by Duluth News Tribune
September 25, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
St. Louis County commissioners also give Camp Esquagama an extra $65,000 to cover shortfall. Continue Reading
Tags: county board, elections, Minnesota, Politics, St Louis County 29 Comments »
The county board doesn’t need to deal with this issue. This has nothing to do with the people’s business on county issues. Quit wasting our taxpayer dollars. Are they going to vote on everything Frank Jewel thinks they need to take a personal stand on. How about they vote if the death of of Ambassador to Libyia was a protest gone bad or a terrorist attack.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 59 25
“This has nothing to do with the people’s business on county issues”. Wrong. This has everything to do with county business. The marriage amendment will have a lasting impact on citizens of this county.
Several years ago, when it looked like the state of Hawaii might pass same sex marriage, suddenly conservatives in other states threw themselves into a frenzy of “protecting marriage” by exclusion. THEY politicized the topic of marriage. So it is rather disingenuous to say that the county board, a group of politicians elected to their offices, has no business weighing in on this subject.
You can’t have it both ways
Hot debate. What do you think? 24 24
Honestly who cares what the St. Louis County board thinks on this? What an arrogant bunch of people. They are elected to serve as final decision and policy makers on county business and that is it. They don’t even do that good of job on that.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 55 23
Ditto my response to M.C. above. It IS county business.
Hot debate. What do you think? 17 25
The marriage ammendment is a choice for the residents of Minnesota to vote on, that’s why it’s going on the ballot! Frank Jewel will have an opportunity to voice his individual opinion on November 6th. Neither he or any other civil servant should abuse the privilage of their office to influence other voters. Jewel, you were elected to do COUNTY business not interfere with State business. I couldn’t care less how Jewel or any other Board member feels about matters outside those directly associated with St. Louis County. Keep your personal feelings to yourself and get to work!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 45 17
This action by the County Board is totally unjustified. The board is trying to inject their personal opinion into the referendum decision. Every board member who voted for this resolution needs to be replaced because they have departed from doing what their constituants want and taking care of County business and instead imposing their personal opinion to influence elections.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 56 24
Ulysses~ “The board is trying to inject their personal opinion into the referendum decision. ”
I don’t feel a major city voicing an opinion on something that will definitely alter their state constitution as inappropriate. Atrocities are always committed, rights denied and trampled and equality and our ideals we’ve sworn to uphold shoved aside because too few chose to speak up.
I see the Catholic Church hiding behind a non-profit status while spending money on campaign to try to influence voting on an amendment that alters state constitution as totally inappropriate on several levels though, but assume the conservatives are all good with that? A city government shouldn’t even voice their opinion on something they feel unjust and that will be put into our state constitution? You read that Minneapolis, St. Paul, Mankato and a number of other cities already had right? I applaud them for having a spine and you and other conservatives just doing what you do, trashing everything not all for the reichwing causes and are all looney to me and showing what hypocrites are by doing so….
This took what? Like 15 minutes maybe? Did the city shut down? Did this cost us undo hardship? Did this cost us monetarily? Nope.
BUT…the Repubs who pushed this and the voted id amendment fritted away over 5 months on these things while we were in harms way and neglected taking care of the state’s issues on budget because of it that did cost us money, has nothing to do with our economic crises and in fact set us up to actually have the state shut down because they refused to work out a budget and worked on this instead. So I naturally assume all you whining over the city councils spending few minutes to voice a stand on issue that will impact constitution are all just furious as all hell with the Repubs for wasting so much time on nonsense instead of doing what they were elected to do and promised to do…right? ~~rolls eyes~ ~@^@~
“Heterosexuality is not normal, it’s just common.”… Dorothy Parker
Hot debate. What do you think? 28 37
Hey fastone…maybe the Board should let us know how they stand on abortion, taxation, prostitution, corporal punishment, the war on terror, discrimination, intoxication and the Monday night football refs too?? Afterall, that wouldn’t create any “undue hardship” now would it? These ding-dongs are free to do/say whatever they want on their own dime. When you’re on mine I expect you to be tending to County matters and County matters only!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 35 15
Yes, they should absolutely let us know how they stand on those issues if they feel that those issues are important. As should everyone.
