NOM BLOG

National Organization for Marriage Condemns the Redefinition of Marriage in Minnesota, Says Citizens Were Warned

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 9, 2013
Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)


"Minnesota voters should be outraged that they were sold a bill of goods by gay marriage activists last November." — Brian Brown, NOM president —

National Organization for Marriage

Washington, D.C. — Only six months after gay marriage activists promised Minnesotans that there was no threat to marriage in Minnesota, today's passage of a bill to redefine marriage reveals that proponents of last November's failed Marriage Protection Amendment were telling the truth all along.

"Minnesota voters should be outraged that they were sold a bill of goods by gay marriage activists last November," Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage, commented. "Our opponents filled the airwaves and spent millions claiming marriage was under no threat in Minnesota. And yet they lost no time in pushing for the redefinition of marriage as soon as our marriage protection amendment failed, despite new polling that shows a majority of Minnesotans oppose redefining marriage. We have long argued there is a very grave threat to marriage and today we witnessed our predictions sadly confirmed."

Brown continued: "The recent actions in Minnesota should serve as a wakeup call to other states that have not yet passed Marriage Protection Amendments: if you do not protect marriage proactively in your constitution, the powerful and wealthy gay marriage lobby will target your state for their next campaign to change your laws."

Brown added: "The new legislation in Minnesota will expose pro-marriage Minnesotans to additional legal action and harassment, as we have seen happen time and time again in other states that have redefined marriage."

Brown concluded: "The National Organization for Marriage commends all of the individuals and groups in Minnesota who have worked so hard for so long to protect marriage. This fight is not over. Minnesota will someday, once again, reflect the truth about marriage in its laws, of that we are confident."

###

To schedule an interview with Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, please contact Elizabeth Ray (x130), eray@crcpublicrelations.com, or Jen Campbell (x145), jcampbell@crcpublicrelations.com, at 703-683-5004.

Paid for by The National Organization for Marriage, Brian Brown, president. 2029 K Street NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006, not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. New § 68A.405(1)(f) & (h).

85 Comments

  1. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

    NOM's opposition never lied. Marriage is as safe today in Minnesota (actually even more so) than it was 3 hours ago. It was NOM that, in panic, claimed that marriage was under attack. Minnesota, and 11 other states just don't buy this anymore. In fact (and you know this to be true), America doesn't buy this anymore. Your negative scare tactics and lies are hurting you but you just keep at it.

  2. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:27 pm | Permalink

    Those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. Case in point; MN. Poor saps.

  3. FemEagle
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:33 pm | Permalink

    No, Richard, the public is getting a good look at what happens when a socialist President is elected and when his leftist minions are in the majority in state governments. That will be remembered in 2014. And at any rate, states that have safely made gay "marriage" illegal in their constitutions are safe, and that is the vast majority of states. The gay "marriage" train will soon be derailed. Time to buy the popcorn.

  4. flanoggin
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm | Permalink

    @Richard----thank you.....well said

  5. Will Fisher
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:46 pm | Permalink

    People already had a chance to vote out their 'socialist' prez and instead reelected him. And those state constitutional amendments are still subject to judicial review at the federal level (SCOTUS in june) or repeal by the same voters who put them in place to begin with. See ya in Oregon 2014.

  6. CRSmith
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

    FemEagle, I would like to hear more from you or NOM about what you are saying. It is so hard to get accurate information about this. Every time I turn around it seems like I hear there is another state accepting gay marriage. I can't believe that DECENT people continue to cater to the gays again and again on this. Won't the Supreme Court put a stop to this dirty business once and for all?

    I appreciate hearing your thoughts. Some of the other people who post on here are just plain filthy with the things they write. It's not decent, and I just skip over it. Thank you.

  7. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

    CRSmith, yes, there are those who post filth on this site and I am glad that you see this, too even though you do not support us. SCOTUS will not give you what you want next month. Decent people are speaking out and they won't tell you what you want to hear. And if ever there was truth to a statement, it is that you will never get an accurate account from NOM nor FemEagle.

  8. zack
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

    One should not expect anything less from yhe DNC. The useful idiots are the real losers here.

  9. Posted May 9, 2013 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

    FemEagle: Can you explain to me about Socialism and why you believe the President to be a socialist? I get confused sometimes and would love to know the real reasoning behind calling the president a socialist.

    thanks

  10. Posted May 9, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    By the way.....YAY Minnesota!

  11. Zack
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    @Seth

    "Can you explain to me about Socialism and why you believe the President to be a socialist?"

