Why I voted Yes on the marriage amendment in MN

posted at 8:41 am on November 6, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

The ballot in my state has two somewhat controversial referendums, both of which probably have more drama than any of the candidate races — including, until just recently, the presidential election.  One measure should pass rather easily, as the voter-ID requirement has maintained its popularity throughout most of this cycle.  The other would move the current statutory definition of marriage into the state constitution, and its future looks more murky.  Before I left Minnesota to spend the election in California, I cast my ballot in support of both measures, and I’ll explain why — and urge my fellow Minnesotans to join me.

First, contrary to what the measure’s opponents have written, it doesn’t change the definition of marriage in the state.  Marriage in Minnesota is restricted by statute to one man and one woman.  The measure would amend the state constitution to define it more foundationally.  That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary, which in other states changed the definition of marriage without voters having any say in this government policy.  If at some point in the future Minnesota voters want to change the definition of marriage to something else, they can amend the state constitution to do so — and only need a simple majority of all ballots cast, as is the case today.  Citizens who believe that representative government and direct democracy are better forms of self-government than judicial fiat should support this process.

Second, I believe that government has little legitimate interest in formal recognition of sexual relationships (other than to bar consanguinous relationships or exploitative relationships with minors), and that the formal recognition process that marriage represents should only take place where government has a pressing interest.  I’ve written before that I think government would do best to stay out of marriage altogether, and leave it to the churches.  That would be the best possible solution in a perfect libertarian world.

However, that’s not the world in which we live.  The only legitimate state interest in otherwise consensual sexual relationships are those whose form could produce offspring.  Government offers recognition of marriage (and certain incentives) in order to fix paternity and hold parents responsible for upkeep and behavior of children produced from those relationships.  We have seen the damage done to society from children produced outside of marriage, and the costs to our communities through the increased need for government services. That doesn’t mean that every marriage has to produce children to be legitimate, but the form of the heterosexual relationship is the only one in which government has any legitimate interest in certifying ahead of the production of offspring. Otherwise, government has no legitimate role in licensing sexual relationships, and no need to do so.

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.  Right now, churches act as agents of the state in conducting weddings.  For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate.  In that case, the federal government will force religious organizations (schools, charities, health-care providers) to violate their doctrines by facilitating access to contraception and sterilization, and that’s without the added lever of acting in stead of the state, as churches do when officiating at weddings.  Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

And that last point relates to the second, too.  If we are to hand that kind of lever to the state, it shouldn’t be the state itself — through its judiciary — that activates that lever.  That decision has to come from an informed electorate that truly wants its government to begin licensing sexual relationships in which they have no real interest, and giving their government an opening to push churches out of the sacrament of marriage.

For those reasons, I urge my fellow Minnesotans to vote yes on the marriage amendment, as I did last week.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Yes vote here as well.

gophergirl on November 6, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

You go on with your bad self, brother.

msupertas on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Ed, it would be nice if you addressed adoption. Does the government not have an interest in “hold[ing] parents responsible for upkeep and behavior of children” that were adopted?

tneloms on November 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM

Well that makes a good case for those of us who don’t necessarily see their dog in this fight. I don’t know who I will vote on it yet, maybe I’ll do a bit more research first.

Bishop on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end. libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

“Those who hate me love death.” -God

Good luck with that.

Akzed on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Ed, you are not alone. I voted straight R, but voted for MD’s Question 6 on grounds of liberty and “fairness”.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

The measure would amend the state constitution to define it more foundationally. That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary

Tell that to Californians.

Dexter_Alarius on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

gophergirl on November 6, 2012 at 8:45 AM

I am so hoping the day goes quickly….I am so anxious. Robert Gibbs spent his segment blaming Bush for all the problems over the last 4 years…esh

CoffeeLover on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Akzed on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

TROLLCOTT!!!!!

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Otherwise, government has no legitimate role in licensing sexual relationships, and no need to do so.

Nope, they don’t. Except for access to benefits and division of property, familial visits and custody.

