Kalley Yanta of the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains:
"The news media is full of examples of negative consequences as a result of Canada's redefinition of marriage. Some examples: recently a national sportscaster, Damian Goddard, was fired for tweeting his support for traditional marriage. Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for doing little more than writing about the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Several court cases have been fired challenging Canada's laws against polygamy, using the same arguments that led to the imposition of same-sex marriage. A study commissioned by then-Prime Minster Paul Martin concluded that 'laws banning polygamy are discriminatory' and should be repealed."
She adds many more examples:
48 Comments
It's "Canada Day" at the NOM blog, where nightmares become reality!
The Marriage Minute series should get an Emmy!
It is truly an amazing series.
No wonder the marriage corruption movement is being absolutely crushed in MN.
Can we get similar ads up in MD, MN, and WA?
I am here, today, in Toronto. Calm down, all is well, married gay couples are happy. The city is bustling, the citizens are busy living and your supposed "nightmares" in Canada are the demons that inhabit your own minds. Again, calm down.
Rich, same here in Montreal. Canada is a democracy and that gets the US proponents of a Christian fundamentalist theocracy all bent out of shape. We are a state of law, and if there are a handful of cases to be brought to court, they will.
By the way... Sun News is the Canadian equivalent of Fox News. Same right wing propaganda.
I'm not a person of faith, and I'm hardly a "proponent of a Christian fundamentalist theocracy."
Canada has clearly lost a grounding in morality. We don't need the influence of these people coming into the US, where the true meaning of marriages is valued.
Preserve Marriage: You are, then, in a minority among NOM supporters who post on this site.
Except in most of New England
M. Jones, ever been in a big city...or how about New England? Boy, would you feel like a lost soul.
Claude:
Children are being indoctrinated in homosexualist propaganda by law in Canada.
It is a crime against humanity.
The perpetrators will see justice done, in this world or the next.
We won't surrender our children to this nightmarish evil the way the disgraceful parents of Canada meekly have done.
Count on it.
When living in a diverse society, inclusiveness is the moral option. Denying rights to minorities is hardly ethical, even less Christian.
There is a societal choice to be made. Indoctrinating children in hatred against those who are different, as proposed by Rick, or presenting the differences in peoples that do exist in a diverse society to children, and let them make up their minds. I believe in the latter. I also believe the US will get there, despite what Rick says.
Claude, I sent you a very supportive message but, alas, cut off time.
Rick, I was asking the same thing you did in post #2.
I'm looking for a Maryland Marriage Minute!
But maybe just a few, hard-hitting ads in the other states will suffice if we don't get a full blown marriage minute series.
Rick & Ash
Count me in as well. This series needs to be distributed beyond Minnesota.
Claude
your comment @13 is an example of what is called a straw-man argument.
You attribute to Rick words he never said and then attack that false position.
You are an ugly and dishonest person.
So distribute it. I do.
Claude,
Only 16% of Americans are unaffiliated, so I'm pretty much in a minority anywhere -- although other posters here have posted that they're not religious.
So the "imposing your religion" spin isn't persuasive (and works both ways).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/on-gay-marriage-is-obama-imposing-his-religion/2012/05/15/gIQAuuPPSU_blog.html
Also, you wrote, " Denying rights to minorities is hardly ethical." What right are those?
"Indoctrinating children in hatred"? Who would do that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao0k9qDsOvs
A real shame Canada doesn't enjoy our Bill of Rights. They enjoy freedom of worship but not religion.
@ Claude #13:
"There is a societal choice to be made. Indoctrinating children in hatred against those who are different, as proposed by Rick"
>> See how it works with these guys?
The lie is so cynical it is breathtaking. Claude knows it's a lie, he knows you know it's a lie, but that doesn't matter to Claude.
He knows the trigger words, the button-pushers.
That's all he is in it for.
That's all he has.
@Rick DeLano
"Claude knows it's a lie, he knows you know it's a lie, but that doesn't matter to Claude."
