MN legislature schedules same-sex marriage vote for Thursday

posted at 12:01 pm on May 7, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

In November, a referendum to add the current statutory definition of marriage to the Minnesota state constitution narrowly lost, 47/53, in a presidential election featuring a large turnout for Barack Obama.  The Democrats took control of the state legislature, and as expected, have worked to change the statutory definition — just as the marriage-amendment backers predicted if the referendum failed.  The state House has scheduled a vote for Thursday, and the state Senate is preparing their own vote:

The Minnesota House has scheduled a Thursday debate and floor vote on the bill to legalize same-sex marriage in the state.

House Speaker Paul Thissen has said that the bill would not be brought to a vote unless they had secured the 68 votes that would be needed to pass the legislation. A number of DFL lawmakers representing districts that supported last fall’s proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage have voiced their support of the marriage equality bill in recent weeks.

Also on Tuesday, a Minnesota Senate committee is giving a last look at the bill to legalize gay marriage before full House and Senate votes.

The Senate Finance Committee is planning to review the gay marriage bill’s fiscal impact on Tuesday morning. A fiscal analysis finds it would add small costs to state employee health insurance costs but also generate revenue from an expected spike in marriage licenses.

Er, what? A marriage license costs $115, and is a one-time fee.  If applicants supply proof of pre-marital counseling, that fee drops to $40.  The “small costs” of adding hundreds of people to public-sector health insurance plans will cost a lot more than $115, and it will cost that every single year.  Regardless of whether one supports redefining marriage in this state, this fiscal analysis is absurd.

Besides, the cost isn’t the issue for either side.  Politicians and voters have strong opinions on this, but it’s not because it’s going to cost the state oodles of money, which it won’t.  It’s because both sides believe that this is an issue of liberty and cultural values, and the question will be which of the latter prevails, and what liberty remains for the other side.

In that vein, be sure to watch the video presentation from the Star Tribune by the opponents of this bill (which is not embeddable). The legislation contains language that supposedly protects religious institutions from being forced to facilitate same-sex weddings, but that doesn’t cover private-sector businesses who may not want to participate in them because of their own religious beliefs.  My friend Theresa Collett explains this near the end of the video, as she has from the earliest days of the marriage amendment debate.

Don’t count on the religious protection to last, either.  As I wrote at the time of the election, the close relationship between the state and religious institutions on weddings will provoke all sorts of lawsuits designed to force those institutions out of the marriage business entirely:

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.

In my opinion, the state has zero legitimate interest in consensual sexual relationships between non-consanguinary adults — except for the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships.  Otherwise, the proper action of government to all other consensual, non-consanguinary sexual relationships should be respect for private choices, not public validation.  The recognition of marriage was never a “love license,” but a forward-looking institution designed to provide legal protection for families, especially oriented to children produced explicitly from those unions.  Everything else should be a matter of contract law, which is sufficient to deal with all other issues.

Still, the licensing and recognition of marriages is a government policy, set by the people of the state, and the legislature is the legitimate representative institution for setting government policy (as opposed to the judiciary).  Government at all levels passes unworkable and poorly-advised policies; it’s part of the messy process of self-government.  If Minnesotans decide the only legitimacy of adult relationships comes from government licensing of them, well, they’ll have to deal with the consequences of that decision … and they won’t be long in coming.

Update: Edited the penultimate paragraph after posting.

Update: Because this argument arose in the comments and in e-mail, I want to address it directly.  This argument does not state that only marriages that produce children are legitimate marriages.  The only relationships that can of themselves produce children are those which are heterosexual in nature, which means that the marriage form is defined by law as one man and one woman.  Within that form, men and women can marry each other whether they intend to have children or not (or are capable of doing so or not), because that is the defined form of marriage that receives government recognition.

The form is established by the state interest in the relationship, but that doesn’t require procreation for legitimacy. Once the form is established, it should be open to all who wish to enter into the specific relationship type for which government provides that recognition.


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

meh.
Jesse Ventura.
Al Franken.