I do agree with you though. Just don’t call it marriage.

cozmo on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

Well said, Ed. Extremely thoughtful post. It sickens me that people taking the “yes” position are being branded as hateful bigots, particularly when you consider where most of the intolerance comes from. Hope it passes!

bluegill on November 6, 2012 at 8:51 AM

No open thread?

akaniku on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

While I do agree it’s generational, the gay mafia needs to tone down their act if they don’t want to alienate people who are on the fence. I support gay marriage, but I can’t stand the intimidation tactics used against folks who supported Prop 8 or private companies like Chick-Fil-A. And stop comparing this to the civil rights movement.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Sorry to see you’re on the wrong side of history, Ed.

Doesn’t much matter, though. Your side has been losing that part of the “culture war” pretty steadily for some time now.

Vyce on November 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

My grandmother has an old saying:

“give an inch, take a mile”.

Amjean on November 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Establishes that Maryland’s civil marriage laws allow gay and lesbian couples to obtain a civil marriage license, provided they are not otherwise prohibited from marrying; protects clergy from having to perform any particular marriage ceremony in violation of their religious beliefs; affirms that each religious faith has exclusive control over its own theological doctrine regarding who may marry within that faith; and provides that religious organizations and certain related entities are not required to provide goods, services, or benefits to an individual related to the celebration or promotion of marriage in violation of their religious beliefs.

Ed, you are not alone. I voted straight R, but voted for MD’s Question 6 on grounds of liberty and “fairness”.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Thank you Laura.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

I guess I am a bigot, I would have also voted yes.

Good Morning Ed, et al.

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

While I do agree it’s generational, the gay mafia needs to tone down their act if they don’t want to alienate people who are on the fence. I support gay marriage, but I can’t stand the intimidation tactics used against folks who supported Prop 8 or private companies like Chick-Fil-A. And stop comparing this to the civil rights movement.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

My view is that gays can have their civil unions, however,
marriage is between a man and a woman.

Amjean on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Well here in MA which has gay marriage, there are far more of the younger generation that are anti-gay marriage than you would think. My children both in their 20s are quite liberal in their views. They and quite a few they know are anti-gay marriage. My daughter only knows one person that is sort of pro-gay marriage and the reason she is sort of is because she wanted to get married to another woman and her husband. So that was more of a group marriage with a Bi component.

So I wouldn’t count your chickens before they hatch.

Frank Enstine on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

the gay mafia needs to tone down their act if they don’t want to alienate people who are on the fence. I support gay marriage, but I can’t stand the intimidation tactics used against folks who supported Prop 8 or private companies like Chick-Fil-A. And stop comparing this to the civil rights movement.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

The gay lobby doesn’t demand tolerance. They demand you SUPPORT them. Tolerance falls squarely into the ‘what you do in your house is your business, not the government’s’ camp. That’s where I come down. I couldn’t care less who does what with whom.

What I care about – and despise – is being told that I’m a hate-mongering bigot because I won’t actively campaign for their lifestyle.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

I am so hoping the day goes quickly….I am so anxious. Robert Gibbs spent his segment blaming Bush for all the problems over the last 4 years…esh

CoffeeLover on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

I’m in meetings all afternoon which I think will be a good thing.

We’ve done all we can do – now we hope and pray and wait.

gophergirl on November 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

My view is that gays can have their civil unions, however,
marriage is between a man and a woman.

Amjean on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Seems reasonable, but not to a lot of people in the gay marriage lobby. You’re a bigot if you don’t agree with them completely.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Perhaps, but perhaps only for a time. After all, non-whites, whose demographic ascension you otherwise celebrate, are not the biggest fans of gay marriage. And among whites, it’s the socons who have the most children.

Will indoctrination by the state-run education system be enough to overcome demography? Maybe, but not certainly.

sadarj on November 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Before I left Minnesota to spend the election in California…

Want to see the riots in person, huh?

KS Rex on November 6, 2012 at 8:58 AM

For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate.

Yes, that’s where it’s headed. Not a doubt in my mind.

petefrt on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

They did the same thing in CA, remember? It’s now before the USSC:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-144.htm

Blake on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

There is no such thing as “gay marriage.” It is a non-sequitur. There is an eternal, immutable definition of marriage that cannot be changed no matter what legislation is passed. It is part of natural law, and can no more be altered than the government could pass a law making the sky yellow. We can pretend, but that does not make it so.

