by Alexandria Echo Press
May 14, 2013 at 7:00 pm in Alexandria Echo Press
Senate votes 37-30 to end ban on gay marriage; Westrom, Ingebrigtsen both vote no. Continue Reading
Tags: gay, legislation, local news, marriage, State News 6 Comments »
As far as the state is concerned, what does love have to do with issuing marriage licenses? Is there a little “Yes/No” check box on marriage licenses that asks, “Does this husband and wife love each other?” Of course not. The state doesn’t care one whit about love when it comes to marriage or any other laws. So then why were our legislators arguing anything about love when it comes to gay marriage? It was not a rational basis for deciding for or against legalizing gay marriage. “Vote for love.” How utterly stupid.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike: 44 22
Yep, it is about as stupid as the argument against based on religious grounds. Or the arguments from the Right that this is going to allow people to marry animals, their siblings, or whatever else they want to marry.
You are entitled to your religious beliefs, but those beliefs should not infringe on the civil rights of others. This passage is about giving everyone the same civil rights and protections under State Law. If the State truly wanted to do the right thing, they should remove the word “Marriage” from all law due to its religious connotation. The State should have used “Civil Unions” to replace “Marriage” and left it up to the religious institutions to decide what couples they wanted to marry. The State could issue Civil Union licenses and a Justice of the Peace or Religious Leader could perform the ceremony to validate it and the couple would be united. If they truly wanted a Marriage, they would just have to find a religious institution that would marry them, which would also validate the Civil Union. But I guess that would have been too cumbersome due to all the references to “Marriage” on the State books.
Hot debate. What do you think? 31 31
Interesting. So it’s okay for our legislators to make arguments based on religious grounds FOR same-sex marriage (a la state Sen. Tim Faust), but not to make arguments based on religious grounds against it. Brilliant. That’s called hypocrisy, in case you didn’t know.
And this WILL lead to the demand for the recognition of other unions, such as the ones you mention. That’s the burn of the whole argument based on what you call “love.” If a person “loves” an animal and that animal seems to return the affection, then who are you to deny them marriage? (A British woman did just that with a dolphin in Australia.) If a person “loves” their sibling, why deny them marriage? If a person “loves” two or more people (now popularly referred to as “polyamory”), why should they be denied marriage? We already have people demanding their “right” to marry inanimate objects that they “love.” No, I’m not kidding.
You don’t seem to have a problem with your beliefs infringing on my constitutional rights.
Everyone already had the same rights under the law. Every person had the right to marry exactly one person of the opposite sex. That was equal, is it not? Of course it was. Now we have inequality based on the fact that lesser law will be used to trump the supreme law of the country and to silence people like myself. The Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves.
Hot debate. What do you think? 37 27
How are your religious rights being violated by this law? Do you not still have the right to practice whatever religion/belief system you want? There is nothing in this law that states you cannot continue to practice the religion/beliefs you want to believe in. You just don’t have the right to force your beliefs “down the throats” of those who do not share the same beliefs.
Religious views should never have been used on either side of this issue (or any law), religious views are personal and should not be the basis of public law since everyone does not share the same religious view. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Seperation of Church and State, a secular government with no laws dictated by or setting up a specific religion or belief.
This is just part of the evolution (yes, I did just use that word, probably to the dismay of the religious right) of society. Women didn’t have the rights as men, but they were eventually granted those civil rights. Blacks were slaves, but then they were granted the civil right of freedom. They were then considered “a lesser person” under the laws of several States, but the Civil Rights Movement changed that. Gays/lesbians have not had the same civil rights, benefits and protections that were granted to married heterosexual unions under the law, they now have been granted those rights. To that, I say congrats and way to go Minnesota! The granting of those rights will have no effect on the my wife and I.
If the religious right is so morally outraged by the passage of this bill, then where is the outrage towards divorce? Isn’t that wrong? Where is the outrage towards premarital sex? Isn’t that wrong? Where is the outrage towards children born out of wedlock? Isn’t that wrong? One could argue that those three situations have a bigger effect on the sanctity of marriage than allowing gays/lesbians the right to marry.
Hot debate. What do you think? 33 26
This doesn’t infringe on any of my beliefs. I think people should have the ability to marry another human if they wish.
Hot debate. What do you think? 17 17
Minnesota senators voted for unbridled perversion of marriage. The question was asked why we needed a protection of marriage amendment to the Minnesota constititution. This perversion of sanity just passed is the reason why.
Hot debate. What do you think? 20 14
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