It figures…

socalcon on May 7, 2013 at 12:06 PM

Er, what? A marriage license costs $115, and is a one-time fee. If applicants supply proof of pre-marital counseling, that fee drops to $40. The “small costs” of adding hundreds of people to public-sector health insurance plans will cost a lot more than $115, and it will cost that every single year. Regardless of whether one supports redefining marriage in this state, this fiscal analysis is absurd.

Not to mention the fact that in all the states that have passed it; there are huge “diversity” programs that have to be done in schools. And now you have states like California who are mandating that insurance cover infertility treatments for gays under “medical” insurance.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Well, it’s time to fire up the lawyers that defend marriage from these usurping frauds.

platypus on May 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

1960s – sexual freedom and free love – marriage is whatever consenting adults want it to be.
2010s – state approved sexual relationships and if churches don’t marry the politburo approved relationships, churches will be punished by the state… Y’know… Separation of church and government and all that. So just grow the government and voila… No more church.

“A large government is a GOOD thing” – Barack Hussein Obama.

Skywise on May 7, 2013 at 12:08 PM

outcry that churches won’t perform ceremonies in 5…4….3…hope the church tells them there is a nice lakefront you can marry at

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Not to mention the fact that in all the states that have passed it; there are huge “diversity” programs that have to be done in schools. And now you have states like California who are mandating that insurance cover infertility treatments for gays under “medical” insurance.

And after the dust settles on same-sex marriage…..its FOWARD! to multiple partners marriage.

We must be open to “diversity” of every nature and be fully embracing.

s/

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

outcry that churches won’t perform ceremonies in 5…4….3…hope the church tells them there is a nice lakefront you can marry at

Outcry, nuthin’! Let the lawsuits begin….how the civil rights of people are denied! Churches must not only recognize gay couples but perform ceremonies for them and accept them….or else.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

I hate this state.

gophergirl on May 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

*shaking the head*

minority taking over the majority

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 12:23 PM

I see a business oppurtunity when the church’s stop doing weddings.Get yourself one of those internet ordained minister certificates,open up a drive thru Vegas type chapel and charge a super high fee for cash only.

docflash on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Gee, I wonder how many “marriages of convenience” might result from this?

Systems are made to be gamed, after all.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

People get the government and the consequences they deserve.

GarandFan on May 7, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Delaware Senate is voting on marriage today, and will become the 11th State after Rhode Island last week.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Gee, I wonder how many “marriages of convenience” might result from this?

Systems are made to be gamed, after all.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Right, because marriages of convenience never existed before same-sex marriage.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM

Gee, I wonder how many “marriages of convenience” might result from this?

Systems are made to be gamed, after all.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Given that ~95% of the population is straight, I’d assume there will be (95/5=19) about 1/19th the number of straight “marriages of convenience” that exist today.

You better start cracking down, rockhead.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM

Delaware Senate is voting on marriage today, and will become the 11th State after Rhode Island last week.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Wedding dress vendors better adjust the bodices and shoulders of their new clients. Wouldn’t want to “discriminate”.

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

*shaking the head*

minority taking over the majority

By force of government.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Gee, I wonder how many “marriages of convenience” might result from this?

Systems are made to be gamed, after all.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM

IDK, but if we are redefining marriage to be a financial partnership for people who love each other then I see nothing wrong with extending it also to adult children who take care of their parents etc. I means why are homosexuals so special that they are the only ones who should benefit from this new definition of equal protection and marriage…

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

offor

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Yeah the only difference this time is the blue states are the ones holding the slaves.. Slaves of daddy government…

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:39 PM

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Sleeves, straps or off the shoulder?

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

Yep – polyamory isn’t far behind.

Question: How many societies made progress by endorsing “gay marriage”?
Answer: None.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Until Christ comes again.

Homosexuality is a sexual preference. Not a race.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I won’t know what to make of this until BISHOP weighs in….

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Wedding dress vendors better adjust the bodices and shoulders of their new clients. Wouldn’t want to “discriminate”.

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Seriously? Gay men wear dresses jokes? What is that, a kind of 1940s humor? Have you been to male same-sex wedding. We wear suits…nice ones.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Plenty.

You see, what this does is create ever more opportunities for antireligious bigots like you and your friend ZachV to step in it.

You’ve already had Chick-Fil-A blow up in your face. Since you’re already filing lawsuits against churches to force them to perform gay-sex marriages, the tide is about to reverse and backlash very quickly.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Until Christ comes again.