Conservatives would do well to keep this in mind and not fall into the liberal trap of using their language. If you call it “gay marriage,” and then say you’re against it, you concede the ground that you’re denying something to gay people.

We are not. Gay people have as much right to be married as straight people do. However since marriage, by definition, involves people of opposite sexes, they would have to marry someone of the opposite sex as themselves. That’s true whether you’re gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered, or whatever the latest term is we want to use.

Shump on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

I really hope these ballot measures help Romney a lot in Minnesota.

bluegill on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

So I wouldn’t count your chickens before they hatch. come home to roost

Frank Enstine on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Couldn’t resist! :P

Benedict Nelson on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

TROLLCOTT!!!!! Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

MORAL IMBECILE-COTT!!!!

I guess the winners of 32 out of 32 state contests of this issue are fringe trolls in your world.

Akzed on November 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM

There will soon be cures for homosexuality, and perhaps in-utero detection and prevention. The homosexual generation of today is the last, and will be studied in the future as a genetic curiosity.

slickwillie2001 on November 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

What evil said to good.

HomeoftheBrave on November 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM

Doesn’t much matter, though. Your side has been losing that part of the “culture war” pretty steadily for some time now.
Vyce on November 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Yeah, 32-0 is a disaster.

(Where you been?!)

Akzed on November 6, 2012 at 9:01 AM

i’m glad you voted for the marriage amendment! i’m in NC, so we did the same thing earlier. many other states passed a similar law. i think the majority of americans support marriage as it is, between one man and one woman. the people who want to redefine marriage are very loud and want to shame and silence traditional marriage supporters, so the thing is, it SEEMS like there are more same-sex “marriage” supporters than there actually are.

Sachiko on November 6, 2012 at 9:01 AM

he gay mafia needs to tone down their act if they don’t want to alienate people who are on the fence. I support gay marriage, but I can’t stand the intimidation tactics used against folks who supported Prop 8 or private companies like Chick-Fil-A. And stop comparing this to the civil rights movement.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

Oh puhleeze. Look the Chik-Fil-A-Boycott was stupid, but that kind of stuff is part of our democracy. Wasn’t it “intimidation” when conservatives got the Dixie Chicks blacklisted in Country Music for most of the 2000s because of the statements made by one of their singers? Didn’t people attend massive Dixie Chicks CD crushing parties? Didn’t people send them endless hate mail? OK then. Just quit your complaining. When a major visible figure makes anti-gay statements, and suggests that God’s wrath is going to be visited upon the nation for supporting gay rights, than gay activists are going to respond. This does not make them a “mafia.” Honestly, if you’re the type of person who says “well I was gonna support gay marriage, but they’re just too loud about it.” Then to quote my grandmother (may she rest in peace) “you a lie!” Those folks were never really gay marriage supporters. This is not an “on the fence issue.” You know how you feel about it one way or another.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Liberalism perverts everything…Voted Yes on Marriage and Voter ID in Minnesota………

crosshugger on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

For me, I believe the government shouldn’t be involved in defining marriage at all. Obviously children, animals and inanimate objects can’t enter into contracts like adult human beings can so there goes the stupid argument – “…um…then why don’t I marry my dog.” Personally I view marriage as between one man and one woman but I’m not going to tell others what to do with their lives – it’s called freedom. If it’s a sin – and you’re a religious person then you will have to deal with the consequences from your maker once you’re dead. But while on earth, adults should be free to live their lives.

MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

The only justification for the state to recognize marriage is because of the vital role of the family as the best vehicle for the birthing and raising of productive citizens.

It demeans the importance of the family when the state recognizes a relationship merely because 2 people are regularly having sex.

Basilsbest on November 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Dixie Chicks hating on Bush and the Military, doesn’t support your argument for gay marriage.

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.

Yep. There are a lot of people involved in redefining marriage for what they consider to be moral reasons. Fine, let’s have that debate.

But there are -a lot- of people who join in on the Gay Marriage movement simply out of their hatred of Christians. They could care less about gays. They reject religious liberty: the very foundation of our country itself.

visions on November 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Ed,

Your points are rational, but carry no weight versus the imperative of a truly free society–that people ought to do as they please- especially in personal matters. This law advances the power of the state to control personal decisions and by that alone it should be rejected in favor of a future measure that gets govt out of the marriage business entirely.

