decide who gets to be in their group. And you are correct that people of faith are bound to respect the law, but again, this doesn’t mean that you have to have anything to do with gay marriage. Whether the state issues a license will not affect your religious liberty one bit, and you have yet to say how it will. And you have yet to explain how gay marriages, to you, are any different from state-permitted divorces, to a Catholic.
FInally, you’re not engaged with a dialogue with me, or Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, or anyone else, because a dialogue requires a give and take. I’ve done my best to respond reasonably to your points, and you have not responded to any of my questions. What you’ve done is call me ignorant and question my ability to reason, and repeat the same assertions without demonstrating how any of them are actually true.
Adios. I honestly hope that you will really read the points of the “opposition” and think if maybe there aren’t some kernels of truth there.
I’m beginning to feel like I’m engaged in a dialogue with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (if that were even possible, since she never shuts up when interviewed except to grab another breath).
You support gay marriage. I get that. But I don’t for reasons already stated. But how do you support denying me a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution by creating a right that isn’t mentioned?
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
Sorry, one more, just because it’s such an egregious misstatement of my views: I don’t support denying you any of your Constitutionally guaranteed rights. Period. But there is simply nothing to your claim that allowing someone else the right to marry infringes on your right to practice religion. No religion is guaranteed the freedom from government taking actions that adherents to that religion don’t like, whether that’s paying taxes that go to pay for wars, issuing licenses to divorced people, or allowing businesses to be open on Sundays. You get to do what you want with your religion, but you don’t get to dictate it for everybody else. And with that, I’m truly done here.
Like or Dislike:
4 
12
bandr- The entire fabric of our society can very much change if all of society is made to recognize same sex marriage. It wil legally impact public and private education, many professions, churches, citizens and small businesses. Anyone who disagrees with same sex marriage would be at risk.
You are so right. My conception alone could never be the deciding factor of whether certain people should be able to marry. Your conception should also not be the deciding factor of whether certain people should be able to marry. Isn’t that funny how it works that way? We live in a democratic society. Hence, the whole point of this amendment. Any decision regarding same sex marriage should be made by the people. Not by activist judges and politicians motivated by very active lobbyists and special interest groups.
Like or Dislike:
12 
6
bandr, Are or are not the people of any society/culture/gov’t entitled to make the laws/rules by which they will conduct themselves? Isn’t it society’s right to decide it’s own code of conduct? And Isn’t it their right to recognize what they will, and not recognize what they won’t? Or are you advocating some other form of gov’t where a select few in power dictate who does what and where they do it?
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
**Sorry, I accidentally posted this below insted of on this conversation.** Ugh. I said I was out, but you directly asked me a question, so here goes. [Although you haven't yet done me the courtesy of answering even one of my questions, the most relevant of which is how is permitting divorce (for a Catholic) different from permitting gay marriage (for you).] Anyway, yes, people make the laws based on cultural norms. There are also courts and legislatures and constitutions to ensure that the law of the land isn’t simply majority rule. So it’s not just up to the majority to decide what they will and wha they won’t recognize. The permissibility of interracial marriage is one example of this. (And please note here, “interracial marriage” is not an enumerated Constitutional right, either, but you’d be hard pressed to say that a majority of people in a state should get to decide that those two people can marry.) It’s so strange that you keep suggesting that a select few are going to be able to dictate what everyone else does. No one will be forcing anyone to get “gay married.” The only marriage that I participate in is my own. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government or anyone else dictating “who does what or where they do it.” It’s a permission for those who want to do something to legally be able to do it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
“There are also courts and legislatures and constitutions to ensure that the law of the land isn’t simply majority rule.” ….And who wrote and approved said constitutions? The people. If I hear again how GM is equated with interracial marriage I’ll puke. With the exception of some extremist views in Islam and among white supremacists, race doesn’t play a role in religion, but behavior and practice do. Homosexual behavior is clearly identified in the monotheistic scriptures as being sinful. State sanctioned homosexual marriage is a defacto endorsement of such. And if written into law, would, by the force of said law, require all citizens to honor and respect it, even if it violated the basic tenets of their faith. Abortion also violates those tenets, but I am not being asked, at least not yet, to fund it and support it with my tax dollars. An abortion is an act, and how does you “discriminate” against an act. But GM is a state of being, and I will be prohibited by law from drawing a distinction between traditional marriage and what I believe is a counterfeit, deviant perversion of marriage. If you want civil unions, with the caveat that I will not be required to respect, fund, or for the sake of argument, pay spousal healthcare for my gay employees, I can live with that. But marriage has never been defined as anything other than a union between opposite sexes. Period. Whine all you want about it, but semantics don’t change traditional definitions.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Note that voting no on the amendment would not enact gay marriage in Minnesota, but voting yes creates impediments for legalizing marriage (in reality, probably not a big one, but an impediment).