No one said you had to stop waiting for him….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Seriously? Gay men wear dresses jokes? What is that, a kind of 1940s humor? Have you been to male same-sex wedding. We wear suits…nice ones.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Huh?

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM

I means why are homosexuals so special that they are the only ones who should benefit from this new definition of equal protection and marriage…

Trust me….they won’t be the only ones. More “diverse” definitions of marriage are in the pipelines of interested parties.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Seriously? Gay men wear dresses jokes? What is that, a kind of 1940s humor? Have you been to male same-sex wedding. We wear suits…nice ones.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Yes, because there are NO transvestite gay males… I mean I don’t know where that stereotype came from at all//

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM

the [FEMALE+MALE=BABY] sign is especially helpful. in a world of 24/7 “WHO IS BANGING KIM KARDASHIAN 2DAY” and “THIRTY-SEVEN PEOPLE SHOT DEAD IN CHICAGO ON MONDAY” news-drama, it’s easy to forget that Biology 101 factoid.

Jeddite on May 7, 2013 at 12:46 PM

Given that ~95% of the population is straight, I’d assume there will be (95/5=19) about 1/19th the number of straight “marriages of convenience” that exist today.

You better start cracking down, rockhead.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 12:34 PM

No worries. Gosnell dealt the pro-abortion side a devastating blow, and there are far more Gosnell equivalents on the gay-sex marriage front.

Just a matter of time. :)

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Right, because marriages of convenience never existed before same-sex marriage.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:33 PM

All SSMs are marriages of convenience, by definition, LFoD. They exist solely to take advantage of the benefits conferred by state-sanctioned marriage.

And after the dust settles on same-sex marriage…..its FOWARD! to multiple partners marriage.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Semi-serious question: if multiple partners are allowed, can current partner A divorce partner B because partner B wants to add partner C? If it’s their right to do so, the divorce would have to be no-fault, right? They couldn’t base it on adultery. Could partner B contest it and win? Bizarre questions this sort of stuff raises.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 12:48 PM

You’ve already had Chick-Fil-A blow up in your face.

Yeah, the failure of the Chick-Fil-A incident reverberated so loudly around the country that same-sex marriage supporters won every state wide ballot initiative in 2012 and a bunch of states are passing pro gay legislation in their new legislative sessions. Does blowing up in your face mean achieving your political goals? Because that’s whats happening to the mainstream LGBT movement.

Since you’re already filing lawsuits against churches to force them to perform gay-sex marriages, the tide is about to reverse and backlash very quickly.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Gosh, even YOU seem bored by your own shtick. You didn’t say bigot 13 times in that post. Even you can see the writing on the wall. Churches aren’t being persecuted and no one is “rising up” in backlash. But, like kingjester, feel free to wait for that day to come. Just don’t hold your breath.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

No one said you had to stop waiting for him….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM

That’s good. Because I’m not. And, nobody has said we HAD to allow you and Bubba the Love Sponge to call your deviant (out of the norm) sexual activities a “marriage”, either.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

if multiple partners are allowed, can current partner A divorce partner B because partner B wants to add partner C? If it’s their right to do so, the divorce would have to be no-fault, right? They couldn’t base it on adultery. Could partner B contest it and win? Bizarre questions this sort of stuff raises.

I see a highly lucrative future for attorneys dealing in such matters.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:50 PM

No one said you had to stop waiting for him….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Oh, we know better, libfreetotalbigot.

You and your friend ZachV are antireligious bigots. Both of you are far too promiscuous and selfish to ever actually enter into marriage, because it would require you to take responsibility for your behavior.

No, you just use it because you want to attack and vandalize churches. Indeed, ZachV bragged about how his bigot mother and grandmother were actually looking for excuses to physically attack Christians.

Hence what is coming. Chick-Fil-A proved that you are bigots. Everyone who sees you here knows that you are a bigot. Your Obama Party is proving time and again that you are antireligious bigots.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

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

The whole point on gay marriage is to allow the state to control religious institutions. The left is tired of American Christians slowing down the headlong slide into a more authoritarian state, and with gay marriage the left has found just the way to do it.