Be honest with your complaint. You’re not upset that they’re speaking their mind about an important issue. You’re upset because you disagree with them. You want to continue to deny marriage rights to homosexuals.
Hot debate. What do you think? 22 30
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
A ding-dong as you used would think refers to someone who can’t tell difference between a government body voicing an opinion on a change in their governing state constitution and a Supreme court ruling , or the difference between a government body and the NFL apparently….or between a hooker and state amendment on the current ballot……then again, Repubs can’t seem for the life them to know the difference between voter fraud and a drivers license ……..
With Republicans, it isn’t a question of whether or not they live in fantasyland. It’s just where within that domain they reside.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: 10 21
Shame on you! Quit trampling on freedom of religion. The Catholic Church can say whatever they want because after all this is still America. You aren’t hiding behind a tax exempt status when you are expressing your beliefs.
Hot debate. What do you think? 25 11
You said: “Quit trampling on freedom of religion”.
Well my response is: Quit trampling on freedom of association and equal rights.
Hot debate. What do you think? 13 19
MC~ Get it straight not twisted child. I never said that we should deny Catholics or anyone’s right to free speech or to not be able to believe whatever they want and chose to live their life how chose. The point that clearly whoooshed over your head is that everyone including you is griping about the city council voicing an opinion and are all claiming it’s none of their business. Well, it’s far more wrong that any Church spends money and energy to try to influence our very constitutions and deny others equal rights because of their beliefs. Savy?
I don’t care if a bunch of loonies form a church and start worshiping goats as supreme beings…they are entitled to believe whatever want and waste their lifes on nonsense as they see fit, that’s what makes America great is our freedoms. But when the goat worshipers take advantage of a non-profit status and turn around and spend money and energy to try to influence our laws to make everyone worship goats, that’s crossing a line they have no business doing as the very foundation that protects their right to worship and believe as they want is our separation of church and state and a church trying to influence our laws is beyond out of line. If still don’t get it, can’t help you but I feel the Catholics have a choice, either butt out of political campaigning and spending money to lobby for laws or lose their non-profit protection for being a church. Our Government has no right to dictate what rules for Catholics should be and Catholics have no right to dictate what rules we should govern ourselves with.
Like or Dislike: 12 9
Our government has alrady dictated to the Catholic Church with its Obama care rules! Where have you been? Hiding under a rock? The Catholic Church can collect money from willing donors every Sunday in Church and do what it pleases with its money just like Rev.Wright’s Church in Chicago. Catholic Charities is the most respected organization for helping in the world.For every dollar collected less than 3 cents goes to administration. When they are forced to close hospitals, colleges, and clinics because of how you think, the poor will suffer. The government will lose 150,000 hospital beds. According to the negative comments here, Catholics don’t have equal rights because of their beliefs. That is how a bigot thinks.
Like or Dislike: 7 10
Nobody is going to force the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals. Just like nobody forces the Catholic church to marry Jews, Muslims, or divorced people.
Homosexuals are already allowed to marry in several states in the US, and many other countries. In those states and countries, the Catholic Church is still allowed to have their own rules, and deny marriages to whoever they want.
I don’t know where you came up with the idea that gay marriage will shut down hospitals. Do you really think that?
Like or Dislike: 8 7
M.C. ~ You need a reality check, you twist things up to where has absolutely nothing to do with original point. Try to focus…you’re all over the place.
Sigh…the Catholic Church is spending money to lobby to change our State Constitution. That is crossing line of separation of Church and State. That Catholics run hospitals have charitable organizations, are against abortion, or to add, shielded and protected Priests molesting children for decades doesn’t change that fact and has absolutely nothing to do with them trying to influence our government and laws regarding gay marriage and equality..sheeesh.
If gays were allowed to legally marry, Catholics would still be allowed to practice their hypocrisy and bigotry and deny preforming their marriage ceremonies.