Reasons for supporting same-sex marriage (not meant to be a comprehensive list):
1. A majority of people in the US support same-sex marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
2. Creating a patchwork of laws creates legal problems. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution says we must respect the acts of other states. Same sex marriage is legal in other states, so in some sense we must recognize these marriages (despite DOMA). We create headaches in the courts this way. What if a married gay couple from Iowa moved to Minnesota, established residency and then decided to divorce, what does the judge do (since MInnesota would not recognize their marriage). As a previous poster noted, eventually SCOTUS will have to weigh in on this issue.
3. Denying these marriages would seem (to many at least) to be discriminatory.
4. The government provides important benefits to married couples (the assumption that the spouse is responsible for legal decisions, the opportunity to adopt children, the ability to inherit joint property without having to pay taxes, etc.). End of life situations are especially hard on committed gay couples.
5. It encourages gay couples to participate in this important institution of our society.
6. Homosexuality has become accepted in society. Especially among younger people. As any number of commentators have observed (many of them Republican) this is an issue that is settled — to almost everyone under 30 they wonder why it is even a question. 40 years from now this sort of amendment will look like miscegenation laws. Amendments like this are still passing because older people vote at much higher rates than younger people and older people disproportionately oppose gay marriage.
In addition, specifically regarding the amendment, why codify something that already exists in our laws? If SCOTUS weighs in and says gay marriage must be recognized it won’t matter that we have it in our state constitution.
Like or Dislike:
14 
13
Let’s start with your first bullet point. Wikipedia is hardly an authority on anything. One needs only look at the states that have already ratified marriage as between opposite sexes. The average margin of approval of those ballots is nearly 20%. So how do you or Wikipedia get “a majority”? And you if are mistaken, or ill informed here, where else are you in error?
Secondly, “Creating a patchwork of laws creates legal problems”. This mighty sound correct in theory, but I don’t see you trying to overturn Obamacare on the same “patchwork” grounds. In truth, it’s just another strawman argument lacking any merit.
3. “Denying these marriages would seem (to many at least) to be discriminatory.”. Then what of the groups not covered? The siblings, the multiples, the guy who wants to marry his goat? In life, everybody gets discriminated against for one reason or another, and legally so. Thus, another strawman argument.
4.” The government provides important benefits to married couples”. If I listen to GM advocates, they almost unanimously cite love as the reason to be able to marry, not money. So you’re admitting that greed is playing a role in the debate? The only real benefit that gay couples don’t have access to is Social Security survivor’s benefits. All others are available by contract. Adoption, inheritance, visitation, power of attorney,
etc, are already available to those willing to do the paperwork.
5.”It encourages gay couples to participate in this important institution of our society.” Have you been paying attention lately? When it comes to issues of sexual preference, Gay activity and “participation” vastly outnumber straight participation rates. How many instances can you cite for exclusion of Gays from participation in public institutions? For every one you can cite, there will be hundreds of instances where people of faith are excluded.
6. “Homosexuality has become accepted in society. ” If this is true, then a public referendum on an amendment is EXACTLY what we should be doing. And once it goes down to defeat, are you willing to abide by the will of the people? Somehow, I think not. And for the record, acceptance isn’t validation. 40 years ago, do you think the proliferation of violence we see in today’s media and culture would be, as you put it, “accepted”? Are you comfortable with the lack of civility we have today? If tolerance is the litmus test, then apparently it is acceptable. So, you see, not all things acceptable are beneficial to society.
And lastly, “In addition, specifically regarding the amendment, why codify something that already exists in our laws? If SCOTUS weighs in and says gay marriage must be recognized it won’t matter that we have it in our state constitution.” Is this the same SCOTUS who’s people united decision you so whole heartedly support? It’s interesting how people are willing to support a court that decodes in their favor, but rail against them when not. I don’t see to many conservatives screaming about the Obamacare decision. Instead, they’re working within the system to throw out the guys who imposed it on us and thus overturn it with a new congress and president.
Hot debate. What do you think?