If one looks even 10 years back most liberals would laugh off the notion of homogamy, yet now we are supposed to believe this is a fundamental “freedom” that trumps the 1st amendment.

18-1 on May 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Gosh, even YOU seem bored by your own shtick. You didn’t say bigot 13 times in that post. Even you can see the writing on the wall. Churches aren’t being persecuted and no one is “rising up” in backlash. But, like kingjester, feel free to wait for that day to come. Just don’t hold your breath.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:49 PM

You sound desperate, child. Is that why you are screaming and crying here and demanding that everyone agree with you or they’re a homophobe?

LOL.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

All SSMs are marriages of convenience, by definition, LFoD. They exist solely to take advantage of the benefits conferred by state-sanctioned marriage.

Then so are all heterosexual marriages, as it is not necessary to be married to love your opposite sex partner.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

Wow, only took two comments to play the race card.

then I see nothing wrong with extending it also to adult children who take care of their parents etc.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM

After all, it’s all just a recognition of how much you love someone, right? And, you love your parents, right?

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 12:53 PM

The whole point on gay marriage is to allow the state to control religious institutions. The left is tired of American Christians slowing down the headlong slide into a more authoritarian state, and with gay marriage the left has found just the way to do it.

Precisely, because to the Left, Humanist Government IS the ONLY religion, the State, the ONLY Church. They will accept no substitutes, and all institutions that disagree must be eradicated.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM

You sound desperate, child.

Maybe you’re picking upon how desperately I pity you.

Is that why you are screaming and crying here and demanding that everyone agree with you or they’re a homophobe?

Again, you don’t even have your heart in it today. What’s wrong, are you down in the dumps?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:54 PM

Then so are all heterosexual marriages, as it is not necessary to be married to love your opposite sex partner.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Nope.

Gay-sex liberals like yourself have screamed and cried that without state recognition you are incapable of loving or committing to anyone.

Opposite-sex marriages actually add to society. Gay-sex marriages do nothing of the sort; they provide no value, and only serve as means for gays like yourself and ZachV who cannot work or function in a normal society to steal from the welfare system.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM
Wow, only took two comments to play the race card.

So any invocation of the confederacy is about race? I believe a number of southerns would take issue with your claim GWB.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Question: How many societies made progress by endorsing “gay marriage”?
Answer: None.

It is amazing to see how America is following in Rome’s footsteps.

Though, just as in the case of Rome, it will be the government spending on welfare and bureaucrats that will destroy us.

18-1 on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

In my opinion, the state has zero legitimate interest in consensual sexual relationships between non-consanguinary adults — except for the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships. Otherwise, the proper action of government to all other consensual, non-consanguinary sexual relationships should be respect for private choices, not public validation. The recognition of marriage was never a “love license,” but a forward-looking institution designed to provide legal protection for families, especially oriented to children produced explicitly from those unions. Everything else should be a matter of contract law, which is sufficient to deal with all other issues.

Well said Ed!

Bravo

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Then so are all heterosexual marriages, as it is not necessary to be married to love your opposite sex partner.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

But according to the gay mafia, if we don’t agree with gay marriage we are denying someone looooooveeee. If state marriage isn’t about love and it isn’t about procreation; then what is it about?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Then so are all heterosexual marriages, as it is not necessary to be married to love your opposite sex partner.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

No, LFoD, though some individual heterosexual marriages do occur solely for the benefits conferred, as a class they occur because they create a family unit in which children can be raised. As a class, nothing of the sort can occur naturally in any homosexual marriage.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Sitting here in the NW Corner of MS, I can unequivocally state that you meant the reference to “the Confederacy” is the most anti-christian, Racist way you could muster. Your track record at Hot Air proves it.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

I still like what happened in Maryland after sodomite relationships were legitimized as a “marriage.” The state had offered benefits to domestic partners of sodomites but not straight couples on the premise that straights could marry but the gays could not.

Well, now that sodomite marriage is legal, all those domestic partners are finding themselves kicked off of benefits. In other words marry your partner or find your own health insurance.

Don’t think that the gays are happy with being treated like everybody else.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

“Christian”.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The gay marriage lobby did a terrific job of obscuring the issue last fall when they successfully defeated a marriage amendment to the MN constitution.