Hochmeister on November 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

7 paragraphs to explain why two men getting married is a joke? Hmmm. Should two men be able to get married? Ummm. No. Try that argument. I have no fear of what others think. Don’t like it, tough.

jubalearly on November 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Of course government has a vested interest in defining Marriage between a man and a woman. The only way to sustain a government is through its populace and the only way to grow the populace is with a man and a woman. Until that changes – this is a non-sequitor discussion.

Until gay people can procreate, the government should foster the continuance of its organization vested in the people that make it up. If in the next generation we all turn Gay, well – technically that would be the LAST generation. What good is a government, if the country doesn’t exist?

You have to have more than 2 kids in order to replace the two who died making them. Do liberals do math?

rgrovr on November 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

If you ‘win’, society loses.

I am pulling for society and family structure.

Sporty1946 on November 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

What I care about – and despise – is being told that I’m a hate-mongering bigot because I won’t actively campaign for their lifestyle.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

That’s it exactly. The things being posted on my facebook feed are horrendous.

gophergirl on November 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Exactly. People can live whatever lifestyle they want, so long as they don’t inflict it on me.

petefrt on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

who cares about gay marriage? Santorum lost, deal with it

Slade73 on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.

And that’s EXACTLY why I, with my libertarian streak that really doesn’t care who someone is with, will also vote YES. The lawsuits and harassment have already started in states with gay marriage.

You know, proponents, if only YOUR President didn’t feel the need to buy the votes of the stupid by shoving his beliefs onto the Catholic church, I might very well have voted no. That birth control bit really drove home that these people just aren’t happy with being left alone. They have to push themselves onto every aspect of society. I’m pushing back today.

MNHawk on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Dixie Chicks hating on Bush and the Military, doesn’t support your argument for gay marriage.

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:04 AM

Good thing I didn’t claim that the Dixie Chicks hating on Bush proved anything about gay marriage. Otherwise you may have been approaching some kind of a point there!

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Whatevs. This is a generational issue, its only a matter of time. This is the last anti-gay marriage generation, do your worst, we will win in the end.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Consider for a moment – your kids could be the last anti-murder generation. All it takes is one wacko judge saying that murder statute is biased against the rights of minorities.

Archivarix on November 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

That’s it exactly. The things being posted on my facebook feed are horrendous.

gophergirl on November 6, 2012 at 9:05 AM

Me too. It’s outrageous. And people feel so secure saying them. I think my response (which, btw, is quoted verbatim in my post at 8:55) is pretty neutral, and somewhat ‘on their side.’

I got excoriated.

For what? Not being radical? For supporting the right of individual self-determination? Yeah. That may have been a radical idea in 1775, but it certainly isn’t anymore. At least not in America.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

Just voted NO on Maryland’s Question 6 which would validate gay “marriage” in the state if passed.

Trafalgar on November 6, 2012 at 9:10 AM

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

What is to point out libfree? You are the exact same weasily little troll that you were … what 9 months ago, since I have been here. All you do is promote hate and incite various issues with your “the world must be how it is through my eyes” prejudice.

You are is someone who continuously stirs a pot to get a reaction, while as a person in the real world, you are probably just a sad little individual.

*wishes for a ignore button on HA still*

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

What I care about – and despise – is being told that I’m a hate-mongering bigot because I won’t actively campaign for their lifestyle.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Exactly. I used to be live and let live on this and other minority agendas but not so much anymore. They don’t want acceptance – they want special extra-constitional or extra-legal rights.