Hyporcrisy~ Catholics claiming are shielded by their Constitutional rights to practice their beliefs and to live their lives freely as they choose, yet are spending energy and money to deny others those exact same rights to live their lives as freely as they choose.
The Catholic Church can either be religious organization or it can be a political fund raiser and political promoter, they can’t be both and then hide behind claims of are strictly a religious organization.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott
Like or Dislike: 7 6
Daria, do you have a source for your 3 cents administration claim?? Most Catholic dioceses are organized as separate 501c(3) organizations and I am not sure what you are construing as administration (a church might take in a reasonable amount of money and use most of it to keep up the church, feed the priest, etc. without calling any of that administrative costs). Don’t get me wrong, many Catholic charities are great. For example, Catholic Charities USA, the biggest of the Catholic charities in this country is considered exemplary by charitable standards but its administrative expenses are 14.8% of its take (see http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=10656). Note, http://www.charitynavigator.org/ is the place to go to find out about charities.
As a sometime Catholic I know that you have to take what the church puts out as numbers as advertising, as they have, for example, hidden the costs of settling their many court cases over the years.
In any case, most Catholic dioceses are organized as 501c(3) organizations and as such agree to significant limits on lobbying activities (including attempting to influence legislation) as part of retaining their tax exempt status. As was noted by the Court, if they do not like these limits on what they say they are free to surrender their tax exempt status. You just can’t try to influence political decisions on the public dime (which is what a priest or church is doing when they make statements on the issue).
Like or Dislike: 0 0
How strange somebodies screen name mysteriously changed…mmmm…someone messed up their sock puppet accounts apparently…LMAO.
Like or Dislike: 1 2
If the St. Louis County Board is going to do anything with this amendment, it should strongly support it – not oppose it. That’s because as elected officials, they should know how law is made in this country – with facts – and how facts are are to be constitutionally applied in making law.
Rather with the aid of misguided individuals, like these board members, proponents of gay marriage have consistently misused the constitution in an effort to impose gay marriage. For example in saying that same-sex couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM), cite the Constitution, in general, and the 14th Amendment, in particular, as justification. Though it’s applicable to this argument, 14th Amendment is not justification for SSM. Rather, the 14th Amendment is a powerful argument against bestowing homosexual couples such rights and privileges.
The reason has to do with the phrases, “…without due process of law…” and the “equal protection of the laws.” The whole purpose of law is to govern human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. Thus, law prohibits, limits, or encourages different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. Merits, in turn, are based on objective facts, not feelings without facts. For example, facts prove that some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. This third category would be the taking of life or property.
So law isn’t based solely on what people want. It’s also based on the people or their representatives objectively reviewing facts to indicate why a law is justified or not. This is the “…due process of law” mentioned in the 14th Amendment. In accordance with this process, the facts (science) show that homosexual behavior (not the urge for this behavior, which is the driving force for the behavior) falls within the second category of human behavior. It does so because homosexual behavior is associated with serious bodily damage, disease, instability of commitment, and infidelity (1).
For these reasons, government recognition of SSM is wrong, because it mischaracterizes same-sex behavior. SSM does so by erroneously placing same-sex behavior in the first behavioral category, one that’s beneficial to the individual and society and, therefore, one that???s deserving of encouragement through the rights and privileges mentioned above. Clearly, in accordance with the facts, society shouldn’t encourage same-sex behavior, especially since its origin is partially external (like ones peer group, family, and society). Consequently SSM will encourage those who wouldn’t otherwise engage in homosexual behavior to do so (1).
For every other external factor, like this one, we’ve recognized their ability to influence problematic behaviors and have, therefore, taken measures to limit them. For instance with smoking, which is subject to peer and societal influences, we’ve stopped advertising that might encourage it. Yet for another unhealthy behavior, same-sex behavior, which is also subject to peer and societal influences, some want to do the exact opposite and encourage it with government recognition of SSM. This view is not only contradictory but it’s also blatantly hypocritical and without merit of any kind.
Indeed, with respect to SSM, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is clear. We cannot say that one unhealthy behavior (smoking) deserves no encouragement, while another unhealthy behavior (same-sex behavior) does. Hence an intellectually-honest and clear-thinking person has only one decision to make. That decision is to oppose SSM.