“The amendment isn’t necessary! The law already prohibits gay marriage!”

It was a brilliant campaign and it played upon the short-sightedness of folks who bought the argument that everything would “stay the same” if the amendment was defeated.

I know a passel of Ruling Class GOP apparatchiks who pooh-poohed the idea that gay marriage would ever come up in the legislature this session.

They just don’t understand the venal tenacity of the opposition – because they are “so nice”.

It’s a losing battle in the Loon & Tick state, especially when you have to fight the Left and the GOP Ruling Class.

Bruno Strozek on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

So any invocation of the confederacy is about race? I believe a number of southerns would take issue with your claim GWB.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

It’s almost cute when you play coy, LFoD. You know good and well what you intended, and we do, too.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

In my opinion, the state has zero legitimate interest in consensual sexual relationships between non-consanguinary adults — except for the procreative potential of heterosexual relationships.

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Opposite-sex marriages actually add to society. Gay-sex marriages do nothing of the sort; they provide no value, and only serve as means for gays like yourself and ZachV who cannot work or function in a normal society to steal from the welfare system.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

Right, because marriage benefits are so generous that one could actually stop working all together as long as one is married. But at least you’re ratcheting up the crazy back to normal levels. I was beginning to worry. The only way one can financially benefit from same sex marriage is if one has enough wealth to leave an inheritance, or if one partner has a job good enough to offer family health insurance coverage. In other words, if one doesn’t have income, property or work regularly marriage law doesn’t offer you squat. This claim that same sex marriage advocates are lazy and doesn’t want to work makes no sense. But, thankfully you’re back to your usual level of crazy. I was worried…

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Oop! Got ‘em there!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Maybe you’re picking upon how desperately I pity you.

Not really. What I am picking up is your hatred and fear toward a gay person who DOESN’T have to demand favors based on their sexual orientation or skin color, and who thus is able to function normally in society. :)

So any invocation of the confederacy is about race? I believe a number of southerns would take issue with your claim GWB.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:55 PM

In your case, absolutely, because you are a race-obsessed bigot who is desperate to codify into law your belief that society owes you something based on your skin color and sexual orientation.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

What does that have to do with granting one to a deviant sexual preference?

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Al Franken is currently telling his wiener that it’s good enough, it’s smart enough, and gosh darn it, gay folks like it.

Bishop hit hardest.

Polish Rifle on May 7, 2013 at 1:02 PM

The Progressive War on America continues:

Battlefield: Traditional marriage.

PappyD61 on May 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM

What does that have to do with granting one to a deviant sexual preference?

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Why would a post menopausal woman ever need to get married?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Oop! Got ‘em there!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Why not?

AFter all, it’s not like one can choose whether to age or not.

But as we see from the heroes of the gay-sex left like “Bishop” Gene Robinson, Jim McGreevey, and their new hero Collins, people are perfectly capable of loving and having sex with members of the opposite sex, then dumping them and deciding they like the same sex better.

Age isn’t a matter of choice, and neither is infertility. Who you have sex with is. Therefore, prohibitions based on age and infertility make no sense, but based on what you choose to have sex with do.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

It’ll pass. Tom Bakk made sure that those income taxes went through; the leadership will be busting heads on this. And DFLers care more about gay marriage than taxes anyway.

IR-MN on May 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Gay marriage is only the opening skirmish. Then comes the “right” for sodomites to adopt without consideration that children might not be all that well off in a perverse family environment.

Happy Nomad on May 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

You identify as gay, and you also believe being gay is a choice? How interesting. When did you make that choice?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

I can answer this– women have been know to have children at the age of 55. If she isn’t childbearing anymore, than anything they wish to do can be done in the form of private contracts. The state has no business sanctioning a private relationship. The only reason a state should get involved in it is the possibility of biological children and this is to give both parents equal custodial rights to any children born within the marriage.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

It’ll pass. Tom Bakk made sure that those income taxes went through; the leadership will be busting heads on this. And DFLers care more about gay marriage than taxes anyway.

IR-MN on May 7, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Gonna be a squeaker in the House; the new, out-state DFLers will be purged in 2014 if they buck the folks back home on this one.

