NOM BLOG

Examples of Excellent Testimony Against SSM in Minnesota

 

Minnesota for Marriage has been showcasing some of the best examples of testimony given today in opposition to the bill to redefine marriage -- read for yourself:

Grace (age 11) testified in the House Civil Law hearing today. She asked the Committee: "Which parent don't I need, my mom or my dad?"

The committee had no answer for her.

===

Doug (gay man): "marriage isn't about love, commitment and responsibility--it's about kids. Ignore the media push and adult demands for same-sex marriage."

"It's not homophobic to oppose same-sex marriage!"

"MN legislators, passing this bill says your wife or husband is not important in the raising of your children!"

===

Prof. Robert Lopez (humanities scholar, bisexual man):

"Couples deserve to have love recognized, but I know as a child raised by my lesbian mother and her partner that there is something missing when a child is raised by 2 same-sex parents."

"We've heard a lot from same-sex marriage activists who feel they’ve earned property rights to children, but we haven’t heard enough from children’s rights advocates in a full debate."

28 Comments

  1. B DeCicco
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for posting these. I am sure the committees are indeed hard pressed for a sound rejoinder to any of them.

    It is interesting to note that two of the speakers are of "non-traditional" sexual orientation.

  2. chris from CO
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    My answer to Grace is if both your mom and dad are good to you and love you then you need them both. Marriage for gay and lesbians will not make that need any more or less sweet heart. But understand there are kids in homes with two moms or dads who love them and are good to them can you tell them kids wich one they don't need.

    If you are a decent human being I think you can understand you can't tell an eleven year old that they can do without one of your parents.

    If someone tells my partners kids they can do with out me I can tell you now what all 3 of them would say to someone with that thought. I would be proud of them.

  3. Flanoggin
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    So would you be pro-same sex marriage if they don't have children???? Didn't think so....

  4. chris from CO
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    YES... It is not always about the childeren it is an important part in this debate. But that is not the only purpose of marriage. It is to bring two people together for life it gives them protections in a since giving them the rights of next to kin. So two can live and build their lives together that no one can come up behind them when one dies and take more from them weather it be the government or other family members. Hence the birth of the Windsor case. Are you people reading this case and seeing how wrong it is for some one to pay taxes on her own propety and money that she already did pay taxes on. But is being punished because she was not considered married by the government. This is theft.

  5. leviticus
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm | Permalink

    Chris, no one was hiding tax or estate laws when she chose her relationship. She could've chosen to live with her dog and the tax consequences are the been the same. Only lifestyle choices that promote the well-being of children are recognized by the federal government. Just because different things are treated differently does not mean there is discrimination.

  6. Posted March 12, 2013 at 4:05 pm | Permalink

    oh gosh. I thought my comment was respectful, non-confrontational, and on topic.

    sigh.

  7. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 4:17 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see the focus is on children. This is the primary public interest in marriage. I hope the legislators will listen.

    Grace is a brave young lady. There is no satisfactory answer to her question.

    Responsible single folks set up living wills and trusts. Responsible same-sex couples should do the same.

  8. Robert
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 4:32 pm | Permalink

    I feel bad for the kids of same-sex couples, who are forced to be raised outside of wedlock, despite thousands of years of human history that wants kids to be raise within wedlock. I don't get why we're redefining marriage to satisfy a few religionists!

  9. bman
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Chris-> ...But that is not the only purpose of marriage..

    The essential public purpose of marriage is to provide a protective legal [and moral] environment surrounding sexual procreation.

    Marriage does not require procreation to occur, but then again a fishing license does not require one to catch fish either.

    None would think a fishing license was not designed to manage catching fish because it does not require catching fish.

    We must look at marriage in a similar way. Marriage is designed to manage procreation without requiring that procreation occur.

    The purpose of marriage and the legal protections it establishes around sexual procreation also remain whether a couple procreates or not.

