Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Cloud Times Opinon Editor: With marriage amendment, no one wins
Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | 5/30/11 | RANDY KREBS

Posted on 05/30/2011 1:35:05 PM PDT by SmithL

Edited on 05/31/2011 10:42:05 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

That's my take on the Minnesota Legislature's decision to put on the 2012 ballot a constitutional amendment that bans gay marriage.

Yes, I know. Technically, one side will win. Barring the need for a recount, on Nov. 7, 2012, either Minnesota will have beaten the odds and rejected this ban, or our state will join dozens of others in telling two gay, consenting adults that they are not entitled to the same legal status as two straight, consenting adults.


(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; US: Minnesota
KEYWORDS: elca; homosexualagenda
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last
To: capt. norm

Work?
Work!


21 posted on 05/30/2011 2:45:23 PM PDT by SmithL (Bacon, the ultimate condiment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn
Just what religions have ever sanctioned gay marriage?

Um..we have religions right here who have gay married ministers...

22 posted on 05/30/2011 4:27:07 PM PDT by Prokopton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Prokopton

Uh, yeah, but that’s been in the last 20 years or so. Historically, there are none worldwide that I can think of who support gay marriage.


23 posted on 05/30/2011 6:54:56 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

>>> With marriage amendment, no one wins

That’s the truth though not so much for the reasons cited. The issue will ultimately be decided not in state legislative initiatives like this, but in the US Supreme Court. Most probably in the Prop 8 appeal already working its way up in the courts.

If the court rules that gay marriage is a right, initiatives like this will be voided as being contrary to the federal constitution. The fight will have been for nothing.

If on the other hand the court rules that there is no guaranteed right to gay marriage, current Minnesota doesn’t permit such anyway. So again nothing is really gained.

The political capital to fight on this issue could be more profitably spent on more immediate and lasting issues. Budgets, unions, etc.


24 posted on 05/30/2011 10:52:19 PM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tlb
If the court rules that gay marriage is a right, initiatives like this will be voided as being contrary to the federal constitution. The fight will have been for nothing.

It won't have been for nothing. It will have been for the very valid cause of demonstrating the will of Minnesota. Consulting the People is something movement gays assiduously avoid in every jurisdiction.

The gay movement has always, always sought top-level, "strict scrutiny" Supreme Court rulings as a way to legislate their will against the 96% majority.

The political capital to fight on this issue could be more profitably spent on more immediate and lasting issues. Budgets, unions, etc.

There is no more "lasting issue" than the foundations of society itself. That is why social-conservative issues should be at the top of the list, every election, and only the poofty cabal in the RNC leadership ranks has kept this issue out of the Constitution itself.

We need a federal amendment to spike the gays' guns for good, and President Palin will obtain one.

25 posted on 05/30/2011 11:39:27 PM PDT by lentulusgracchus (Concealed carry is a pro-life position.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

religion has NOTHING to do with this.

society rewards the institution not the individual.

homosexual conduct is only about recreational sex and how an INDIVIDUAL achieves gratification. Marriage is about an institution which benefits the future of society.

the author must be a flamer because they simple do not get it. homosexual conduct produces zero benefits for society, it only produces costs.

it is not about consent to recreate with adults, it is how to adults will best model the production of offspring for society. homosexuals engaging in the chosen recreational conduct do not produce offspring. They can only buy or recruit offspring.

this amendment is a benefit to society.

the author is just pushing the fiction of “born that way” (ala lady gaga’s song where he sings born that way)


26 posted on 05/31/2011 10:17:50 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

the article assumes that the homosexual fetish is a born behavior like a brain birth defect.


27 posted on 05/31/2011 10:21:59 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

The article’s author obviously has a brain birth defect. I’ve never heard such convoluted logic in an adult... if, in fact, he is an adult mentally.


28 posted on 05/31/2011 10:29:40 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tlb
If the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the collective will of 31+ (and growing) states regarding marriage, there will be a war. At the least, there will be a massive push for a federal marriage amendment, which will likely pass. So, no, it won't end with the USSC - they are not the final arbiters of reality and the will of the people.

As far as the author's inane remarks that "no one wins," I'll concede that he is in a sense right, though not for the reasons he has in mind. It's always a tragedy to be forced to defend something so firmly established in common reason and natural law from insane nihilists bent on corrupting the very nature of reason itself. It is never a victory to have to build an expensive, impenetrable bulwark around one's property; even if it does hold back a hoard of mindless barbarians bent on murder. Such is the effect of these marriage amendments: needful, but tragic in their needfulness.