I'm a Libra, can you tell my fortune next? Since you claim to be able to read minds and all.
Andy:
I can read words. So can Claude. So can you.
He lied.
It's standard practice for you guys.
But then again, what should we expect from a partisan of a movement committed to enforcing, as law, the proposition that it is discriminatory to say that Moms are female, that Dads are male.
I suppose lying like hell is about the best shot you have with a case like that to defend.
@Andy King,
Quit being disingenuous; you have to know that most of those that post here know when you are taking the opportunity to regurgitate your disinformation campaign.
Note that none of the issues cited involve gay marriages. So whatever issues Minnesota for Marriage have with gay marriage in Canada, it seems "married gay couples" is not one of them.
To be fair though, Denmark only legalised same gender "marriage" this year but even saying they oppose homosexuality in public (though I wouldnt be surprised if it affected church sermons too) has landed several people in prison (google Ake Green)
New South Wales, Australia (the state where Sydney is located) and the UK do not have gay marriage but have "anti-homosexual hate speech" laws, allow gays to adopt and recognise civil unions as marriages in all but name
What I find interesting is that samesex marriage was imposed by the court upon Canada, same with Portugal and South Africa; though curiously enough Catholic Spain and Argentina actually did vote for it; which suggests they are not really as Catholic as some people say; they must be filled with CINOs (Christians in name only)
SSMer said: "none of the issues involved gay marriages".
Once again the sleight of hand is used to cheat against the cards on the table. The ussues involved the SSM idea. It is not andls never been about this or that particular individual's SSM.
There is a conflict of ideas. The SSM idea versus the marriage idea. Ideas matter. Each of the examples in the video illustrate the conflict and what matters.
SSMers who run from this are being intellectually dishonest with their remarks. And those SSMers who embrace the conflict acknowledge that they favor the policies and direct implications that are driven by the SSM idea and that also bolster the SSM idea either prior to its imposition or in the aftermath.
Whether trying to dodge or applauding, SSMers cannot escape the conflict that their SSM idea brings to the public square and that sets Government against moral truth and social peace. Defenders of marriage defend much more than marriage. The conflict with gay identity politics is unmistakable.
This is exactly my point. I'm glad we can agree on this.
Spunky, your comment did not express the point I had made. It did not do so "exactly" because it made a different point completely.
But let us give you the benefit of the doubt.
You expressly used the term "gay marriages" and you expressly used the term "gay couples". You intended to say that these are real marriages; you intended to say that your gay emphasis is directly relevant to whatever point you hoped to make in that comment.
You intended to make the point that Government treating SSM as marriage is unrelated to the items raised in the video.
Now that is my giving you the benefit of the doubt. Your comment clearly referred to the particular rather than to the conflict of ideas. That was the sleight of hand you used to cheat the cards on the table.
Your portrayal would depend on Government setting itself against 1) moral truth (what marriage actually is) and 2) against social peace (favoring identity politics over and above good governance and justice). Depending on that much means depending on more than the particular instances of SSM.
So my point was that conflict of ideas matters because the imposition of SSM sets Government against moral truth and against the social peace. Gay identity politics does not merit moving the hand of Government in that way. So the assertion of the supremacy of gay identity politics is used rather than the more benign use of identity politics in the public square.
If that was your 'exact' point, then, congradulations for acknowledging the injustice of the SSM campaign.
But somehow I doubt that was your point -- even remotely -- and that my comment above was an accurate account of your sleight of hand.
---
Oh, and thank you for noting typos with your overuse of [sic] in your quoting my comments. Ensuring that readers would not think that my typos were your typos. Of course, my use of the words 'issues' and 'has' was not erroneous and did not merit your overuse of [sic], but thanks nonetheless.
On the other hand your term 'gay marriage' would be erroneous. Your use of 'married' before the phrase 'gay couples', likewise. Of course, there is no gay requirement in Canada for those who'd SSM. And there is no justification, based on the SSM idea, for limiting SSM to twosomes. Indeed, there is no justification, based on the SSM idea, for treating as marriage any scenario that lacks either husband or wife. And that illustrates the problem with your sleight of hand in cheating the cards on the table.