    Rather explain how he isn't. The man believes in Liberation Theology, redistribution of wealth, collective salvation as well as social justice; all of which are quite among the socialist countries. On top of that he has grossly expanded the size and scope of government, raised the death tax to 55%, instituted his travesty of healthcare legislation which raises taxes over 650 billion dollars on middle income earners and embraces the failure of multiculturalism.

  12. Apollonia
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

    @ Zack

    The Wall Street prosper under his prsidency, he uses the forces of the military to kill people around the world, ... you have never seen or heard a socialist if you realy beleave such stupidity..
    Jesus was a real socialsit in all his teaching.
    That`s why NOM and its flok would be handled as the pharisees of the 21st century.

  13. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    Zack, you believe in a non-existent entity that, despite no evidence to its presence, establishes law, is the only leader to be revered, chooses whom to like or not and has no established gender. I'll take a solid, visible, democratically elected, gender specific, educated role model willingly subject to a Constitution and set of civil laws over your figment of imagination any day.

  14. OldKingBlog
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    " you believe in a non-existent entity that, despite no evidence to its presence, establishes law, is the only leader to be revered, chooses whom to like or not and has no established..." Having problems with sexual self-control again, lil richie? Everyone knows this is the REAL reason why you and your side don't believe in God...

  15. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:05 pm | Permalink

    Gee, OKBarcolounger, another stroke of genius. Your witticisms are breathtaking.

  16. Richard
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    Can't close out this wonderful night of Minnesota equality without a shout-out to Kelly Yanta the voice of the Minnesota Marriage Moment. Remember her everyone? Sorry Kelly, as cute as you are, your message was bogus. So what are you doing now?

  17. Ken
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm | Permalink

    In the United States, all political terms are meaningless epithets. If someone calls Obama a [political term], it means nothing more and nothing less than "I don't like Obama."

  18. AFOJesus
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 10:56 pm | Permalink

    “And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22, NLT)

  19. Frank
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Same is true of that bogus phrase "judicial activists." It means "judges who make decisions I don't like."

  20. FemEagle
    Posted May 9, 2013 at 11:44 pm | Permalink

    Actually, "judicial activists" means "judges who make decisions only the citizens should make". Which is why in 2010, Iowans booted out 3 judges who ruled in favor of gay "marriage". It is indeed supposed to be "we the people, not we the courts".

    As for SCOTUS, hate to rain on your gay pride (?) parade, but the judges won't give out a sweeping ruling legalizing SSM. It's quite likely it will uphold Prop 8 - after all, if the votes in Maryland etc are valid, then so are the votes in California, which is something the poor widdle victimized gays should believe in - if they really cared about what's fair.

    Bottom line, the vast majority of this country still doesn't believe in or support gay "marriage" - 38 states' worth. The right side is still winning the war.

  21. Zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:06 am | Permalink

    "you believe in a non-existent entity that, despite no evidence to its presence,"

    There's no evidence to disprove the existence of God. Actually, all attempts to disprove Him make the likelihood of His existence higher.

    " I'll take a solid, visible, democratically elected, gender specific, educated role model willingly subject to a"

    To trust man to make moral judgments is to invite tragedy upon man as is all to obvious with the Gosnell trial.

    " Constitution and set of civil laws over your figment of imagination any day."

    All of which influenced by God and the Bible.

  22. Zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:07 am | Permalink

    typo: attempts to disprove him have made the likelihood of His existence Higher.*

  23. Bobby
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:18 am | Permalink

    Zack - The Lord is mystery. His ways are not ours.

  24. Bobby
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 12:20 am | Permalink

    FemEagle - As a trader I can only say the trend is your friend - 3 states in a very short time. Even if Prop 8 is upheld, a new vote would bring equality to CA. Look at the results 2000 (61-39) vs 2008 (52-48).

  25. Posted May 10, 2013 at 1:08 am | Permalink

    What a sad day for MN and for the US.

    Many Americans hate to face how many profound psychological problems they have in the area of sexuality and relationships, especially anything that relates to homosexuality.

  26. zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 2:13 am | Permalink

    Precisely bobby, you claim to know better than God. Every society that has thought the same thing notice is no longer in existence.

