A new KSTP poll shows that a majority of Minnesotans support retaining laws protecting marriage!
Should the Minnesota state law that defines marriage as between one man and one woman be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? Or should it be left as it is?
42% Should Be Changed
54% Should Be Left As It Is
4% Not SureAsked of 500 Adults
12 Comments
Sadly, the good people of Minnesota were royally duped by the big gay propaganda machine. They missed a rare opportunity to protect marriage in their constitution. Now they're adjusting to life under the bus.
There's still a ray of hope. Call and write your legislators now!
Thankfully, the people of the great state of Minnesota - a tolerant people who live in a beautiful state I have visited several times in both winter and summer - saw through the lies and fears spread by the likes of Kalley Yanta, and opted not to put discrimination into their state constitution and not to throw their gay brothers and sisters under the bus. Marriage is alive and well in Minnesota
Thank goodness there are still a majority of decent people who don't feel like they always have to cater to whatever the gays want. I used to be that people were ashamed to speak of such things in public. I think that more and more people will wake up to this reality and see how everything is going to heck in a handbag.
CRSmith - Why must you imply that those who favor equality for gay brethren are somehow indecent people or that those that acknowledge their gay brethren should be shameful? Judge not lest you be judged.
@Bobby
"saw through the lies and fears spread by the likes of Kalley Yanta, and opted not to put discrimination into their state constitution and not to throw their gay brothers and sisters under the bus. Marriage is alive and well in Minnesota"
Yeah it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Minnesota generally favors the Democratic Party, it was a presidential election cycle, and that Obama managed to get his liberal base out to vote. None of those were the factors, the people who narrowly defeated the amendment-Arizona defeated an amendment in 2006 before approving it in 2008-refused to believe the "myth" that children do better with a mother and a father.
Zack - So blue states believe in equality. Get over it. People who don't vote have no gripe. Several more blue states will approve equality in 2013. The real myth is that somehow when a gay couple has their relationship recognized by the state - a child is somehow separated from its mother and father. How exactly does this happen?
500 people now equals the entire state of Minnesota?
Bobby's comment is spot on.
@Bobby
"So blue states believe in equality."
No they don't.
"The real myth is that somehow when a gay couple has their relationship recognized by the state - a child is somehow separated from its mother and father. How exactly does this happen?"
I never said that, don't lump me in with the other posters on this site. My position is that redefining Marriage tells children they don't need a mother nor a father to develop properly which this has been disproven countless times. The two are not interchangeable, a man cannot do the job of a mother and a woman cannot do the job of a father.
Zack - I think the election results from ME, WA and MD show that blue states accept marriage equality. Do you feel there was a problem with those election results? As for children, I think they do best with 2 parents. I fail to see the logic in your statement though as marriage is not a requirement for having children and having children is not a requirement for marriage. And "redefining marriage" - I think you mean marriage equality - does not impact heterosexual couples already married at all. I see children raised by heterosexual single parents and I see the children raised by gay friends of mine. These children are doing very well. They are surrounded by love - extended families - parents who really want them. I recall a childhood friend of mine who had a horrible relationship with his father. He moved away and married once he was a young adult. Generalizations cannot be made about how children fair in different circumstances.
@Bobby,
"The real myth is that somehow when a gay couple has their relationship recognized by the state - a child is somehow separated from its mother and father. How exactly does this happen?"
Well, in California it happened when a woman had a relationship with a man, became pregnant, lived with him for several months as he tended to her prenatal care, and then left to "marry" a woman during the window when ssm was legal in the state. Since ssm does affect heterosexuals and heterosexual marriage, the spouse of the pregnant woman was "presumed" the second mother of the child that the wife gave birth to, thus separating the child in a legal sense from her father.
This couple divorced about a month after the child's birth, and the real mother of the child was put in jail when it was found that she co-opted with a new boyfriend to killed the "presumed" mother. The "presumed" mother spent time in the hospital recovering and so the baby was put in foster care. The parentally fit father of the child was denied custody as it would interfere with the child's "reunification" with the "presumed" mother.
Thankfully, the California Court of Appeals ordered placement with the father, not only because he had legal standing, but because the "presumed" mother was living on someone's living room couch, receiving state assistance, and had a history of violence. (Not your typical lesbian shown on tv, or featured in many same-sex parenting studies, huh?)
These courts also noted how illogical it is to attempt a gender neutral reading of the presumption of paternity (an active and core doctrine of marriage). Translation: ssm is illogical.
I'm glad you inquired as to how children are separated from their mother and father with ssm. It's always great when SSMers become enlightened. The case I summarized is called In re: M.C. (2011). Perhaps SCOTUS would take it into consideration when deliberating on ssm.
Bobby, I have a response to one of your posts. Stay tuned.
"I think the election results from ME, WA and MD show that blue states accept marriage equality. Do you feel there was a problem with those election results?"
No I don't. I have always said that I supported the people voting on this issue. They voted, and their vote should be respected. I think you missed my point completely about it having more to do with Obama's very liberal base turning out in bigger numbers than the other people. Almost 9 million people didn't vote in this last election as they did in 2008. Either way, the people voted.
"And "redefining marriage" - I think you mean marriage equality - does not impact heterosexual couples already married at all."
I mean redefining Marriage. You are begging proof on how it harms male/female couples already raising children. But what I am focusing on are the children themselves. By changing the definition of Marriage, you are telling children they don't need a mother nor a father to properly raise a children, studies have proven that children are at a disadvantage when either parent is absent, that the two are interchangeable and either combination of the two is acceptable. THAT is what I argue against.
"These children are doing very well. They are surrounded by love - extended families - parents who really want them. I recall a childhood friend of mine who had a horrible relationship with his father. He moved away and married once he was a young adult. Generalizations cannot be made about how children fair in different circumstances."
Again you completely miss my point. Marriage serves to establish the understanding for children that men and women are inherently different. A boy learns how to be a man from his father, but learns to be sensitive from his mother. A daughter learns how to be a woman from her mother, but learns to be independent from her father. Simply put, two men can't be a mother and two women can't be a father. It's even been proven if a child can't find a patriarch in their father, then they seek that father figure in someone else.