20 
10
The Wikipedia site has a host of pointers to the many polls showing a majority of Americans supporting gay marriage, perhaps read next time before demostrating your ignorance.
Working Obamacare into your answer to point 2 is a 3.5 difficulty move, but unfortunately it of course does not support your point in the least as repealing the healthcare law is what would return us to a patchwork of ineffective healthcare options.
For point 3 nice introduction of that tired argument, “well, if you do it for some, don’t you have to do it for all.” Wonderful. Though most of the religious folks who use it do it better. Intimacy with someone closely related or below the age of consent or with a nonhuman are all illegal whether the connection is homo or hetero. And extending a contract to something beyond two consenting parties is a whole new question and not relevant. Bye bye strawman counter.
No, not all of these benefits are available by paperwork. Again, maybe try not to provide legal views if you have no clue. With regards to inheritance there is no paperwork way to achieve the same rights. But to be honest that is not even the important one. The key one for most committed gay couples is the ability to make medical decisions, and even when you have the paperwork it can be challenged in a way that spousal rights do not. I am guessing you have never had a talk with a committed gay couple. And further, why should they have to go through extra paperwork? That is part and parcel of the notion behind the contractual part of marriage.
5 is not worth responding to as you clearly do not realize the hurdles gay people face. Stop getting your news from the Ignorance Peddlers and research for yourself.
Actually, I don’t mind referendums. But as I further noted, we get stuck with anachronisms imposed on us by elderly bigots. I am guessing that lots of folks in Mississippi would have voted for miscegenation laws in 1955. Fortunately, a lot of the bigoted folks died off and we look back at a misguided era. Am I saying your Bull Connor, no. But one of the folks cheering him on? Yes.
To be honest, the best line was the “I don’t see to (sic) many conservatives screaming about the Obamacare decision” – funniest thing I’ve heard in a month of Mondays. You would be hard pressed to find any conservative who didn’t scream about the decision.
So, your score would seem to be an 0 for 7 but I have to give you props for the sheer humor of your silliness. But I think I am going to go back to reading megyn, I don’t agree with her, but at least she’s not silly.
Like or Dislike:
4 
5
Somebodeees not listennnning.
Like or Dislike:
7 
3
I read, considered where needed (your responses are some of the cliches that few take seriously), showed that none of your counters have any validity (not that anyone supporting your side would want you as a spokesperson) and am ready to move on.
Feel free to take the last word.
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
Using the highly unscientific metric of the like/dislike ratings, it doesn’t look to promising for the gay marriage apologists. But, coincidentally, they do parallel the general populations distaste for GM.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
This amendment is less about marriage than it is about the gay lobby’s attempt to justify deviant behavior.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
13
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
27
This amendment has NOTHING to do with gay marriage!! That’s right…it’s all a baubble for the easily misled masses known as the Republican base.
There is already a law on books that negates Minnesota from legally recognizing Gay Marriage.
If the Amendment gets voted down, it DOES NOT mean gays will be permitted to marry. It’s still against the law. Voting against the Amendment is NOT forcing gay marriage on anyone. It’s NOT forcing people to accept gays against their religious beliefs because……………. IT DOESN’T change a dayum thing.
IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING…win or lose, it does NOTHING.
The only purpose of this Amendment was to rile up the rabid bigoted and judgemental conservative right wing Christians that the Republicans know are their base to convince them that the Republican party is there to support their bigoted narrow minded holier then thou homophobic views. That’s clearly it’s only intent because it does nothing else.
Even the Republican Majority leader didn’t believe in it who wrote and pushed it, while claiming straight faced publically that there was need to protect the sanctity of marriage and that’s why was necessary, she was having illicit extra marital affair with a young intern…and she probably was buffin’ the guy on the draft for the amendment…
Am I off base?….naw, look at the comments here proclaiming hetrosexual marriage is under attack and that are being forced to accept gay marriages…completely untrue…and wanna bet those same folks that consider selfs devout Christians also consider selfs devout Republicans?…..so it worked. But does it change anything or force anyone to go against their faith or accept gays? Of course not, even if Amendment resoundingly shot down, good Christians will be able to continue to practice their bigotry and judge and be prejudice against others…just like their Jesus apparently taught them to be.