Bruno Strozek on May 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

How odd that none of that anti-same sex marriage advocates are choosing not to go public with their widespread anti-senior marriage arguments. Perhaps it is because they don’t really believe in anti-senior marriage, and you are merely pretending to believe that because you recognize the hypocrisy of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

? If the Gov, were to get completely out of the marriage business and everyone got a civil cert. letting churches hold their marriage ceremonies for believers would that satisfy you?

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

MontanaMmmm on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Totally. Indeed, that was floated during the Minnesota legislative session and I posted on Facebook that it was how I thought the issue should be resolved. Constenting paired adults can get a civil union, but ONLY churches offer “marriage” and no church can be forced to perform a marriage. The law makes no distiinction between civil union and marriage. That is precisely how it should be done.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM

A new version of the civil union bill is said to go for its first reading Thursday at the Minnesota capitol. It would make civil unions for everyone, gay or straight, and leave the term marriage specifically for churches…

That definition of marriage has been a constant battle at the state capital. There’s a bill in support of same-sex marriage, one suggesting civil unions for gay couples, and now a bill putting civil unions in place of marriage for everyone.

Read more: http://www.towleroad.com/2013/04/new-minnesota-bill-would-give-everyone-civil-unions-gay-and-straight-leaving-marriage-to-churches.html#ixzz2SczC0SN5

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:11 PM

You identify as gay, and you also believe being gay is a choice? How interesting. When did you make that choice?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Yup.

At age 26, I decided I needed to be honest and state that I preferred having sex with men and that I was willing to accept the pros and cons thereof.

It’s very simple. I did not feel that I could honestly love and give my all to a woman, as marriage would require, and I did not feel that I was capable of spending my life celibate. So I chose as I did, and I have made peace with the outcomes, whatever they may be.

You don’t understand that because you simply don’t want to take responsibility for your behavior. That’s why people instinctively recognize that you are dishonest and duplicitous; they know you are lying to them and obfuscating.

I, on the other hand, have no qualms stating that it is my choice, and people respect that, even if they don’t agree.

So that’s why I laugh at you with all your screaming and ranting and attempting to force people by law to like you.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM

How odd that none of that anti-same sex marriage advocates are choosing not to go public with their widespread anti-senior marriage arguments. Perhaps it is because they don’t really believe in anti-senior marriage, and you are merely pretending to believe that because you recognize the hypocrisy of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

No, senior marriages make up a very miniscule portion of marriages therefore there really isn’t any need to change existing law. Liberals have made the state unable to ask about “procreation” under privacy concerns, so a state wouldn’t be ask a senior if they could or couldn’t procreate. Marriage was originally a “marriage” (pun intended) between the state and society where the state could get off the hook of supporting children and encourage future productive taxpayers. The state has no reason to do that anymore now that liberals have found greater power replacing daddy in the home with the state hence why welfare and no-fault divorce and now same sex marriage are liberal programs. All those programs break down the family unit and will ultimately make people more reliant on the state.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Bruno Strozek on May 7, 2013 at 1:06 PM

I remember you know your stuff on this. But, really, after all the tax increases and gay marriage, what more does the dfl want? They’ll get everything they want end of session and next year. They’ll have Dayton to block any changes for the near future.

IR-MN on May 7, 2013 at 1:13 PM

How odd that none of that anti-same sex marriage advocates are choosing not to go public with their widespread anti-senior marriage arguments. Perhaps it is because they don’t really believe in anti-senior marriage, and you are merely pretending to believe that because you recognize the hypocrisy of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Well, it’s because our marriage laws are based on a traditional marriage where a woman has forgone her economic production/output in favor of raising and socializing children and the reason why a spouse inherits without paying tax and has access to the SS benefits “accrued” by their spouse is because the mother/wife has made themselves more economically dependent on their husband in their partnership to raise a family.

So a post-menapausal woman is granted a marriage license because she fits into this tradition and the purpose of the state’s interest in heterosexual marriage is still valid for “her” (in general).

