NOM BLOG

Eager Minnesota Voter Attempts to Support Marriage Amendment Yesterday at the Polls!

 

Several voters were so eager to cast their vote for the Marriage Protection Amendment that they showed up early!

Even though it’s not on the primary ballot, the hotly-debated marriage amendment appears to be drawing voters to the polls this Tuesday.

“I’m interested in voting for the marriage law,” said one voter outside Our Lady of Peace Catholic Church in south Minneapolis, a neighborhood polling place.

She was referring to the proposed amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. -- CBS Local

Not to worry -- everyone will get their chance on November 6th!

7 Comments

  1. Jake4156
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 5:18 pm | Permalink

    More proof that the anti-gay lobby relies on the ignorance of voters to push their agenda.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    Keep up the enthusiasm, MN voters...it's less than 3 months away!

  3. Little Man
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    Wrong date! But would we feel suspicious of a polling place that tells us the Marriage Amendment is not on the ballot, after all? After all, the title of the Amendment was changed by the Secretary of State. The goal justifies the means, the Democrat motto. That's not really funny.

    Yea, though this blog post is funny, and tagged under the NOMblog Humor category, it is also threatening to remember how the opposition to the Amendment have used every possible trick to avert it. I saw the video of the Senate process for this Amendment. Equality for non-equals was the main argument in opposition. And there were flaky defenses of the Amendment too.

    The Amendment does not create a new law. It would make the existing marriage State law (MN) part of the State Constitution. Yes, amendments to a constitution usually have opposition. Voters are on the watch for irregular procedures on both sides.

    It's a tense situation, as with all amendments to a constitution - a major law that tells judges how it's going to be, and would free judges from having to figure it out on their own through 'jurisprudence', 'precedent', and vague concepts such as 'heightened scrutiny'. Only they understand their vague categorizations!

    (What is judging? Judging is what judges do.)

    Talk about a vague profession. . ., in which the outcome depends on which judge one gets, which lawyer one can afford, and how the press wants to air court hearings as if they were soap operas with their corresponding commercials, and malicious pollsters offer their mathematically fudged results. . .

    There's one remaining piece of sanity - when voters go vote on an Amendment or voter initiative. Notice only one answer remains.

  4. Pat
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

    And remember, she did that JUST because of how much she wants to harm people she hates.

    It doesn't actually affect her. At all. In any way. It's ALL about the evil.

    But we're gonna call it "Marriage Protection" even though it's only purpose is quite objectively attempting to thwart marriages. That's a little... false witness-y. No?

  5. Posted August 15, 2012 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    "And remember, she did that JUST because of how much she wants to harm people she hates."

    >> And you know this how?

    It doesn't actually affect her. At all. In any way. It's ALL about the evil.

    >> Certainly it would be immensely evil to surrender marriage to the tender ministrations of the "six gender fantasy role playing" crowd already coming after children in Canada.

    "But we're gonna call it "Marriage Protection" even though it's only purpose is quite objectively attempting to thwart marriages. That's a little... false witness-y. No?"

    >> No. The false-witnessy thing would be to call homosexual friendships "marriages".

  6. Daughter of Eve
    Posted August 15, 2012 at 10:53 pm | Permalink

    "It doesn't actually affect her. At all"

    Actually, it does directly affect her. It renders hollow presumption of paternity laws, designed to protect all married women (be they "gay" or "straight") from being left unsupported by their husbands in the rearing of their children. That's a serious effect.

    "But we're gonna call it "Marriage Protection" even though it's only purpose is quite objectively attempting to thwart marriages."

    Nope. Those wishing to marry may marry, irregardless of their sexual orientation, their sexual political identity, or their private sexual behavior. It's a right all citizens have been able exercise, should they choose to. The only individuals wishing to thwart marriage are a small subset of individuals in same-sex relationships who happen to also be engaging in homosexual behavior. Nothing is preventing them from getting married, according to the laws of the land.

    "That's a little... false witness-y. No?"

    Yes. It is. Why are you doing it?

  7. Little Man
    Posted August 16, 2012 at 4:01 am | Permalink

    Pat: You are so ridiculous, it's again, funny. Everyone has a right to vote any way they want. If you take that away from people (through intimidation, name calling, hate, threats), guess what: we still have the right to vote even if it were in hate. You do it. So, we can to. Call it by whatever word. We don't buy it. Try to keep it from us and you have a confrontation on your hands. But the reality is that some 'gay' people want to be hated, because the alternative feels worse to them - that they be ignored. That, they cannot take.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.