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. “…..Steven Weinberg,
Like or Dislike:
5 
13
Seeing as how Minnesota is by any measure a liberal Democrat state, are you then implying that any registered Democrats who vote for the amendment are part of the “easily misled masses” and are “rabid bigoted and judgmental” and are expressing their “bigoted, narrow-minded, holier-than-thou, homophobic” views?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dan~ Sure, I think that anyone willing to vote for this amendment on a religious belief only in so doing is bigoted against others and using their religious beliefs to support it, regardless of the political party.
But the Democrats didn’t write or push this Amendment…so let’s keep it straight on whose pushing the agenda for what here….it wasn’t the Dems intent to rile up the Moral Majority homophobes to hoodwink them and as pointed out, and since this Amendment doesn’t accomplish a thing, the real purpose is just to force that conversation. Give the folks an excuse in this country to proclaim and defend their prejudices, ignorance and a venue to vent and display and unbridle their hate and folks will jump on that train and ride it all day long…look at the Little Rock 9, Selma, Montgomery or even the incident at UMD or the Unfair champaign…cough,cough..
It’s old, old game…and started by a Dem to my knowledge …LBJ started it and I’ve come to view it as Texas politics or rope in the dopes. When LBJ was running for Governor he told his champaign manager to float story that the incumbent Governor was gay. His champaign manager said…but that’s not true? LBJ said…I know, but I just want to see him try to defend it. The guy put on heels defending it, the dim witted believed it and LBJ was made Governor. When Bush ran for Governor, he pushed notion that Richardson who was long time incumbent was a lesbian. Karl Rove has of course mastered this technique and it’s pretty much all the Republican party does anymore. They know Obama isn’t a socialist, a Muslim and that was born here, but they put him on defensive like LBJ did to have to defend it, and the not to bright masses hearing lies often enuff’ think then are true. Isn’t like over 40% of Repubs that believe Obama is Muslim and wasn’t born here?
This no different …it won’t change anything really..but you got bible thumpers proclaiming gays are sign of armagedon, the Catholic church dumping money into supporting it, fire and brimstone sermons at pulpits and those foaming at mouth that their religion and themselves are being forced against their will to accept and condone gays….clearly some of these nuts are acting like if the amendment gets shot down that it must mean they have to go to a gay bar and hook up…LOL…
from a pastor friend of mine who won’t name…”If you draw a line in the sand and you then proclaim that God is on your side, that most certainly is the time he is not”
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
I still do not understand how the government can stop two people from entering into a legal contract? If a church does not want to “marry” someone, that is a private organization and I get it. They should not be forced to. The government is for everyone and cannot bestow rights to one citizen over another. My point is if two people want to share their life and finances, it really does not affect me in any way. If an individual themselves do not believe in it do not recognize it for your believes. I just think this is big time government overreach.
Like or Dislike:
12 
5
Marriage serves a purpose of forever linking a man and a woman to the children they might conceive.
The government exists to serve and protect the common good. “Same-sex marriage” serves no state interest. It doesn’t do anything for the common good. So far the major reasons given for recognizing gay marriage seem to be homosexuals “want” to get married, homosexual couples want the monetary benefits, and it is not fair so they should be able to get married like a man and a woman. Well…..Life is not fair and we can’t always have what we want. There are too many other highly important things for our government and citizens to concentrate on other than the desires of some homosexuals to get married. The Sanctification of “Love”? This is irrational. Once the rational, biological basis for marriage is abolished (be a redefinition of marriage), there isn’t a reason to oppose polygamy or adult incest .
Like or Dislike:
13 
5
This really boils down to people not knowing how to mind their own business.
Like or Dislike:
8 
12
and the little lady there in corner….HAS A BINGO FOLKS…
Like or Dislike:
6 
10
I really have to disagree with this statement of minding one’s own business. This is a large, complicated issue that truly does affect society in many ways. Everyone should be in tune to it and educated about it. It would immediately affect the family unit which is the basis for virtually every society on earth. It could have far reaching impact on religious institutions, schools, education or our young, and the way in which private businesses are run and the way in which individuals are allowed to practice within their professions. I truly do not wish to meddle in other peoples private lives, but if laws are enacted which would deeply impact areas of my own private life, I do wish to have a say and argue for what I believe in. This is America. We are allowed to do just that.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
MYTH: The Marriage Protection Amendment bans “gay marriage
No, it doesn’t. First of all, there is no such thing as “gay marriage” in Minnesota. Marriage in Minnesota is and always has been the union of one man and one woman. The amendment doesn’t change that at all.