(1) – An essay, summarizing the science and peer-reviewed references (which do not originate from anti-gay or anti-gay marriage sources) for opposing government recognition of same-sex behavior:
Like or Dislike: 5 5
“Consequently SSM will encourage those who wouldn’t otherwise engage in homosexual behavior to do so.”
The unspoken argument here is that the government should encourage homosexuals to be heterosexual. We’ve seen the results of that: Closeted homosexuals attempt to live a lie, and fail. People like this:
Top 15 Anti-Gay Activists Caught Being Gay
Opponents of marriage equality think these anti-gay activists were doing the right thing by lying to themselves and everyone else around them. They grew up surrounded by people who hated homosexuals, and they learned to hate themselves. Again, opponents of marriage equality think that is a GOOD thing.
If you think homosexuals don’t deserve the right to marry the person they love, then make sure you support the Minnesota Marriage amendment.
Like or Dislike: 1 6
Your response is typical of those who support the legal recognition of gay marriage: You set up a straw man argument, just so you have something to knock down, because you can’t do the same with the facts.
Whether you believe homosexuality is immutable or not is, to some degree, unimportant. What is important and irrefutable is that homosexuality is a behavioral urge that’s acted on by choice, even if the urge, itself, didn’t come about through choice and is, itself, difficult to control.
As such, homosexuality is no different than any other behavioral urge as far the law is concerned. For the law is not, nor should it ever be, as concerned about what leads to the behavior as to the behavior itself. In other words, is the behavior good and should be encouraged, potentially unhealthy and should be limited, or acutely harmful and should be banned. To be more specific, its the result of the behavior about which the law is most concerned.
As science proves, same-sex behavior is
2. Results from a behavioral urge; and
3. The urge for same-sex behavior is partially due to social/cultural influences.
Thus for these reasons, neither the government nor society should promote any social or cultural influence that would encourage same-sex behavior.
Marriage is just a social/cultural influence and a powerful one at that. When we legally recognize the union of two people and offer that union tax incentives to encourage these unions, we’re saying to the entire country that this is a behavior that’s to be emulated and practiced.
As the science proves, this form of encouragement is appropriate for two people of the opposite sex, who enter into marriage.
As the science also proves, this form of encouragement is not appropriate for two people of the same sex, who want to enter into marriage because doing so would promote an unhealthy behavior and influence others who are more vulnerable than others to becoming homosexual to engage in this unhealthy behavior.
Hence, this is why it’s so important for the people of Minnesota to vote to amend the State Constitution to limit marriage to between one man and one woman.
Like or Dislike: 5 4
No Semyon, that wasn’t a straw man. By your logic, those Anti-Gay Activists are doing exactly what they should be doing. They are the ones who are, as you say, “more vulnerable than others to becoming homosexual.” They are the people you are protecting from themselves when you deny marriage rights to homosexuals in stable, loving relationships.
“When we legally recognize the union of two people and offer that union tax incentives to encourage these unions, we’re saying to the entire country that this is a behavior that’s to be emulated and practiced.”
Like it or not, we already legally recognize the union of two people. We call that union “marriage.” I agree that it’s a behavior that’s to be emulated and practiced. That’s why I think that homosexuals who are already in stable, monogamous relationships should be allowed to marry each other.
Like or Dislike: 1 4
“It does so because homosexual behavior is associated with serious bodily damage, disease, instability of commitment, and infidelity.”
Whether you’re gay or straight, STDs are caught by having sex with an infected partner. The more partners you have, the more likely you are to catch an STD at some point in your life. The obvious solution to this problem is to encourage monogamy, by allowing people to get married.
Like or Dislike: 2 6
Again, what you’re claiming is false. Homosexuals are many times more likely on a per person basis than heterosexuals to transmit serious disease.
For example, according to this reference…
…heterosexuals who need three times the partners that homosexuals have in order to equal their rate of contracting HIV/AIDS.