    By analogy, a person who only uses a driver's license as an ID card still has legal authority to drive. The secondary purpose [identification] does not take away the primary purpose [to manage driving]

    Yet, if someone is ineligible to drive who needs an ID card, they are not given a driver's license just so they can have an ID card.

    Rather, they are issued something that has [identification] as its primary purpose, i.e., a state ID card. It has nothing to do driving because driving is managed by the driver's license .

    That same analogy applies to same sex couples.

    That category of pairing is not designed for sexual procreation and so it has no entitlement to legal protections pertaining to sexual procreation.

    If a same sex couple was granted a marriage certificate, they would still enter a legal environment designed to protect responsible sexual procreation between a man and woman, for which they are not designed.

    What they need is something with a different primary purpose - something that has the secondary purpose[s] of marriage as a primary purpose but nothing to do with managing procreation between men and women.

    Marriage is for managing sexual procreation between men and women and should continue to have that as its primary purpose.

    Since same sex couples are ineligible for legal protections designed for sexual procreation, that argues for a separate institution distinct from marriage with no purpose related to procreation, because that is what marriage manages.

    In sum, any need same sex partners have for the secondary purposes of marriage is at most an argument for civil unions.

    Its not an argument for same sex couples to enter marriage.

  10. B DeCicco
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 8:08 pm | Permalink

    The more I ponder the cross-fire that occurs between those who are pro and contra SSM, the more I see that Andrew Sullivan really and truly sowed the seeds of contention and discord between gays and straights.

    Had he not insisted on SSM as being the SOLE means of equality, and pushed his agenda beginning in the '80s, none of this discord would be happening. I have much respect for gay people and always have. The SSM issue is the ONLY instance in which I have been forced into a position against them. Shame on Sullivan.

  11. OldKingBlog
    Posted March 12, 2013 at 10:50 pm | Permalink

    Earth to wobbie RE "I don't get why we're redefining marriage to satisfy a few religionists:" it's YOUR side that's redefining marriage, so the question should be put this way: why should we redefine marriage to satisfy a tiny minority of sexual misfits?

  12. Ash
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    "I feel bad for the kids of same-sex couples, who are forced to be raised outside of wedlock, despite thousands of years of human history that wants kids to be raise within wedlock."

    I can't believe that Robert is condemning same-sex couples. After all, who else can be blamed for bringing children into a household to be raised under a non-marital relationship? It's not like the same-sex couple had sex and then nine months later a child appeared. Those same-sex couples had to go through some sort of a process to get those kids.

  13. Posted March 13, 2013 at 12:40 am | Permalink

    He's pulled a 'Robert Special', once again :) That's why i skip those - trained my eyes.

  14. chris from CO
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    I hope all of you understand that kids will be raised in different environment in different situations some times not in the best ones some times in a perfect Leave it to Beaver kind of way. I feel that in what ever situation the childern are raised they should have full protections that they need to insure a good quality of life. As my partner and I sit around watching T.V. with our three kids I can't help but think how lucky we are that they love having us both around. Our family is very strong our kids love us and we love them I believe in my heart that we deserve to have that umbrella over us just in case something unexpected were to happen, like cancer or drunk driver hitting one of us and killing one of us. The absolute most straight forward protection with out questions is Marriage or strong Civil Unions. I will NEVER see your points of view on this issue. The only issue I will agree with is that there should always be STRONG religious exemptions in any marriage equality bill.

    As reminder to all of you; you are not living our lives you should not have a say in our lives no more than I would have a say about how you live your life. If I did have a say the first thing I would say to you is be kinder to your fellow man you never know when your going to need one of us to help you, and hopefully one of us can give you more help in your life; more than you are willing to give to any of us.

  15. Ed Murray
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 3:11 pm | Permalink

    It will come down to this...

    Power...

    Are gays Powerful or do they need to be protected because they are Power-less?

  16. bman
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

    Chris->I hope all of you understand that kids will be raised in different environment in different situations....