The Marriage Protection Amendment simply preserves our existing definition of marriage by putting it into the state constitution, ensuring that if special interest groups, activist judges, or politicians want to redefine marriage in the future, they will have to convince the people to do so.
If approved by voters, the Marriage Protection Amendment will preserve marriage from future judicial or legislative activism and place in the hands of voters the sole authority to determine the definition of marriage in our state.
There have been a lot of attempts to change the definition of marriage in Minnesota in the Legislature and through the courts. Passing the amendment doesn’t ban gay marriage, but it does provide that marriage can be redefined in Minnesota to allow for same-sex marriage only if voters approve.
http://www.minnesotaformarriage.com
Hot debate. What do you think?
23 
9
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.
Like or Dislike:
20 
8
Megyn, yeah I can see that about liberals. At least Consevatives do not even PRETEND to care about others views. Then ironically use the government, which they claim to hate, to enforce their views.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
It is more libertarians that seem to hate government. Conservatives generally do not hate it, they largely seem to recongnize that it is necessary to protect the common good and provide things such as national defense and infrastructure. Conservatives wish to uphold the amendments included in the United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
It’s funny that Republicans supposedly want to “limit” government…but then push through amendments that only increase government. What a schizophrenic bunch of folks…
Hot debate. What do you think?
14 
20
Gay Marriage: Even Liberals Know It’s Bad
Why not legalize same-sex marriage? Who could it possibly hurt? Children and the rest of society. That’s the conclusion of David Blankenhorn, who is anything but an anti-gay “bigot.” He is a life-long, pro-gay, liberal democrat who disagrees with the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexual behavior. Despite this, Blankenhorn makes a powerful case against Same-Sex marriage in his book, The Future of Marriage.
He writes, “Across history and cultures . . . marriage’s single most fundamental idea is that every child needs a mother and a father. Changing marriage to accommodate same-sex couples would nullify this principle in culture and in law.”
Are these just the hysterical cries of an alarmist? No. We can see the connection between same-sex marriage and illegitimacy in Scandinavian countries. Norway, for example, has had de-facto same-sex marriage since the early nineties. In Nordland, the most liberal county of Norway, where they fly “gay” rainbow flags over their churches, out-of-wedlock births have soared—more than 80 percent of women giving birth for the first time, and nearly 70 percent of all children, are born out of wedlock! Across all of Norway, illegitimacy rose from 39 percent to 50 percent in the first decade of same-sex marriage.
Blankenhorn is amazed how indifferent homosexual activists are about the negative effects of same-sex marriage on children. Many of them, he documents, say that marriage isn’t about children.
But the very future of children and a civilized society depends on stable marriages between men and women. That’s why, regardless of what you think about homosexuality, the two types of relationships should never be legally equated.
That conclusion has nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with what’s best for children and society. Just ask pro-gay, liberal democrat David Blankenhorn.
http://townhall.com/columnists/frankturek/2008/05/26/gay_marriage_even_liberals_know_its_bad/page/full/
Like or Dislike:
16 
8
Those who vote “negative” see below.
Like or Dislike:
16 
5
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
5 
15
bandr, sincerely thank you for pointing that out to me.
He can recant his personal opposition. However, he can not wipe away the documented negative effects it has on children and society as a whole.
I guess he really flip flopped. Which he has every right to do.
Like or Dislike:
15 
3
I didn’t even have to come up with my own example sentence. http://www.dictionary.com provided it for me below. I was going to say something super simple like “pro gay marriage supports are selfish”.
Example Sentences
Elected governments bow to the demands of selfish factions and interest groups.
self·ish [sel-fish] Show IPA
adjective
1.
devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2.
characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Synonyms
1. self-interested, self-seeking, egoistic; illiberal, parsimonious, stingy.
Like or Dislike:
17 
5
And here I always thought we were supposed to seperate Church and State??? Am I losing my mind?
What exactly is the role of Govt? I got an idea, lets use the money wasted on same sex marriage, abortion, and several other religious beliefs-rights topics, and apply that cash towards something such as education, or maybe just throwing it into that thing called National Debt? How distorted can we actually get people???
Like or Dislike:
15 
2
Are you expecting dissent from me? You won’t get it. As I understand the first amendment, Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion, OR THE FREE PRACTICE THEREOF.
The commonly referred to “separation of church and state” isn’t in the constitution, but in a private letter penned by Thomas Jefferson when asked about the role of religion.