Sporty1946 on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Oh puhleeze. Look the Chik-Fil-A-Boycott was stupid, but that kind of stuff is part of our democracy. Wasn’t it “intimidation” when conservatives got the Dixie Chicks blacklisted in Country Music for most of the 2000s because of the statements made by one of their singers? Didn’t people attend massive Dixie Chicks CD crushing parties? Didn’t people send them endless hate mail? OK then. Just quit your complaining. When a major visible figure makes anti-gay statements, and suggests that God’s wrath is going to be visited upon the nation for supporting gay rights, than gay activists are going to respond. This does not make them a “mafia.” Honestly, if you’re the type of person who says “well I was gonna support gay marriage, but they’re just too loud about it.” Then to quote my grandmother (may she rest in peace) “you a lie!” Those folks were never really gay marriage supporters. This is not an “on the fence issue.” You know how you feel about it one way or another.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Did I say I no longer support gay marriage because of the gay mafia’s antics? Read my post. I said they’re at risk of alienating people on the fence. Based on how the issue keeps getting voted down in state after state lends credence to that. It doesn’t change my position on it, but politics is perception and you’re not gonna win over moderate voters if you try to intimidate them into supporting you.

Also, please spare me the Dixie Chunks analogy. What happened to the Chunks after Natalie Maines opened her fat hole? A bunch of conservatives started phoning their local country music stations and demanded they no longer play any Chunks songs. Last time I checked, that’s well within their 1st amendment rights and it’s also how a lot of radio stations determine their playlists anyway. The Chunks were still able to record their music, sell their music, go on tour and perform their music, and voice their political views. Oh, and the entertainment industry rewarded them for their anti-Bush remarks by lavishing them with a bunch of Grammys.

Chick-Fil-A on the other hand had a bunch of left-wing politicians actually threaten to withhold permits to build new restaurants in their cities unless the company dropped their support of organizations who oppose gay marriage. That is most certainly NOT within their 1st amendment rights and is an unprecedented abuse of power.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

these people just aren’t happy with being left alone. They have to push themselves onto every aspect of society. I’m pushing back today.

MNHawk on November 6, 2012 at 9:06 AM

The silent majority re-awakens. Every time someone awakens it, they realize their error. That’s been true from the Revolution to Pearl Harbor, all the way through to today.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 9:12 AM

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar. Right now, churches act as agents of the state in conducting weddings. For those who think that a change in definition would not inevitably lead to mandates on churches to “not discriminate” in conducting ceremonies for those relationships which violate their religious doctrines hasn’t been paying attention to the HHS mandate. In that case, the federal government will force religious organizations (schools, charities, health-care providers) to violate their doctrines by facilitating access to contraception and sterilization, and that’s without the added lever of acting in stead of the state, as churches do when officiating at weddings. Instead of leaving marriage to the churches, a change in definition will give the state a powerful way to either force churches to perform weddings that violate their belief systems or stop performing them altogether.

Ed, Ed, Ed… you give them an easy out with this point. They’ll just say that they’ll detangle the relationship.

This biggest issue is religious representation outside of formal church services. Gay marriage will force the secularization of church charities and schools.

ninjapirate on November 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Shame on you, Ed. I sincerely hope that your conscience is bothering you, and I suspect it is. I like you, and I’ve been a loyal reader of yours for six years, but it really disappoints me that you would vote against the interests of your fellow citizens that aren’t hurting you or anyone else, and enshrine discrimination and ignorance in you constitution. I hope you’ll be among the first conservatives to shift course. Your public opposition to equality will be a source of embarrassment one day.

http://www.lovingday.org/legal-map

Alpha_Male on November 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Votes for marriage would be

Yes for MN’s Marriage Protection Amendment
No on MD’s Question 6

22044 on November 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 8:52 AM

You got that right. I was a fence voter for that, and I would have prefered taking it in steps with civil unions, work out any issues that pop up, talk about any possible kinks (no pun intended) and do it right without rushing.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

LTNS Dough. It seems Ed and Allah like having the troll around? I thought by now it would have been banned for saying.. something.

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:15 AM

Liberty in this country is supposed to be built around the individual. That is why we are a Constitutional Republic as opposed to a pure democracy. The founders realized that the majority could easily oppressive the original minority – the individual. This is why we have the Bill of Rights to protect us against a tyrannical government.

MoreLiberty on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

know what’s more important than gay marriage? everything

Slade73 on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Thanks Ed, a very nice write up and reasoning. It is interesting to see the libertarian view come to the same conclusions I have and with pretty much identical reasoning.