29 posted on 05/31/2011 10:41:15 AM PDT by fwdude (Prosser wins, Goonions lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sayuncledave

We had to remove your post because you posted more text from the excerpted Star Tribune article. All material from the Star Tribune must be excerpted with no additional text added in the thread. Please make note. Thanks.


30 posted on 05/31/2011 10:44:54 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

My humble apologies.


31 posted on 05/31/2011 11:03:35 AM PDT by sayuncledave (A cruce salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Pedophiles, kleptomaniacs, canibalists, and homicidal maniacs could be considered “born that way” as well,

but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.

(I don’t buy “born that way”, either, not given the statistics we see among victims of sex abuse and adoptees of homo couples.)


32 posted on 05/31/2011 11:09:12 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: lentulusgracchus

“Consulting the People is something movement gays assiduously avoid in every jurisdiction.”

As soon as they think they have the numbers, they will be screaming for the amendment repeal process. Amendments and repeal of pro-”gay marriage” legislation have already barely passed by popular votes in some states. Arizona is the only state so far that has failed to to pass an amendment when it was put to the vote, losing by 51% in 2006, then passing it by 56% in 2008. Virginia only passed it by 57% in 2006. Hawaii passed it by an astounding(for Hawaii) 69%, but that was back in ‘98. Mississippi passed it by a whopping 86% in 2004! There are five states that passed amendments by majorities in the 52-59% range. I wonder how those votes would go in 20 years? In 50? Of course, that is if our masters in black robes just don’t decide to cut out the unwashed masses and decide for us.

Freegards


33 posted on 05/31/2011 11:22:32 AM PDT by Ransomed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: heye2monn

There was the Supreme Court case of Reynolds vs. the United States, where polygamy, incest, and neglect of children were all ruled illegal regardless of marriage license or state sanctioning of the actions, and they specifically defined the ruling as a means of keeping a common rule for everyone to follow. Only problem is that nowadays, people speak so loudly against the idea of common law, when having a common law actually makes society somewhat decent.


34 posted on 05/31/2011 11:41:37 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.”

That’s more or less because of common law, making special laws to focus on many different groups creates serious problems. Having a set law that focuses on everyone is a whole lot better.


35 posted on 05/31/2011 11:43:58 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“but no one would think to make special provisions in the law to accomodate their proclivities.”

That’s more or less because of common law, making special laws to focus on many different groups creates serious problems. Having a set law that focuses on everyone is a whole lot better.


36 posted on 05/31/2011 11:44:06 AM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Common law has to be based on a recognized set of basic accepted behavioral values.

Leftists, serving their ideological “father”, have done their best to discredit, destroy, and discard any such set of values because they come from the Objective Source of the law.

You CAN trap them, though, because they certainly wouldn’t want special provisions created for those proclivities I listed, but based on what? They discard our values as simply outdated opinions, or even more unworthy of consideration, “religious reasons”.
What makes THEIR objection to other deviant behavior any more valid? It’s just THEIR opinion over someone else’s, and without an objective reference point, their opinion is no more valid than anyone else’s.


37 posted on 05/31/2011 11:55:25 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Another comment -

special laws for special groups, arbitrarily enforced, gives politicians more POWER.

Common laws across the board, equally enforced, takes all the power out of the hands of politicians.


38 posted on 05/31/2011 11:57:47 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Leftists, serving their ideological “father”, have done their best to discredit, destroy, and discard any such set of values because they come from the Objective Source of the law.

The objective source of law was a combination of state statutes plus the Supreme Court upholding them as constitutional limits on Freedom of Religion. You’re right about one thing: Go against various things, and plenty of questions have to be asked: I mean, plenty of people don’t marry plenty of people whom they love. I am willing to believe the agenda is pretty much hostile towards whomever would practice polygamy, but then again, their putting a break in the setup which really confirmed that, for the sake of order in our society, just stick to one man, one woman, as the Supreme Court of the United States dictated back in the 19th century.


39 posted on 05/31/2011 4:20:32 PM PDT by Morpheus2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Morpheus2009

Very interesting — the Supreme Court relied on common law for condemnation of polygamy, etc.! Fascinating.

Common law, as you point out, is a thin reed indeed. What, after all, is common law in San Francisco?


40 posted on 06/01/2011 5:46:12 PM PDT by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-40 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson