Marriage Equality Bill Introduced in Minnesota »
Posted by: Neophile 2 months, 3 weeks ago104 CommentsReflectReport this Story
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.
Read Full Story at minnesotamonitor.com
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 104
-
-
0%
Poulenc2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
ProudBlueTexan2 months, 3 weeks ago
I'm a tee-totaler, but the same goes for this insane 'war on drugs'
ZERO CONFIDENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Let's apply that same tolerance to every other deviation from justice: anarchy for all!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Spadecaller2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
Locky122 months, 3 weeks ago
You might want to exchange the word "freedom" and replace it with "license".
Reply -
-
0%
hamy2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
NoWayMan2 months, 3 weeks ago
"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.
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
SonOfTheMask2 months, 3 weeks ago
"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.
Reply-
0%
Coatl2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask2 months, 3 weeks ago
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.
Reply -
0%
Coatl2 months, 3 weeks ago
"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.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago
Well this is one of those cases in which the state does have a legitimate interest. The primary reason for marriage is to raise the next generation. Considering technology and the foster care system being in the condition it is in, it would seem to me that the state's have a vested interest in allowing gay marriage. Particularly considering homosexual couples are equal to heterosexuals in parenting.
Reply -
0%
SonOfTheMask2 months, 3 weeks ago
I've addressed this issue a few times, but to reiterate for you tkyrchncs:
The state is a party in a civil marriage. The status of being "married" has meaning to the state. The state confers certain rights and responsibilities to those accorded the status of "married". If you disagree, then ask those proponents of same-sex marriage and you'll get an earful about homosexuals wanting to be accorded the same "rights and benefits" (for example, property rights) as married people receive.
Thus, yes indeed, the state has a very significant interest in how it defines civil marriage.
Reply -
0%
JohnQPublic2 months, 2 weeks ago
Basically it comes down to money. If gay marriage/civil unions are recognized then that means that States and employers will have to provide the same benefit package to "married" gay couples as it does to married heterosexual couples and that cost could easily be in the tens of billions of dollars.
Reply
-
-
0%
Radiofreeeuropa2 months, 3 weeks ago
The constitution and it's bill of rights excludes no one in the nation. It's about time we honor the equality proclaimed in these remarkable documents.
Reply -
0%
scott42612 months, 3 weeks ago
One thing many on the right simply cannot wrap their heads around is the fact that one of the precepts underlying the Constitution is that the tyranny of the majority cannot trounce on the rights of the minority (but then, they also don't get that the writ of habeas corpus is a fundamental founding ideal that our Founding Fathers took from the Magna Carta and is a bedrock principle of our democracy).
Sorry to get so cerebral here, but I just don't understand what people don't get. If I choose to marry another man, that is MY business. And we should have all the rights and privileges of any straight married couple.
That is how I see it.
Reply-
0%
SonOfTheMask2 months, 3 weeks ago
The issue of civil marriage is not a private matter. Civil marriage is legal construct between three parties: the two getting married and the state. Thus, the state has a compelling interest in the matter.
What IS a private matter is with whom you choose to consort and/or engage in sex with them.
There is a distinct difference.
Reply-
0%
Natureboy2 months, 3 weeks ago
The state should have no role in the business of religion. The "sanctity of marriage" horsesh!t should therefore be a non-issue in the three-party legal construct.
I support civil unions of both straights and gays. If marriage is a "sacrament," let the churches carry on about it, as the state has no business in the administration of sacraments.
Reply -
0%
Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago
I agree with your first few sentences SOTM. My question to you is what business is it of the state's if two men or two women wish to get married? How is the state getting anything less out of the deal? Considering that it could mean a boon to the foster care system, for those who do not wish to actually go through medical procedures to have children, the state would seem to have a vested interest in allowing same sex marriage!
Reply
-
0%
david_nwpa2 months, 3 weeks ago
SOTM, people marry daily and yet they do not necessarily have sex. Should the sterile be denied marriage? In theory, people on death row can wed prior to their execution, but the gay couple who has loved one another for 5 decades is denied? Your principles are simply warped, period!
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy2 months, 3 weeks ago
it's not a RIGHT. Apply your grey matter to the derivation of rights.
Reply
-
-
0%
kedirian2 months, 3 weeks ago
Enlightenment has still quite a ways to go, but sooner rather than later the Christian's movement to then amend state constitutions and thus ensure their ancient belief is forced again on the overal population will be seen for what it is: a product of mean thinking, fear for the unknown, and the lack of generosity to let their fellow citizens live in mutual affection regardless of their ability to "bring forth children".
And in these days when the effects of Global warming - as a result of overpopulation and destruction of natural habitat - are evident from the midwest to Asia, it is clear that the old "dogma" is, in fact, against Nature.
Let Nature take its course, as observed among homosexual humans and animals, and we will find that same-sex relations are a necessary and valid brake on sacramentalized and unrestrained procreation with all the deleterious affects we are seeing all around us!
Reply -
0%
Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago
Good for Minnesota and I do prefer to see it placed into the law through the legislative process rather then a judge ruling in its favor. Both are legal but a vote further legitimizes it in the eyes of many.
Reply -
0%
raats66622 months, 3 weeks ago
Minnesota and California have taken major steps in taken THE most important words from the Constitution "And justice for All".
Frankly, it the SAME step taken as when Black changed from being 3/5 of a person and Women were given the right to vote.
Reply -
0%
ETproductions2 months, 3 weeks ago
I've been married to the same woman for 32 years. But my attitude is it's no business of mine who somebody else wants to form a relationship with.
If the American people really want to write into the constitution a prohibition against homosexual marriage, fine. But don't claim that it isn't discrimination. It's no different than the anti-miscegenation laws of the past. It creates to separate and entirely unequal classes of people.
And I utterly reject the silly argument that permitting gay marriage will turn everybody gay. Baloney. My sexual orientation has NOTHING to do with the law of the land. I knew what it was before I had any idea what gay even meant.
Reply-
0%
JohnQPublic2 months, 2 weeks ago
Congratulations and I agree. I have been married for better than 25 years to the same woman and we were "married" by a judge in his chambers.
Sixteen States states have statutes on the books that recognize "Common Law" marriage where, after meeting certain conditions, a heterosexual couple are legally married by the State, yet homosexual couples who meet the same criteria are denied that formal recognition. So much for "equal protection" under the Law.
Reply
-
-
0%
Mdiar2 months, 3 weeks ago
I hope that California's Supreme Court decision opens a flood gate of pro-gay marriage legislation. I'd prefer the legislation to the court decisions, or both if possible, to have both the judicial precedent and the laws in the record. I met a guy sometime last year and I think I may love him. Not really talked to him about those feelings for him though, at least I know he also likes guys and has admitted attraction for me. Oh well, I guess I'll see what happens in a few years. In no rush whatsoever to fall in love completely with anyone!
Reply -
0%
BigTrevy2 months, 3 weeks ago
Mari age is a sacrament.
Faggotry is an abomnination.
Ergo
Fags can never be married.
No amount of "laws" will make faggorty any less immoral or abominable.
Reply -
0%
sailr2 months, 3 weeks ago
Good for Minnesota! It's time to put the right wing paranoia behind us in this country. There are more failed heterosexual marriages than we dare count. THIS is the TRUE THREAT to the marriage institution. I'm not gay but I believe everyone should have the same rights I have!
Reply
