Gay & Lesbian – The Marriage and Family Protection Act was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, on Friday. The bill would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry.
Love the appropriation represented by the bill's name: The Marriage and Family Protection Act.
In re gay marriage, the motor has begun to accelerate. And, really, it's just a matter of time until people look back on resistance to its legalization as we do now on those who were anti-suffrage. Or against allowing people of different races to wed.
The tide is turning to wards equality for all. Yahoo.
When faggotry is deemed more equaler than all the majority will suffer greatly.
Hey moron! Can you tell me how this affects you in the slightest if you are not gay?
It only affects him because he feels the anxiety over his own homophobia. Its HIS sexuality that he is questioning.
Gay marriage does nothing to make a straight marriage suffer...If your marriages are falling apart start looking at yourselves as the answer. Maybe it's because you are ignorant and treat your wives like third rate citizens.
I happen to be straight and nothing about somebody being gay or lesbian threatens that for me. In fact it makes me even more reassured about who I am and what kind of marriage I have. I think anybody who is pretty secure in their own sexual orientation should be able to do that. Its just one more method of the fear factor to keep control of their narrow minded, uneducated ideologies.
and if it is a religious argument you want to make, then maybe you should not include the government in your method of controlling the "rampant sin" you all want to preach about. Maybe you should try something else, like maybe having faith in your own teachings and perhaps praying for changes in people's attitudes. For a religion of love and hope, you sure do make a lot of people want to slap the crap out of you.
Hopefully the day will soon come when the ideologies of misguided religious zealots and homophobes will not interfere with the freedom of others to exercise their equal civil rights.
Locky:
You might want to make that exchange. I know how to select my own words. Best to learn how to communicate for yourself and not to impose your opinions on others. Sort of what this is all about...
Stick your moralphobia back in a closet.
I am not afraid of your lack of moral fiber. I just want you to answer my question. How does two people being married affect your marriage or family if you are not gay?
That's all. I just want to know what it is going to do to you personally that has gotten you so riled up that you have to use abusive language to get your point across.
I'm all for any couple who wants to get married, and of course gay marriage is inevitable since its a civil rights issue.
but I fear that its a mistake to bring this out right now in terms of the big picture. this will do more to rally the far right conservative base than anything McCain could ever do or say. obama would be smart to simply say its up to the states and leave it at that.
My rights aren't a political pawn to be used at someone elses whim. My rights are guaranteed by the Constitution which took a beating over the last seven years. I still believe in it and it's core values.
I agree completely.
but that doesn't make what I said any less untrue.
your rights will be used as a pawn more by the right than by the left this election. whether you like it or not. and if we don't pay attention to the bigger picture, we might end up with a guy in the white house talking about a constitutional ban on gay marraige instead of a guy in the white house saying its up to each state to decide.
It makes what you said politically expedient. That statement saddens me, as I am sure it saddens many gays and lesbians who have had to wait for government at all levels to accept us as humans. The doofus in the White House should go down in history as the worst President the US has never legitimately elected.
it saddens me as well.
but when a court dominated by con appointees votes in favor of gay marraige, we've all got to be on our toes and examine this event for what it really could be: a republican play for california.
It could also be that these Republicans are actually conservatives. They read the law and decided it was discriminatory. I do believe that Arnold is a bit of a moderate when it comes to being a Republican... if he's the "average" California Republican, I don't find it difficult to believe that the California court would do such a thing.
I hope you're right. but how much can we trust them? remember, Reagan was also a cali republican.
Yeah, but Arnold is an Austrian Republican :P
But seriously, I think Arnold has been rather consistent in his statements about gay marriage. He believes it should be up to the people and I'm not sure about his attitude about judges determining this.
He made clear he would not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and that he would support the decision of the court. Hence, he is more an ally of gay marriage than some of his predecessors.
That was what I thought. I wasn't quite certain about his position regarding the courts though. I think he is from a totally different cloth then Reagan was, a better one. We have a similar Republican getting ready to run for Governor here, I believe. I hope she wins... I suppose I'm not to prejudiced that she lives in my small town of 16k!
I disagree as short of Obama committing a major faux pas he will be our next President and I believe that he and his advisors are far too savvy for that to happen.
The best McCain can do with this issue is energize those few that are already opposed to gay marriage and I don't believe that he will get much traction with it among the general population.
NoWayMan, I respect your comments, but I am curious, if not now, when? If gays and lesbians do not demand marriage equality now, then how long should we wait?