    Do you propose that marriage be publicly defined as, "different environment[s] in different situations?"

    If that is supposed to be an argument to redefine marriage it amounts to an argument to legalize every definition out there, which reduces to an absurdity.

  17. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

    No Ed, what it will come down to is: should all married couples in the United States have equal access to federal marriage benefits? Hard to see any other way around this but, "yes".

  18. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

    Chris, thank you for the dose of reality and the beautiful sentiments....plus the legal logic in what you say. It is not often on this site that we all consider the truly wonderful and loving gay family arrangements that exist in the millions and the hundreds of thousands as marriage.

  19. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:38 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    Under Federal law only opposite sex pairings are married. So when you state all married couples should have equal access to federal marriage benefits you are affirming what is already taking place.

  20. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Permalink

    What is it that convinced you folks that the only thing you had to do to force your ideology on a free people was to insist you be declared to be that which you were incapable of ever becoming?

    You might as well call yourselves Goony-ga-ga couples for all the good it will do you in the long run.

  21. Richard
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:35 pm | Permalink

    Randy, "incapable of ever becoming"? Hundreds of thousands of gay couples are married in the United States. Take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes. Hundreds of thousands of married gay couples don't have access to federal marriage benefits. SCOTUS will have to reconcile this by finding that DOMA, section 3 is unconstitutional. What is it that convinced you that your ideology supersedes a free people who believe gay couples should have access to marry the one they love?

  22. Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:45 pm | Permalink

    Moderator, please, SCOTUS is not the subject of this post.

  23. Randy E King
    Posted March 13, 2013 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

    Richard,

    You are incapable of ever becoming a "Gay People" and the joining of likes is incapable of ever becoming a marriage.

    Your hundreds of thousands do not trump the 1st Amendment rights of the tens-of-millions you seek to disenfranchise.

    To clarify no same-sex grouping is married in these United States under Federal law.

  24. Richard
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:31 am | Permalink

    Randy, your fingers are still in your ears and your eyes are still closed. As a point of clarity do you believe that hundreds of thousands of gay couples are legally married in America? (Try to keep your animus out of the response as it doesn't matter to the fact at hand.)

  25. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:43 am | Permalink

    Chris, your sentimental comment is noted. It could have been written by a polygamist. T could have been written by a polyamorist. T could have been written by a mother raising her children with her own mother.

    Now, does the sentiment entail content that rises above a special pleading? Nope. None of that stuff makes the ineligible suddenly eligible to marry.

    Richard's comment is applause for nonmarriage. But marriage law is for marriage.

  26. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    Richard, of all the types of relationships that lack either a husband or a wide, which is the type of one-sexed relationship that you have in mind for SSM?

    What essential(s) make it different from the rest that are not that type of one-sexed relationship? Please plainly state how the essential(s) justify a special status on par with marital status. Please plainly state the justification for treating it unequally vis-a-vis the rest of the range of one-sexed types of relationships.

    If you come here with certitude, then, this is a basic task for which you really should be ready to answer substantively.

  27. Ash
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    Chairm, the question from you below is never answered by SSMers to any meaningful degree.

    "What essential(s) make it different from the rest that are not that type of one-sexed relationship? Please plainly state how the essential(s) justify a special status on par with marital status. Please plainly state the justification for treating it unequally vis-a-vis the rest of the range of one-sexed types of relationships."

    It puts me in mind of a statement from the brief written by 20 state Attorneys General in support of marriage:

    ...because any interest in same-sex couples bears no link to any characteristic innately limited to them, it contains no limiting principle for excluding other groupings of individuals. Ultimately, there is no legal argument for same-sex marriage, only an argument against civil marriage as a special, limited status.

    Written under Section D, titled: There is no coherent reason for government to recognize same-sex marriages

  28. Chairm
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:07 pm | Permalink

    That is a good observation, Ash, because this goes to the principles of good governance and of reasonable lawmaking.