  27. FemEagle
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 4:12 am | Permalink

    Bobby, the "trend" is only happening in the blue states, which are ruled by a pandering party with no principles whatsover. That's part of the great Democrat legacy. Dems will support anyone or anything that will give them a vote. After all, in the 1800's, when it looked like supporting slavery would earn them more votes, the Dems supported slavery. The Ku Klux Klan originated in the Democrat party. The Dems have always been the real oppressors. That's why they don't want the people to have a vote regarding gay "marriage". They want to rule the people, rather than the other way around. Well, gay "marriage" will make no headway in the red states. I can promise you that.

  28. Bobby
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 6:23 am | Permalink

    Zack - I don't claim to know better than God. I just don't claim to know all that he wants of this world.

  29. Richard
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:24 am | Permalink

    The beauty and power that lies within our Constitution and Bill of Rights is first, and foremost, that they were written by man. Anyone in this country is fully free to dismiss as bogus any attempt to attach said documents to an entity of whom no one has ever met or had contact. The usual suspect as a reference is the bible: man written, rewritten, reanalyzed, reduced to represent someone's idea of justice (usually injustice) and translated to fit a variety of languages and word meanings. No thanks, the rights and responsibilities I have in this country come to me from a brilliant set of man-made documents. Therein lies my faith.

  30. Richard
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    And my faith in this country and mankind happens every time a vote of the people and/or its representatives affirms the inherent justice and equality that is to be granted to everyone. It's nice to see these votes happening more frequently with Minnesota the most recent.

  31. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    This is all part of a charade; an attempt to sway SCOTUS while simultaneously trying to hedge their bets in case of a unfavorable SCOTUS opinion that sends the message that opposition to sexual depravity is constitutionally permissable.

    This is what tyranny looks like folks.

  32. Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:08 am | Permalink

    Oh Brian: When will you learn that marriage equality is not a threat, but a welcome addition to the sad and tired and failing institution called marriage. Adding loving and committed couples to a flagging institution shores up that institution. Divorce tears down marriage and poses a threat to marriage, perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on divorce instead.

  33. FemEagle
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    "Sad, tired and failing"? Oh, because of the current divorce rate ? I suppose you're unaware that the two "women" who started all the fuss in New York and who got "married" after it was legalized, have already divorced? And hey, look at this! Seems that "marriages" that occur between lesbians often in in divorce, according to studies in Norway and Sweden: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/lesbian-divorce-shocker/ So yeah, letting perverts marry is hardly going to help the institution of marriage. Duh.

  34. Posted May 10, 2013 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

    Great pointer, FemEagle!

    And as if on cue...

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10350972-poster-couple-for-gay-rights-in-california-is-divorcing

    Heh, it was all a political show!

  35. Posted May 10, 2013 at 4:53 pm | Permalink

    The one on the left looks just Madame Mim of Disney's The Sword and the Stone!

  36. Posted May 10, 2013 at 4:59 pm | Permalink

    From the Sweedish study:

    Moxness (1993), a Norwegian sociologist, has
    argued that homosexual marriage has become legalized not so much because homosexuality has become more accepted, but because marriage has become an increasingly empty institution and no longer is seen as a mandatory entrance to adult life, sexual life, and parenthood.

    And I would add that all forms of perverted and perverse sexuality also continue to be increasingly normalized and instituted as acceptable and legitimate.

    The two go hand in hand.

  37. Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Another interesting thing in this study: a considerable number of male civil unions involved great disparity between the two men in question: age, nationality, education, and income.

    Sounds like a mail order homosexual pig bride trend to me.

    Not born this way, perverted this way after birth.

    ........................;;;
    Also, the study points to several other DIFFERENCES between homosexual couples and heterosexual marriages.

    As with every other country I've ever seen numbers for, in Sweeden and Norway, most homosexuals avoided marriage like the plague.

    The divorce rates are much higher and "marrying" age is also much higher.

    Not born this way.

  38. zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Bobby it's abundantly clear what the Lord demands of us.

  39. zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

    To think than man is capable of discerning right from wrong when left to his own devices is dangerous. Mankind is incapable of making such judgement. As such we derive our laws and morals from a central tenet. The Founders were indeed brilliant, because understanding our rights come from God is still the newest and most unique idea.

  40. peter
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

    Which god, sack?

