Skip to comments.In a symbolic act, Dayton vetoes marriage amendment (MN)
Posted on 05/25/2011 8:54:17 AM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo
In a symbolic act, welcomed by gay rights advocates, Gov. Mark Dayton Wednesday vetoed the Legislature's constitutional amendment defining marriage as only a union between one man and one woman.
Constitutional amendments do not require a governor's signature, so the veto has no power. But since the amendment came to him as a bill, he felt the need to make his strong condemnation known.
"I do not have the power to prevent this divisive and destructive constitutional amendment from appearing on the ballot, in November 2012, the Legislature sent it to me in the form of a bill," he wrote in a letter to legislative leaders. "Thus, symbolic as it my be, I am exercising my legal responsibility to either sign or veto it."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Marx Dayton is a one term wonder.
“destructive constitutional amendment”
What is ACTUALLY destructive is allowing “gay marriage”.
It destroys the purpose and sanctity of marriage which, ultimately, is to provide a stable, two parent unit for the production and rearing of children.
I don’t have a problem if two people of the same sex want to live together in a committed relationship - just don’t call it marriage.
The whole purpose of wanting “gay marriage” is not the phony civil or equal rights argument - it is entirely intended to destroy the institution and sacrament of marriage.
Let me get this straight... It is divisive to define marriage as between a man and a woman—which God Himself has defined and ordained—Yet to promote that which is unnatural and contrary to 5000 years or recorded Judeo-Christian civilization, sodomy under the color of law, that is perfectly unitive.
This a-hole is a godless moron that needs to be thrown out of office immediately. Is there a recall procedure in MN?
You stupid moron. You don't have the authority to veto this proposed State constitutional amendment or to sign it into law, hence your "legal responsibility" is to do neither. Give your opinion on the proposal if you want, but attempting to veto it is an illegal act
Yep, he’s a dandy.....
No surprise for a democrat.
Let him know how you feel about his “veto”. I just did:
He’s just getting on his knees for the sodomites.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I have a message for the Idiotgovernor:
Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyah Nyaaaah Nyah!
I hope that the voters do their job and utter a huge collective "Nyah Nyah" to the Idiotgov!
I’ve got a ‘symbolic act’ for Governor Mini-Me, and I only need to use TWO FINGERS.
The MN vote isn’t guaranteed by a long shot. The propagandists on the left have done their jobs well. They will do or say anything to win.
I hope the good side has money to place good informative ads.
seeing as the homostapo keep saying more people want homo marriage it is ironic that they never want the people to vote on it.
Make this an issue in the election and get the left on record and where they stand and watch them squirm
course it doesn’t help when we have dopes on the right trying to defend this agenda
I just clicked the link and it says thanks for the feedback when I have not even written anything
the homostapo came down here from DC and MA and then kept lying how it will affect normal couples and their marriages etc.
it never worked and we got over 62% of the vote to have normal marriage plus one county out of all voted to have the queer marriage and that was only just
even the left counties voted for normal marriage but MN had better be ready for the influx of queers and them lying
Bump for the natural family, the institutional basis for our entire civilization.
“The MN vote isnt guaranteed by a long shot. The propagandists on the left have done their jobs well. They will do or say anything to win.”
Yup. The second that they think they have the votes, they will be screaming for the amendment process. There have already been close votes on it in some more “liberal” states. 40 years ago this was not even an issue. 20 years ago it I bet it would have been rejected by 80% or better, all over, if it was an issue at all. In the past few years it has been barely rejected by some liberal states. In my opinion, 2031 is looking pretty good for the homosexualists and statists. I hope the amendments that 30+ states have passed will hold it off for longer than that.
It started with the argument that whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms should be legal, but that was only the first step. The left’s end game is the suppression of Judeo-Christian morality in order to recreate the world in their image, a brave new world so to speak.
They are rebels, and they are rebelling against what they see as the moral repression of the past. I think we still outnumber them, but they control popular culture, the education system, and large portions of the government. They won’t give up, because they appeal to the worst in man.
Free love is great in theory, much like communism. Wouldn’t it be great to have guilt free sex with whoever you wanted whenever you wanted without any negative repercussions—no diseases, no jealousy, no unwanted pregnancies? Same thing with communism. Wouldn’t it be great if everyone shared their possessions or even the concept of individual property ceased to exist?
The problem is, these concepts are lies that have absolutely zero chance of ever working in the real world. If the left succeeds in destroying the “repressive” past, they have nothing workable to replace it with. They only know how to demolish society. They have absolutely zero clue how to build one up. Of course, that doesn’t stop them from trying.
Well, I would say that it started with the idea that the state’s definition of marriage is dominant over the actual definition of marriage, as defined by faith and reality.
But yeah, it seems like kicking over “gay marriage”, an impossibility, is kind of a weird line to draw when the homosexualists have already beaten the standards that would matter, like homosexualist sodomy. Not that it shouldn’t be voted against. But when’s the last time the subject has ever come up? Lawrence vs. Texas? Has there been attempts to restore sodomy laws by amendment or repeal of pro-sodomy laws by general election? If so, how has the vote gone?
Kiss your governor’s mansion goodbye, loser.