This means that the state is officially neutral in establishing any religion. Atheist interpret this to mean the state must refrain from any references to God(apparently, so does the DNC). But if we ban all references to God, what we are left with are non-theistic (athiests) and humanistic religions. SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that atheism and humanism are indeed religions when it comes to their tax exempt status. So….If the state is able to banish all references to God, as the atheists want, what we have left are nontheistic religions, ie, a defacto establishment of religion, just not a theistic one.
Like or Dislike:
9 
4
If the State is neutral, then it should stay out of it, and move on to things that it has stated it will do!
Rather than being long winded and provide documentation, ALL I’m suggesting is that Govt as well as it’s people focus on the country!
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
I would tend to concur…….IF, activist judges stopped taking the law into their own hands and using the bench to write new law. Judges are required to interpret the law, not write new law out of whole cloth. Congress writes the laws, judges interpret them, at least that’s how it originally was supposed to work. I’m still searching for the alleged right to privacy that the Warren Court concocted. Today’s judges seem to think that that unless expressly prohibited from doing something by the constitution, that they have free rein to do whatever they want. Even then, some still choose to ignore the constitution(s).
Like or Dislike:
14 
4
Most people who are against same sex marriage are against homosexuality. Banning homosexual practices certainly won’t stop them from happening, but few people are prosecuted for homosexual behavior and no one is ever prosecuted for adultery.
Like or Dislike:
8 
13
Repeated throughout this thread is the reference to GM as a civil right. Who made GM a civil right? Who bestowed it upon whom? Where is the paper trail of the debate? Just because someone calls this a civil rights issue doesn’t make it so.
We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Now, to start with, who gives us rights? The gov’t, or God. If it is the gov’t, then where does gov’t derive its power? Answer, from the governed. And it those governed choose not to acknowledge GM, who is to say they are not within their power to do so.who endows us with rights, doesn’t one first need to acknowledge Him and His Supremacy? And how does one do that if the ignore his instruction concerning homosexual behavior( or a myriad of other sins)?
In a nut shell, homosexual marriage is inconsistent with rights granted by gov’t if the governed decide against it, and is inconsistent with God given rights if the practitioners of homosexuality ignore wht He has to say about it.
Like or Dislike:
15 
5
Please for give the thick fingered typing errors. I got on a roll, and with my failing eyesight, didn’t catch all the errors.
Like or Dislike:
13 
2
Whoa….fastone.
You used so many unfriendly names in your post. That’s unfortunate. I would never resort to the equivalent. I’m sorry to hear such ugliness.
I was once told that if a person cannot respond wo using bad words and / or name calling it shows their ignorance in their ability to express their views / feelings.
Like or Dislike:
11 
3
I see what you mean…your judgemental condemnation is so much gentler and kinder …I feel have been scolded and ridiculed for my opinion and verbage but somehow you’re able to make me feel all warm and gooey about it….because you didn’t use ugly words…and golly gee whiz if you also completely NOT responding to the point and just playing grammer n@zi…
and apparently am small minded and unable to properly articulate my point according to you…and darnit if don’t feel happy as a lark for that little bit of advice because you’re so above using ugly words…..and golly gee if didn’t think I was speaking as plainly as possible…kinda like saying darn are you a fragile one…
Of course, there’s a catch, I was speaking in general terms not speaking to anyone directly and if offended anyone, well ya’ know what say….if throw a stone it’s the yelping dog that got hit…mmm…you of course are directing your judgemental condemnations directly at me…that’s soooo much better …..cuz gee whiz…you don’t use ugly words like bigotry and judgemental….WTH?
How about addressing the point, instead of avoiding it and trying to nitpick on verbage and misdirect? It’s clear that there’s no other purpose for the nonsense of the amendment other then to rile up the rabid Republican holier then thou bigoted Christiansen base that think giving others equal rights would shatter their world….because the whole thing is pointless…but they didn’t spend the first 6 months of year instead of working on jobs like promised if there wasn’t a true agenda ……….
