gay marriage ban (Page 2)

Wow. What a mean-spirited amendment - not to mention totally UNAMERICAN. Trying to keep a person's beloved partner from their hospital bedside is downright CRUEL & INHUMANE.

While it makes me sad, I'm not disheartened. People will eventually listen to the better angels of their nature and do the right thing and shit-can that amendment. Just a matter of time before the meanness is overcome with goodness.

Gullah - Nobody is proposing that your church or any church or synagogue be required to sanctify or bless a marriage. Nobody is asking a church to do anything to make gay marriage happen.

Oohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! I get it now! Hold the phone...

Ok, after reading up on this, I see that this is NOT really about gay marriage at all. It's about the Republican Party stirring up their base to get them to the polls!

Minnesota already has a noxious law that forbids gay marriage. This little stunt to change the Minnesota Constitution is merely a device to stir up the passions, bigotry and fears of the base so that they will get out of their Lazy-Boy and get to the polls. The Republicans want more seats; they are the minority party at the moment. The Republicans are adept at exploiting fear to manipulate their base and the undecideds - and to frame their opponents as antiChristian pagans who eat babies with their Cheerios every morning.

Those dang Republicans! Man... Machiavelli would be so proud. I bet he's shedding a proud tear down in hell at this very moment.

This is the issue here for me -- I am personally shuddering in fear that we are talking about amending the constitution to take rights away from people. Slippery slope, y'all, and just because you aren't affected by this particular bill, doesn't mean the trend won't come to you. What aspects of your life would you miss if they were deemed unconsitutional because of someone else's religious belief?

Well it's seems true that those who oppose Gay marriage are often basing it on religious beliefs. Remember, though, that bringing ones religious beliefs to the public square is not a violation of the separation of Church and State. If it were, then anyone who opposed homelessness based on a religious conviction could not do anything within the political system to try to change that situation.

However, I think there is a logical and reasonable case to be made against Gay marriage that does not require bringing religion and notions of God into the debate. It's possible to find a common denominator of language which would not exclude anyone, be they religious or not. Whether this arguement ultimately is convincing or not is another issue. But it's at least worth looking at, isn't it?

I think ASA22 gets to the heart of it.

What is marriage?

Sigh...  this is such a troubling issue to me simply because it deliberately pushes an already marginalized group further into the margins.  Its interesting to me that, if our Congress were to amend the Constitution (which I doubt they ever will, thank God), it'd be the first time in the history of this country that we'd be taking away rights of certain people. 

As for the acceptance of gay marriage being a prelude to legalized polygamy, don't you think that's a stretch?  We're not talking about the number of people to be joined in a legal civil union, just who a person chooses to call their mate.  Its as simple as changing the language from "a man and a woman" to "two people".  As for me, one wife is plenty, thank you very much.

Tom

What mnewton was asking is why?  What is your reasoning based on.  What is the underlying philosophy that would support limiting it to two persons but not three or more?

Is it simply because that's the way you (collective you) want it, or is there more to it than that? 

If that's one answer to the why, then I would ask, and I mean this sincerely, why is this a good thing? Where did this concept that we ought to promote social stability and keep families together come from?

And, if it is indeed a good thing to keep families together, does this mean that the state has a right to, for example, have a say in divorce law? Would it be reasonable then, for the state to roll back no-fault divorce laws with the intent of keeping families together?

One more reason to move up to Canada people! or not move up i guess depend on your view.  Everyone can get married here .  Gay marriage planners are a big growing industry up here. 

On a funny note, they forgot to change the lanuage in the divorce act (i think thats whats it's called) and it still refered to a man and woman instead of 2 persons, so the first gay divoce got hung up until they changed that too.

Just to pick out one of your points, without a will, the deceased's estate goes to the spouse. If you're not in a spousal relationship, it goes to probate. I'm not a probate attorney, so correct me if I'm wrong, but that's how I understand it.

So there's one example.