Then there’s this reference…
…proving that homosexuals are up to 44 times more likely than heterosexuals to contract HIV/AIDS and comprise over 50% of this disease in the entire country, even though homosexuals comprise only about 3.5% of the population, according to research from the Williams Institute, a legal advocacy group for homosexuals at the University of Calif., Los Angeles.
Like or Dislike: 2 3
Now you’re straw manning me. I wasn’t denying those facts. It’s true that I believe you’re being misleading (the statistics you are using is referring to gay men only, and AIDs only. “Homosexuals” also includes lesbians, and there are many more STDs than AIDs), but I’m not interested in making that argument.
The argument I’m making, again, is that the best solution to the problem you describe is to encourage monogamy among homosexuals by giving them the legal benefits of marriage. You can’t get an STD from someone who doesn’t have one. And people who have STDs will stop spreading them when they settle down and get married.
Your solution discourages homosexuals from committing to a monogamous relationship. Monogamous relationships are a real way to stop the spread of STDs.
Some quotes from the essay, linked in an earlier post, proving that your assertion that legally recognizing gay marriage would encourage monogamy among homosexuals has no merit:
“Among [gay] males, the average relationship lasts about 1-½ years, yet still includes up to 8 casual partners per year in addition to the “committed” partner. Indeed, according to one study, only seven couples out of 156 had no outside encounters, while being committed for less than 5 years.”
Sources: see reference numbers 4 through 7 in the linked essay (A).
“The effect on marriage would be problematic, according to a study on divorce patterns among Scandinavian same-sex couples. In Norway and Sweden, the likelihood of divorce between gay men was 1.35 to 1.5 times that of heterosexuals. For lesbians, this rate was even higher, even though women have a tendency to be much less promiscuous than men. In these same Scandinavian countries, married lesbians were 2 to 2.67 times more likely to divorce than married heterosexual women.”
See reference 8 in the linked essay (A).
“These factors contradict those who agitate for gay marriage, saying it would not impact the institution of marriage in this country. On the contrary, given the findings of the Scandinavian study, homosexual marriage would diminish the institution below its already weakened state by increasing divorce, burdening the court system with more divorce cases, and saddling children (if any are involved) with the emotional baggage that often comes with divorce.” (A)
Further, gay men remain non-monogamous even in committed relationships.
See reference No. 3A in the linked essay. (A)
(A) – http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike: 2 7
Given what I wrote in my preceding this reply, even in the unlikely event that two homosexuals had no outsider encounters before entering a relationship, they’d still have an elevated risk for bodily damage and disease. The former would be due to human physiology that’s not designed for same-sex behavior; the latter would be due to ailments originating from microbes in the gastrointestinal tract.
Besides, its a moot point, since the vast majority of homosexuals have had multiple partners before entering into (and, in most cases, during) a committed relationship.
As for lesbians, they’re more likely to contract breast and ovarian cancers than straight women (married or single), equally to more likely to contract Human Papilloma Virus or HPV (in comparison to single straight women – not married straight women) and more likely to contract bacterial vaginitis, which, if not treated, can lead to more serious health issues, and trichomoniasis.
With the possible exception of HPV, and because lesbian relationships are more fleeting than even gay mens (they’re almost 3 times more likely to divorce than straight people and almost 2 times more likely to do so than gay men), legally recognizing lesbian marriage would have no significant effect on this problems.
Rather, because of it’s tendency for elevated divorce and non-monogamy, legally recognizing gay marriage would only weaken and diminish an institution that’s already been degraded by high divorce rates brought about by the baby boomers or, more appropriately, the “if it feels good, do it” generation, from which gay marriage is a natural outcome.
Like or Dislike: 2 5
You’re right that lesbians are at a greater risk of contracting certain diseases. You’re wrong when you suggest that denying marriage rights to homosexuals is an effective way of preventing those diseases.
Science shows that, of the dangers you list, a healthy, monogamous relationship solves the vast majority of them. So by your own logic, we should be encouraging marriage in homosexuals, not discouraging it.
Like or Dislike: 4 5
Annnd Boom goes the dynamite!
Click here to cancel reply.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Topics is proudly provided by the Forum Communications Company