I have had a couple conversations here on Hot Air in the recent past that have changed my view of libertarianism to an extent positively, this write up will add to that somewhat more positive view.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Ed, you are not alone. I voted straight R, but voted for MD’s Question 6 on grounds of liberty and “fairness”.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 8:48 AM

Uhhh…Laura, you didn’t vote w/ Ed if you voted for Question 6.

22044 on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Well said. The few TV ads I saw use the argument from your first point. The amendment doesn’t change anything that isn’t in place now outside of placing it out of bounds to be changed by the stroke of a pen or decree from the bench.

I hear that marriage should be about who you “love”. Unfortunately, that’s an emotion or feeling that changes. Marriage should be a bond that transcends feelings and emotion which maintain a stable society.

mikewor on November 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Thread winner

tommyboy on November 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

I think most people have the marriage issue backwards. The state does not have an interest in marriage at all. While this is true it misses the point. Government did not come along and impose marriages laws on people. The culture wrote those laws. Long before any thing that would resemble modern government came along customs on marriage and inheritance existed. Then came government then people codified those customs. Simple. Marriage and inheritance laws are practical solutions to everyday problems. They will never go away it just won’t happen. Humans have sex, breed and die and will always have customs surrounding those events and will therefore ALWAYS have an interest in them and will ALWAYS codify them.

If gays want gay marriage they should have gotten married in not recognized by government ceremonies and created a practical need to allow gay marriage. This would have changed the culture slowly over time. Culture changed to allow gay couples visitation in hospitals, why? It was a practical need… This kamikaze use the judges and friendly legislatures bullsh@# has resulted in over half the union defining marriage as between a man and a woman. To overcome that culturally will take generations. I can’t wait until the issue flips completely one way or the other so we can stop talking about it.

Theworldisnotenough on November 6, 2012 at 9:17 AM

Chick-Fil-A on the other hand had a bunch of left-wing politicians actually threaten to withhold permits to build new restaurants in their cities unless the company dropped their support of organizations who oppose gay marriage. That is most certainly NOT within their 1st amendment rights and is an unprecedented abuse of power.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

The question is whether or not lawmakers actions in those instances is a violation of the 1st or 14th Amendments not whether it is an act of “free speech” or not. I think that politicians are actually *charged* with determining whether a business should or should not be within a community. Back in the good ol days, politicians used their authority to deny permits to bars that served alcohol in order to protect the “morals” of the community. I don’t agree that Chik-Fil-A should be banned (I find their food quite tasty) and I’m not convinced that banning them is even a persuasive argument for gay marriage. But I don’t think we saw anything unprecedented there in terms of how the state uses its power to regulate commercial businesses.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Excellent write up Ed!

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Shump on November 6, 2012 at 8:59 AM

The problem is that we have already mostly caved to the definition of marriage as two people that love each other and want a mutually beneficial life together. This means they do not have the same “rights” as straight people who can marry the one they love.

Recently I was talking to a young girl attending Boston College. She did not approve of the gay life style but 100% supported SSM because she felt it allowed two people in love to codify the love in a marriage bond and provide legal benefits for the couple. A lot of young people including my children think that marriage should be a religious act and all state recognized unions should be civil unions only. This turns union more into a contract between the couple and keeps the government out of the marriage business. I was married on my in-laws lawn by a city clerk. My children consider my marriage to be a civil union rather than a marriage.

Frank Enstine on November 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

Funny how the married, or not married, always seek what they cannot have unless a MAN and a WOMAN, give them one. A child…

kcd on November 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Whatevs…

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 8:46 AM

Any post-post colloquialisms we need to know about there?

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/03/the-state-of-the-senate-race/comment-page-2/#comment-6458707

(For those of you not in on the joke.)

Regardless,

You first:

2010 Hate Violence Against LGBT, Queer, and HIV-Affected Communities in the U.S.

“NCAVP’s 2010 report demonstrates that anti-LGBTQH violence remains widespread and severe in the United States… black offenders comprised of 35.3% of offenders”

(~12% of the population, btw)

@ http://www.avp.org/documents/NCAVPHateViolenceReport2011Finaledjlfinaledits.pdf

rogerb on November 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Voting Yes in Maryland today to, so is the wife although she’s writing in an imaginary character for President because she still thinks she’s a Democrat.