Or you just want to pick on my verbage? Oh, yeah, and my posts are too long and I speak often in incomplete and fragmented sentences…….I’m just nothing but a mess of small minded inarticulate trouble…
Like or Dislike:
4 
8
“I’m nothing but a mess of small minded inarticulate trouble.” Me to so there you go. It’s good to be in such fine company fastone. As far as sentence structure goes…these are messages not an English test. I don’t expect perfection. If megyn doesn’t like your style of writing she can debate the subject with someone else.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Tips cap…thanks TJ…obviously concur…but for some, it’s easier to attack the messenger then to discuss or debate the message….and was classic, when folks do that, they never touch on the point or POV…just the grammer…it’s actually also a classic trollish move to misdirect and attempt to descredit without touching the point…hence my grammer n@zi comment………..that said…onward thru the fog..LOL
Tis’ interesting thread and stand on my point..easily, it’s indisputable…this is pointless amendment with only agenda clearly to rile the holier then thou Repubs to a pointless cause by pandering to their bigotry..the Moral Majority is their base and know it…IMHO this thread testimony to that with some looking like foaming at mouth while they type on this…LOL…but it’s pointless except to achieve that…
Loved of course, your comment about minding own business…dayum, don’t get it…what others do has no impact on me, I could care less as long as not hurting others…and feel everyone should be free to live their life as choose to…kinda the point of our countries ideals don’t ya’ know..LOL…and our ideals of this country and principles are to ensure we don’t discriminate against others and negate their equal rights or use our freedoms to trample theirs…but sigh…this country sadly has long history of doing this.
Not sure brought up yet in thread but ALL the same arguments including evoking one’s religious beliefs, the Bible and God to justify their bigotry…was used to justify preventing interracial marriages 40 years ago…it’s all Deja’ Moo to me, heard ALL this bull before. Before that, the exact same arguments were used to justify segregation, before that slavery…there’s no end to the discrimination one can practice and preach when they believe and proclaim God is on their side…..the greatest atrocities on mankind since beginning of time were by those proclaiming God was on their side…but that has nothing to do of course with ensuring others are given the same legal rights in this country that proclaims is about equal rights for all.
This of course does one other thing not touched on, that besides just pandering to conservative far right holier then thou bigotry it exposes the Republican party and conservatives as supporting nothing but causes that are afront to the very ideals of this country. Let’s look at just snapshot of their agenda’s…
On social issues they want to negate helping the poor, negate womens rights, abolish abortion, prevent equal rights to gays, prevent ensuring have proper medical care for all, abolish US dept. of education, hamstring childrens education thru huge budget cuts which already done, eliminate Pell grants, lower medical benefits to elderly, eliminate social security and abridge the very foundation of our democracy by putting stipulations on our rights to vote. When string them together it’s not hard to see that Republicans planks are not exactly vision of a country by the people for the people…
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. “,,,Steven Weinberg,
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Ugh. I said I was out, but you directly asked me a question, so here goes. [Although you haven't yet done me the courtesy of answering even one of my questions, the most relevant of which is how is permitting divorce (for a Catholic) different from permitting gay marriage (for you).] Anyway, yes, people make the laws based on cultural norms. There are also courts and legislatures and constitutions to ensure that the law of the land isn’t simply majority rule. So it’s not just up to the majority to decide what they will and wha they won’t recognize. The permissibility of interracial marriage is one example of this. (And please note here, “interracial marriage” is not an enumerated Constitutional right, either, but you’d be hard pressed to say that a majority of people in a state should get to decide that those two people can marry.) It’s so strange that you keep suggesting that a select few are going to be able to dictate what everyone else does. No one will be forcing anyone to get “gay married.” The only marriage that I participate in is my own. This has absolutely nothing to do with the government or anyone else dictating “who does what or where they do it.” It’s a permission for those who want to do something to legally be able to do it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
8
I’m glad you brought up the enumeration thing. And what does the 10th amendment of the US Constitution say? “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. ” SO…..Since marriage is not a constitutional right, regulation and governance of marriage is, wait a moment…..it’s coming…… UP TO THE STATES! And if the states decide not to recognize it, you guys are SOL. Somehow I think you’ll still whine your way up to SCOTUS.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Actually, you brought it up, in one of your red herring arguments above. I don’t really disagree that it’s up to the states, and obviously our state is considering the issue right now. I never said otherwise. I note your continued refusal to address the Catholic/divorce issue. You’ve talked a lot about how gay marriage would infringe on your religious rights, but don’t seem to care that your main argument is that your religious views should dictate what others, including the state government, are allowed to do. Now *that* sounds like a violation of the 1st Amendment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
OK, what “rights” concerning a divorcee are you thinking about? If a couple is no longer married, exactly what “rights” am I to recognize that I don’t already recognize? Or are you inferring that Catholics are being forced against their will to recognize “rights” that the divorcees themselves don’t want recognized.