These Minnesota Marriage Minutes are great.
I found the part about the Toronto District School Board, forbidding parents from opting their K-12 kids out of homosexuality classes ('Challenging Homophobia and Heterosexism’), interesting.
I had read this:
"In 2005, L.A. Unified debuted the nation's first chapter in a high school health textbook on LGBT issues covering sexual orientation and gender identity, struggles over them and anti-LGBT bias. A section on misconceptions says sexual orientation is not a choice -- a statement many religious conservatives disagree with."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/oct/16/local/la-me-gay-schools-20111016
They're seriously USING THE SCHOOLS to 'teach' OUR CHILDREN that sexual preference is "not a choice" -- and that the belief that it is not, is a "MISCONCEPTION" -- as if all the people that have changed their sexual preference are figments of our imagination!
Wait, Y'ALL are bringing up Canada?
Since Canada is proof that everything you say is a lie, I thought you usually liked to pretend it doesn't exist.
Learn somethin' new every day (I know you folks like to ignore stuff you learned, but it's probably still true for you).
DoE, post 21: Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, article 2 (a) guarantees freedom of conscience and religion. DoE... please check your facts before posting.
Well said, Chairm. Thank you, as always.
Claude, the headline news indicate the laws you mention are being trampled in favor of gay identity politics. Laws are no good, if not enforced.
Very much agreed.
Rick Delano did not propose, "Indoctrinating children in hatred..." as Claude falsely claimed.
Rather, Rick rightly proposed stopping the oppressive indoctrination of children with gay dogma by the Canadian government.
Those are two different things but Claude did not distinguish a difference.
Apparently, he has been strongly biased by the same gay dogma he wants imposed on other people's children.
The Canadian government could simply teach the golden rule to children - that its wrong to bully, tease, or speak cruelly toward others who are different - without imposing gay dogma on children.
It could teach the golden rule without interfering with parental rights or religious rights, and without the use of gender bending class assignments that shock the conscience.
The Canadian government has chosen, however, to intrude on the rights of others more than is necessary, which is wrong for it to do.
The fact Claude is a gay adult who can not perceive the obvious tyranny of the Canadian government is also grounds for right thinking people to stop the gay agenda from getting any further foot hold in U.S. government .
Speaking of laws not being enforced, when the peop[le of California voted, after a hard-fought, full, open and fair political campaign, to restore marriage, even their own elected officials cynically betrayed them, and a homosexual judge, with an interest in the case, determined one fine day in his black robes that all 7.000,000 marriage defenders in California were bigots..
This is what the gay extremists mean when they say "freedom and democracy".
Vote accordingly.
Rick,
When the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals declined to rehear arguments over California’s Proposition 8, en banc, one of the dissenting judges wrote:
“Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation. Based on a two-judge majority’s gross misapplication of Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), we have now declared that animus must have been the only conceivable motivation for a sovereign State to have remained committed to a definition of marriage that has existed for millennia, Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052, 1082 (9th Cir. 2012). Even worse, we have overruled the will of seven million California Proposition 8 voters based on a reading of Romer that would be unrecognizable to the Justices who joined it, to those who dissented from it, and to the judges from sister circuits who have since interpreted it.”
Claude:
Well, I'm a Jew, not a Christian. We kill people (not nowadays, because we'd get thrown in the slammer) for lighting a candle on the Sabbath. I have enormous respect for my Christian brethren, but I don't subscribe to this "love" thing, so you won't get anywhere with me.
Dovie, I'm not advocating the christian love thing. I'm advocating for a secular society and government that grants respect, protection and recognition of rights, freedoms, responsibility, obligations, benefits and costs for all before the law.
I did comment to so-called Christian posters that the Bible is full of contradictions and that their expression of hate is cherry picking parts of that collection of books. Leviticus calls for stoning aldulterous women, while the New Testament says that he who is without sin (which means no one under the original sin concept) throw the first stone...