Not willing to vote for Obama and yet not willing to vote for Romney. What the hell?

DeathtotheSwiss on November 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

*wishes for a ignore button on HA still*

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:11 AM

Until then, trollcott will have to do.
These pages have been much more pleasant to look at the last few days.

22044 on November 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM

That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary

You think so? Tell that to the 9th Circuit. According to them, the founding fathers built gay marriage into our federal Constitution right from the beginning. Who knew?

Socratease on November 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM

Until then, trollcott will have to do.
These pages have been much more pleasant to look at the last few days.

22044 on November 6, 2012 at 9:20 AM

trollcot? I haven’t been on here for… hell almost a year. LOL, trollcot works.

upinak on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I don’t agree that Chik-Fil-A should be banned (I find their food quite tasty) and I’m not convinced that banning them is even a persuasive argument for gay marriage. But I don’t think we saw anything unprecedented there in terms of how the state uses its power to regulate commercial businesses.

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:18 AM

If there’s a similar situation where politicians threatened a private company because of differing social views, I’d love to hear about it. I don’t think the alcohol comparison qualifies. You could make a credible argument about the “morals” of preventing the serving of alcohol in your community(not to mention the increased safety). I don’t see how you could do the same about banning businesses that support the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Doughboy on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

Then explain why the Catholic Church is functionally barred from running adoption services in MA.

I don’t doubt that individual gay couples just want a marriage license and then to be left alone but the gay lobby actively pushes to punish their enemies in the public square and tries to use the force of government and the legal system to elinate them. The gay lobby actively pursues measures which would strip churchs of their tax exempt status and that any religious institutions conform to their standards of tolerance acceptance.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

DeathtotheSwiss on November 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

Your not working on her hard enough DttS!

kcd on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

i went no on MD’s Q6. for the same reasons ed. i was not able to explain them this well tho. thanks for this post.

t8stlikchkn on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Voting Yes in Maryland today to, so is the wife although she’s writing in an imaginary character for President because she still thinks she’s a Democrat.

Not willing to vote for Obama and yet not willing to vote for Romney. What the hell?

DeathtotheSwiss on November 6, 2012 at 9:19 AM

The daughter informed me on the way to the poll that “Daddy is voting for Gary Johnson.” Then she asked, “Why isn’t he voting for Romney?” I had to explain a protest vote to a seven year-old.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

I don’t have to worry about really important stuff like teh Gaighs getting married…I think sodomy is still illegal in my state anyway. I’ll just concentrate on ousting the Boy King

Slade73 on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Third — and to my mind, the most compelling, especially of late — allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.

Got to respectfully disagree with the Captain on that.

First, marriage has been “redefined” numerous times in the history of civilization. Women aren’t a husband’s property any more. And the virginity of a woman on her wedding day isn’t required anymore. No more dowry’s. Etc….

I can’t see any govt. intrusion into religion, forcing any faith to perform and/or recognize same-sex marriage. And Ed, as a fellow Catholic, knows the Church would never capitulate to any govt mandate on this. Even tho I support secular, state-recognized gay marriage, I would fight against any attempt by Washington to intrude on religious beliefs.

JetBoy on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Shame on you, Ed. I sincerely hope that your conscience is bothering you, and I suspect it is. I like you, and I’ve been a loyal reader of yours for six years, but it really disappoints me that you would vote against the interests of your fellow citizens that aren’t hurting you or anyone else, and enshrine discrimination and ignorance in you constitution. I hope you’ll be among the first conservatives to shift course. Your public opposition to equality will be a source of embarrassment one day.

http://www.lovingday.org/legal-map

Alpha_Male on November 6, 2012 at 9:14 AM

Go to hell you a-hole.

Does you conscience bother you about trying to destroy all religious institutions by recognizing gay marriage and then forcing that on everything? If not, eat s–t and die.

ninjapirate on November 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Why I voted Yes on the marriage amendment in MN

Well, that’s actually pretty simple Ed, It’s what a bad Catholic but a Good RINO would do.

SWalker on November 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Uhhh…Laura, you didn’t vote w/ Ed if you voted for Question 6.

22044 on November 6, 2012 at 9:16 AM

Then I misunderstood his post, which seemed unusually murky for such a terrific writer. Thanks for clearing that up. Time for another cup of tea.