Though, what we’re really talking about is two things:
(1) Gays are not being denied any rights. They are being denied some government benefits, which lots of other people are denied for a whole host of reasons, including gender, age etc. Equal protection doesn’t apply (it only really applies constitutionally to race anyway).
(2) The gay lobby wants more tools to use in order to push the religious completely out of the public square and use the force of government to force societal acceptance – tolerance isn’t enough.

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 1:14 PM

At age 26, I decided I needed to be honest and state that I preferred having sex with men and that I was willing to accept the pros and cons thereof.

It’s very simple. I did not feel that I could honestly love and give my all to a woman, as marriage would require, and I did not feel that I was capable of spending my life celibate. So I chose as I did, and I have made peace with the outcomes, whatever they may be.

You did not choose to *be* gay. You chose to be *honest* about your same-sex desires and your lack of sexual desire for a woman. I don’t see how you don’t understand that distinction. I never thought you were actually mentally slow before….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Why would a post menopausal woman ever need to get married?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:03 PM

My bride, as of 7/11/2009, is not post/menopausal, yet. She is 59.

You are not very smart, to be holding a teching position.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

and you are merely pretending to believe that because you recognize the hypocrisy of the anti-same sex marriage crowd.

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

BTW, I am fine with the state being completely out of marriage or civil partnerships for all. And I will recognize my hypocrisy when you recognize yours mmmkay. You aren’t redifining marriage; you are destroying it, because once you open “equal protection’ that extends to incestuous couples and polyamory unions..

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:16 PM

“teaching”

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:16 PM

You did not choose to *be* gay. You chose to be *honest* about your same-sex desires and your lack of sexual desire for a woman. I don’t see how you don’t understand that distinction. I never thought you were actually mentally slow before….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

I love how you decide what Dallas did or didn’t do. How can you decide what his experience was?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Delaware Senate is voting on marriage today, and will become the 11th State after Rhode Island last week.

ZachV on May 7, 2013 at 12:32 PM
Add MN and that’s 13, plus the 6 states with civil unions and we’re approaching the halfway point. How long with the former Confederacy hold out this time?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

You really think that’s the end of it? My neighbor is looking into filing a lawsuit against the IL civil union law because he was just denied one–because he is already married to his wife. His wife can no longer have sex because of cancer, so he–and his wife agrees–would like to have a second, younger partner for sex and companionship. Oops, the “civil union” discriminates against people who need more than one partner!

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

You are not very smart, to be holding a teaching position.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

When was that ever a requirement?

BigWyo on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Oop! Got ‘em there!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

So you guys support polygamy right?
How about siblings wanting all the government benefits of “marriage” as one of them stays home to care for an ailing parent?
How about room mates?

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM

BigWyo on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

True. Nowadays, the only reqquirement, is that you be a Liberal.

kingsjester on May 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM

I love how you decide what Dallas did or didn’t do. How can you decide what his experience was?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Because he just described his experience…..

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM

You really think that’s the end of it? My neighbor is looking into filing a lawsuit against the IL civil union law because he was just denied one–because he is already married to his wife. His wife can no longer have sex because of cancer, so he–and his wife agrees–would like to have a second, younger partner for sex and companionship. Oops, the “civil union” discriminates against people who need more than one partner!

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

LOL– Must be Illinois. My sister’s best friend is involved in BDSM relationship and wants the state to recognize her ma$ter and $lave relationship. Says that it is consensual and it should be memorialized like a marriage.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Just because you’re a racist tyrant wannabe (and a pervert to boot) doesn’t mean that other people are.

So it also follows that nd30 wouldn’t agree with you either.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Because he just described his experience…..

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM

And you told him he was wrong.

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Mainstreaming abominable desire is the only way to secure a peaceful and prosperous future for los estados unidos.

tom daschle concerned on May 7, 2013 at 1:22 PM

The problem with the gay activists is that instead of finding churches, bakeries, photographers, etc. who would be happy to have their business and would be willing to give it their special touch, they will instead search out vendors and churches who refuse to so they can sue.

Rose on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Oops, the “civil union” discriminates against people who need more than one partner!