Gays are demanding recognition of rights they do not posses under law, a law that was decided upon( or will be) by the people of the state. Birth control is another similar issue among Catholics, but as long as the people aren’t being forced to recognize it or subsidize it against their will or conscience, like they would GM, then it’s not an issue. GM laws would force recognition, and subsidization of deviant behavior. An employer of conscience could not deny spousal insurance benefits to his gay employees, A homeowner occupying a duplex could not deny rental to a gay couple, even though it clearly violates his faith. Need I go on? Ad you’ve still never provided a single documented incidence of where gay relationships of the past(prior to the GM movement) where a gay couple was considered “married” in the eyes of the state, or of the culture in which they lived. They may have been acknowledged as a couple, but never a married couple because marriage has always been between opposite sexes, DUH!?
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
The state grants divorces. The Catholic church does not permit divorce. So when a state has granted a divorce, the Catholic church member is (accordign to your logic) forced against his will to recognize and honor the fact that those individuals are no longer married, and that the state has permitted them to divorce. I am still not seeing, at all, how you think issuing a marriage license will force you to recognize and subsidize “deviant” behavior. I don’t think your rental example holds up to scrutiny. Is there a law saying that a duplex owner must rent to married couples if they apply? I don’t think so. There may be laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination in housing (I honestly don’t know if MN has such a law), but that would apply regardless of whether the gays in question are married.
You never asked me to provide an example of when a gay couple would have been considered married in the past, and I never suggested that they have. I’ve never done the research on it. I also don’t think it matters one iota. We’re talking about today, and what makes sense, logically, for state licensure purposes. You’re not being logical about it, and with that, I am really and truly DONE.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
You’re not seeing because you refuse to see. You’ve invested too much energy in convincing yourself that sodomy is just another normal act. Well then why isn’t pedophilia or necrophilia? Bestiality doesn’t hurt anybody, but it’s illegal. And I’m sure that its practitioners care deeply about their animals, but society has determined it to be wrong. Voyeurism truly is a victimless crime, but it’s looked upon by normal folks as a very seemly, slimy perversion. How much longer should I go on? in the end, GM advocates are demanding that I as a person of faith be forced under the law, to recognize their behavior as “normal”. But not content to stop there, they want things like spousal insurance coverage, survivor’s benefits, etc. Things reserved for normal, traditional, opposite sex married couples.
It aint gonna happen, and you know that.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
“….but don’t seem to care that your main argument is that your religious views should dictate what others…” Show me a single mainline religion that endorses, not tolerates, not condones, not accepts, but endorses something their own scriptures call sin, ie, homosexual behavior. Oh, you may get a few fringe groups, and a handful of your deviant pedophilic priests, but no endorsements, tacit or stated.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
Here’s one for you: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8463741/ns/us_news/t/united-church-christ-endorses-gay-marriage/
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Ooooo! MSNBC, bordered on the left only by Pravda and The daily Kos.
You’re not too familiar with the UCC if you cite them as a mainline church. They are fringe with a capital F. Even to the point of their support for marxist guerrillas in central America. If you want to think “mainline”, think anything opposite of the UCC. Their own mission statement doesn’t even include a reference to the deity of Christ. I heard a Christmas eve sermon at a UCC church once where their minister never even talked about Jesus, but went on to talk about Santa Clause before waxing political and railing against those evil Republicans. But then again, that’s why you cited them, right? Because they endorse homosexuality as normal rather than perverse. If we were talking polygamous marriages, you’d be citing the mormons. Neither of which is a reliable source on their respective topics, BTW. I realize it’s hard to find a positive endorsement among mainline religions when the behavior I asked you to endorse is anything but mainline. Maybe the Cardinal of Boston can help you out.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Well, you’ve resorted to blatant lies. (And surprising that you would spend Christmas Eve, of of the holiest of holidays for Christians, at a fringe church that supposedly doesn’t believe in Jesus!) Here’s a website you may be more comfortable with: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/10/episcopal-church-approves-same-sex-blessing-rite/
And here’s the preamble to the UCC Bylaws. Notice that there are one or two references to Christ.
1 The United Church of Christ, formed June 25, 1957, by the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church and The General Council of the Congregational Christian Churches of the United States in order to express more fully the oneness in Christ of the churches composing it, to make more effective their common witness in Him, and to serve His kingdom in the world, hereby adopts this Constitution.
2 The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.
. . . .
Like or Dislike:
0 
1