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 9:25 AM

Gay couples can already get married. They just can’t get a marriage license. There’s a big difference. As Ed points out the government isn’t licensing sexual relationships they are providing ease of certain kinds of contracting to people who will likely produce offspring and formalizing a legal obligation of parents to each other and their children. None of which applies to gay couples.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:26 AM

Im outta here. Gay rights are not my top priority today. Romney/Ryan 2012.

kcd on November 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

I’m voting NO today for both amendments. Voter ID is a no brainer and the marriage amendment is, unfortunately, the best chance to keep marriage sacred here in MN at least. Did you know that there has never been a moral leader of any magnitude in the history of the world who approved of same sex marriage?

TeaTrekkie on November 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

The measure would amend the state constitution to define it more foundationally. That puts the issue outside the reach of the judiciary
Tell that to Californians.

Dexter_Alarius on November 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM

My world and “welcome to it”… not pretty out here, we’re broke again, and voting against ANOTHER TAX HIKE proposed by a Democrat Governor who wants to keep overspending…

AND we’re shoveling 55 Electoral Votes to Obama…

Pennsylvania! New Hampshire! Ohio! Wisconsin! Michigan! DO YOUR DUTY!

Khun Joe on November 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Gay couples can already get married. They just can’t get a marriage license. There’s a big difference. As Ed points out the government isn’t licensing sexual relationships they are providing ease of certain kinds of contracting to people who will likely produce offspring and formalizing a legal obligation of parents to each other and their children. None of which applies to gay couples.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:26 AM

The government needs to move towards harder to get out of marriage now. No fault should end. Burden of proof of irreconcilable differences needs to be the requirement, particularly if there are children.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Tolerance and acceptance are now the same as hate. If you tolerate or accept something you are not agreeing with it and that is unacceptable. Nothing short of full approval is acceptable.

Frank Enstine on November 6, 2012 at 9:31 AM

allowing for the possibility of redefining marriage leaves churches vulnerable to government intrusions at the altar.

As already been demonstrated by the photographer that was sued because of refusing to photograph a gay wedding.

LoganSix on November 6, 2012 at 9:31 AM

The government needs to move towards harder to get out of marriage now. No fault should end. Burden of proof of irreconcilable differences needs to be the requirement, particularly if there are children.

astonerii on November 6, 2012 at 9:29 AM

I’m not convinced the legal system can remedy what the culture has abandoned. But maybe I’m wrong.

gwelf on November 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:02 AM

The Dixie Chicks were never “blacklisted” since there is no controlling list of what music is allowed and music not allowed. The Dixie Chicks expressed an opinion unpopular with their fans and they suffered the outcome of their actions… people chose not to purchase their music, listen to their songs or attend their concerts.

The difference between free people using their freedom of speech to react to what the Dixie Chicks did, and what happened with Chick-fil-a is that liberals attempted to use the force of government to FORCE them to concede their freedom of speech! These two examples are so opposite that I can’t believe you think it was a serious comparison!

All I know are the fruits of their actions… which tells me that liberals vote Democrat because they have always been on the side of telling others what to do and how to think, which is why Democrats are known as the historic party of slavery, segregation and racism. It just fits with who liberals are (as the scorpion explained to the fox).

dominigan on November 6, 2012 at 9:32 AM

Im outta here. Gay rights are not my top priority today. Romney/Ryan 2012.

kcd on November 6, 2012 at 9:27 AM

One and Done!

Laura in Maryland on November 6, 2012 at 9:33 AM

when I think of gay marriage…wait, I don’t think of it

Slade73 on November 6, 2012 at 9:34 AM

What I care about – and despise – is being told that I’m a hate-mongering bigot because I won’t actively campaign for their lifestyle.

Washington Nearsider on November 6, 2012 at 8:55 AM

Is that what happens? Seems to me that if you are silent on the issue, no one can call you a bigot. But if you actively cast ballots, or support through word or deed anti-gay causes and laws, then you should be prepared for people to identify you by name. I believe you all are willing to call me a Communist for supporting Obama, correct?

libfreeordie on November 6, 2012 at 9:38 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4