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 1:18 PM

When did anyone say the civil union doesn’t discriminate. They also discriminate against children. The point is that there’s no compelling state interest in prevent two consenting adults from getting married. In the case of your friend’s tragic situation, I certainly don’t know why the state needs to ratify that he and his wife have agreed he can have sex with someone else on the side, but I also don’t particularly care if polygamy were made legal or not. Its just not the movement I’m putting any effort behind (for that matter, neither is same-sex marriage because, as gwelf pointed out, it is an inherently anti-feminist institution).

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

You did not choose to *be* gay. You chose to be *honest* about your same-sex desires and your lack of sexual desire for a woman. I don’t see how you don’t understand that distinction. I never thought you were actually mentally slow before….

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Here’s some help professor:

At age 26, I decided I needed to be honest and state that I preferred having sex with men and that I was willing to accept the pros and cons thereof.

It’s very simple. I did not feel that I could honestly love and give my all to a woman, as marriage would require, and I did not feel that I was capable of spending my life celibate. So I chose as I did, and I have made peace with the outcomes, whatever they may be.

Also, it’s a presumption that because you’re gay you think marriage applies to you. The gay community has long viewed marriage as a bourgeois institution that had nothing to do with them (and was even harmful to them).

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

So, what’s the end result of the abortion explosion coupled with the never-ending push for gay marriage? Sooner or later they’ll meet in the middle of the Progressive dream for eugenics and equality.

Answer? No more gays will be born.

I mean, we all know the malady of being a homosexual is determined at birth. No one ever chose to look at similar genitalia of another and find love because they were a sexual deviant, or perverse. It’s like autism, or down syndrome, of course.

The science is settled.

Polish Rifle on May 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM

So you guys support polygamy right?
How about siblings wanting all the government benefits of “marriage” as one of them stays home to care for an ailing parent?
How about room mates?

gwelf on May 7, 2013 at 1:19 PM

My sister is raising a daughter. She lives with my mother who is helping her raise my niece. They pool their money and split the bills. THey are essentially the equivalent of a SS couple raising a child without the sex. Can’t understand why they can’t get a civil union or a marriage certificate. What is different about them than a same sex couple other than the sex?

melle1228 on May 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Ed, do you think that the government shouldn’t grant marriage licenses to women over the age of 55?

tneloms on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Oop! Got ‘em there!

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Ummm, not really. Since you don’t pass laws based on individuals*, but on classes. You say that children aren’t allowed to vote or buy liquor, not that “all the people on this list are prevented from voting and buying liquor”. We have laws that affect drivers with bad eyesight or color blindness, not drivers named “Bob”. We endorse the creation of a family unit between heterosexual couples because, as a class, they can actually naturally form a family with children. Those cases where there is no possibility of a child are the exception, not the rule. This is not true of homosexual couples.

* That was actually written into the Constitution – prohibiting Bills of Attainder.

GWB on May 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM

You identify as gay, and you also believe being gay is a choice? How interesting. When did you make that choice?

libfreeordie on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

Yup.

At age 26, I decided I needed to be honest and state that I preferred having sex with men and that I was willing to accept the pros and cons thereof.

It’s very simple. I did not feel that I could honestly love and give my all to a woman, as marriage would require, and I did not feel that I was capable of spending my life celibate. So I chose as I did, and I have made peace with the outcomes, whatever they may be.

You don’t understand that because you simply don’t want to take responsibility for your behavior. That’s why people instinctively recognize that you are dishonest and duplicitous; they know you are lying to them and obfuscating.

I, on the other hand, have no qualms stating that it is my choice, and people respect that, even if they don’t agree.

So that’s why I laugh at you with all your screaming and ranting and attempting to force people by law to like you.

northdallasthirty on May 7, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Libfornothing,

Everyone has a choice as to whether they act on, treat, suppress, or ignore their inherent impulses–whether that is sexual desires, alcohol, violence, over-eating, etc.

There’s no reason why your impulses should get special media/government/societal approval when mine don’t. Equal protection, remember?

Nutstuyu on May 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM

The problem with the gay activists is that instead of finding churches, bakeries, photographers, etc. who would be happy to have their business and would be willing to give it their special touch, they will instead search out vendors and churches who refuse to so they can sue.

Rose on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Yep, in their heart of hearts they know they can’t hold a candle to the real civil rights movement, so they want to sue and legislate their way to supposed “legitimacy”.

22044 on May 7, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3