Claude (#36),
If Christians oppose redefining marriage because of what's in the Bible, they're free to do so.
Our Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So while we have a separation of Church and State, here, you will run up against the last part of that quote in "advocating for a secular society."
Many Christians make arguments that have nothing to do with the Bible.
http://byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage/
I'm not the only poster that's posted that he's not a person of faith. Several people, here, have posted that they're not Christians.
My reasons for supporting marriage have nothing to do with any of the religions that state that marriage is between a man and a woman -- all of the major ones. I have zero need to refer to the Bible, Quran, or any other scriptures. My thoughts and feelings don't come from them.
PM: We need a hundred million of you.
I am sure you will take no offense if I say:
"God bless you!"
Spunky your use of sleight-of-handdoes not make your point my point. Your gay emphasis is noted in your comments. But you really ought to own the SSM idea's conflict with the marriage idea. That is the overarching point of my comment. Each point made supports that.
Claude:
Ever since Romer, the government grants you respect. Ever since Lawrence, you're free to do whatever you want. But you don't have a right to enter into a nonexistent contract. Loving dealt with an existing institution — marriage as defined as the procreative and binding union of opposite entities, melded into one. Same-sex "marriage" is like putting two magnets together with the same pole facing.
Dovie, why are infertile opposite-sex couples allowed to marry, and remain married, if the only purpose is procreation? Reductionist and opportunistic definition.
Claude why do you misrepresent others in your comments? Please state your reason for doing that.
What is the sexual basis for marriage, in your view, Claude? Is same-sex sexual behavior mandatory for those who'd SSM in Canada, for instance? If not, why not?
You do not accurately represent what has gone on in Canada, but at least you might try to do better when you represent what others have said here. But you have placed yourself on the hook by invoking a rule of pro-SSM argumentation that has been used in Canada and elsewhere.
Readers will assess your credibility as you respond (or merely just react) to those with whom you'd disagree.
Claude,
The institution is procreative.
According to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were pretty darn old.
Besides, you clearly didn't read my entire comment.
Actually your argument is artificially reductionist and opportunistic.
Marriage is indeed about procreation. This does not mean marriage requires procreation, however, but it means marriage provides the structured legal and moral environment for responsible sex and human reproduction to occur.
By analogy its similar to a fishing license. A fishing license is still about fishing even though it does not require anyone to catch a fish. Its about fishing because it establishes a responsible legal environment for people to catch fish, or to at least try.
Marriage is about procreation in the same way- not by requiring procreation, but by establishing the legal environment for responsible procreation to occur.
A fishing license also does not require one to prove they can catch fish. And, a marriage license does not require a couple to prove they can procreate. Marriage establishes a structured legal environment for procreation to occur, but without requiring procreation to occur or proof that procreation will occur.
Here you might say, "A fishing license does not require proof that anyone can catch fish, and so same sex couples should be able to marry without proof they can procreate."
That fails the basic hee-haw test, however.
Its absolutely irrational to grant a license to two men so they can have a structured legal environment to procreate with each other!
To grant them such a license would make a mockery of law and undermine public respect for the authority of law, as well.
Indeed, lawmakers who rule or vote in favor of same sex marriage undermine public respect for their office when they do so.
One possible solution for lawmakers is to give same sex partners access to specific non-sexual rights they need without tampering with marriage.
In any event, its not absurd to give a man and woman a marriage license without proof of ability to procreate, but its absurd to grant two men a structured legal environment for them to procreate.
Consider another analogy. Since cars are not required to prove they can drive on public roads, should boats be able to get the same kind of license plate that undriveable cars can get?
Of course not. But why not?
Its because the public purpose of registering a car is to legally regulate what cars do, driving on public roads, but it would be absurd to register a boat for what cars do and boats do not.
In sum, marriage is about procreation. It does not require a couple to procreate but it provides the legal structure and protections for men and women to responsibly procreate with society's moral approval to do so.