"how long should we wait?"
until november. until the moment after obama wins.
with obama in the white house and a dem majority in either the house or senate, there won't be any federal roadblock for any action taken by any states that want to legalize gay marriage. there won't be any talk about constitutional amendments, etc.
then you'll have a positive domino effect. and then, in ten years maybe when the US hasn't fallen into the pits of hell for granting gays the same rights as everyone else, we'll all look back and say how dumb it was to ban gay marraige in the first place.
but if McCain wins, you'll be asking "if not now, when?" for the next ten years.
this must be played with a long term strategy in mind.
The trouble with your method is we are playing defense. We should be offensively going state to state and fighting fire with fire. Where there are constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage, fight for an amendment affirming marriage equality. I know it sounds stupid, but we need to be pushing the envelope in every state. We are definitely not going to win any ground if McCain is elected, but I fear we will not fare much better with Obama either.
I'm saying don't play any offense. for now.
by all means, get out there, oppose any constitutional amendment talk and bills with religious defintions of marraige, but maybe don't push forward until after obama wins. then, the pro-gay marraige position on the board will be much much stronger, equality advocates can all switch to offense without fear of the govt overturning decisions made locally (like what happened in SF a few years back. newsome made a bold move then the fed govt yanked the rug out from under him)
in the meantime, alliances should be made with other groups fighting for other worthy causes in order to bolster numbers and help push through each other's positions when the time is right. which isn't far away.
a little patience could be the difference between complete victory and a great setback.
"Marriage equality" in this context is a marketing term, no different than "pro-life" or "pro-choice".
It is employed to generate sympathy for a particular viewpoint.
The reality is that marriage has been and should remain an institution defined by each state according to its legislature. If the state's constitution defines marriage as a status to be provided to one man and one woman, then marriage "equality" would be interpreted in that context. Namely, each person is equally able to marry one person of the opposite gender.
This viewpoint is exactly how the New York Supreme Court viewed that state's definition of marriage.
Perhaps the point here is why do people want to get married. If love, lust, desire or legal recognition of a personal relationship is the answer, then there is no real equality in marriage, since gay people wouldn't want to marry someone of the opposite gender anymore that I would want to marry someone of my own gender. It would be somethig like saying that there is freedom of religion since you're free to choose only between to be Sunni or Shia.
A state has no compelling interest in "love, lust, desire" between individuals. Although our heritage as a country was informed with Christian moral attitudes and thus we had sodomy laws in the past, I believe that they are now defunct. And they should be. If two men or two women wish to have homosexual sex in the privacy of their home, the state has no business in that at all.
However, the state does have a compelling interest in the legal definition and recognition of civil marriage. I urge you to read the New York State Supreme Court discussion on this matter.
"However, the state does have a compelling interest in the legal definition and recognition of civil marriage."
That's exactly my point, the interest of any secular state should recide in the well being of their citizens. I still think my question is valid, why do people get married? In the answer is the key of wheter there is equality or not. If the people has no interest in equality it's ok to me, it's your country. But if you really want equality then you should explore that question.
My response is that the state is not in the business of figuring out "why" people get married. In this context, the state is in the business of defining, through its legislative process, what "civil marriage" is. For example, a state may legislate that the status of "civil marriage" can be provided to one man and one woman. Or, it may legislate that the status of "civil marriage" can be provided to any two individuals, regardless of gender. Or only between two individuals of the same sex. Or between as many individuals as care to enter into a "group marriage".
From the definition of that status, various other laws of the state, regarding property, taxes, etc., would be interpreted.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
TemplarScribe
food875dog
rhynduu
mekhifranks1975
adrielh791966
pawfoots
americasbestcompanies
JohnQPublic
onlyonesecret
2sidestoeverything
deadlyhaiku
slashup67
Shadowolf
Niimki
ind06
wonkydonkey
HoneyBear911
nsrajesh
mesodude
chayanat
bluetexasvalley
juvel
dimplesing
SunnyDays
endtyranny
elisasigos
ecotourusa
sailr
hurr1
WarnerFSBO
satansatan
jomarjarmo
SmithAnn
kibasilasa
Munndigos
anelli
damansgules
archibaldd
cliffsemaus
smeejay
synkdorbit
sden81
grosmoukate
newsarefree
Palscience
bruhaha
ETproductions
gamahuche
DevilAngel
PrettyWoman911
104)
Three cheers for Doug Benson!!!