  41. Richard
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 6:59 pm | Permalink

    Zack your theocratic ideas are a danger. Your ideas must have no place in a democratic republic. I and millions like me will not never succumb to the idea that an unknown entity, never actually revealed, interviewed, challenged in a political arena and voted upon should attain any status of legal integrity in The United States of America. I have absolute faith in humanity; that you believe mankind, based upon its own intellect and moral development is incapable of reason and equality and is reflective of both a limited Imagination and a brazen sense that we can't take care of ourselves. How archaic.

  42. zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 7:59 pm | Permalink

    Richard, you suffer from paranoia. I am not religious. I believe in God and that God created us in His image and that our rights are granted by Him and not man. Mankind is incapable of moral judgements as history has shown us. You take God out of the picture, you can argue for anything. Mankind is flawed and thusly, incapable of making correct judgement without a central moral tenet.

    Again, history proves this.

  43. zack
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

    Everytime a man has come forward claiming to know better than God, it has lead to tragdedy after tradgedy.

  44. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 8:39 pm | Permalink

    Marriage corruption supporters are looking for revenge for being born.

  45. Richard
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Zack, again, you are limited and servile to the notion that mankind cannot effect moral development and social justice without the input of a non-entity. Believe what you will but I will never succumb to the notion that this nation and its citizens are not fully capable, through trial and error, to advance civility and reason. Every time man and civilizations have come forward pretending to have a god on their side we are left with tragedy, extreme hate, Crusades and terrorism. No thank you Zack.

  46. Ken
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 9:47 pm | Permalink

    I want to go on record that I support heterosexual marriage. I think it should be preserved and protected. However, preventing gay people from marrying does not preserve or protect heterosexual marriage at all. No one gets a divorce because gay people can marry. No one calls off their wedding because gay people can marry. No one neglects their children because gay people can marry. Even Tea Partiers in New Hampshire said it had no effect on their marriages.

  47. Randy E King
    Posted May 10, 2013 at 11:34 pm | Permalink

    Changing the meaning of marriage prevents right minded folks from marrying.

  48. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:49 am | Permalink

    Ken->...preventing gay people from marrying does not preserve or protect heterosexual marriage at all.

    -----
    How far in the future did you look?

  49. bman
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:54 am | Permalink

    If SSm law harms marriage rates between men and women within a generation, how fast can you repair the damage?

    For that matter, could you repair the damage?

  50. Chris
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 8:04 am | Permalink

    Randy-

    How many people are going to decide to not get married because gay people can get married?

  51. Randy E King
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 9:14 am | Permalink

    Chris,

    Changing the meaning of marriage changes what marriage has always been. If marriage Is no longer what it is than you have effectively denied everyone the ability.

  52. Chairm
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Marriage law is for marriage. SSM is for non-marriage.

    When the SSM idea is imposed, it serves as the specious substitution for the marriage idea.

    Marriage law is justly drawn closely to the marriage idea; the SSM imposition draws the law farther from marriage than no-fault divorce has already. Indeed, it sets the Law and the Government against the marriage idea. This imposition is intended to set the culture against the marriage idea by entrenching the non-marital trends.

    SSMers routinely rely on non-marital trends to make their claim that SSM is more plausible where such trends are already well-established. An example of this is found in an earlier comment in this very discussion in which an SSMer cited the divorce trend as a supposed diversion from the unjustness of the SSM imposition.

  53. zack
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    @Richard

    Obam put faith in doctors to do the right thing and make moral judgment. Then we have Gosnell who is the rule when it comes to man making his own moral judgments, not the exception. Sencond, the Crusades were a holy war for the future of Jerusulem, the homeland of the Jews. Hardly an act of evil.

    No one has ever committed genocide in the name of God, but every Godless society has committed genocide(Cambodia, Rwanda, Germany, Russia, China, Japan etc).

    Your attempt to revise history again falls flat. God and the Bible have civilized man. Even world renowned athiest Richard Dawkins acknowledges this fact.

  54. zack
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Typo:make correct moral judgment*

  55. Richard
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    Zack, I am in total disagreement with your theories. Your idea of a god and the Bible have done nothing but spread hate, subjugation and persecution of whole segments of the population not to mention gays throughout history. You choose to ignore the many calls to condemn and vilify otherwise decent honorable people's. the Crusades ( you call a holy war!!) were nothing but an attempt to spread Christianity through the Muslim world and cost millions the loss of life. Our laws and civil codes are our guiding principles of morality and are designed to lead us to a destiny of equality, freedom and accomplishment. Think about this: anyone you consider amoral is then, in your estimation, a failure of your god and your bible's teachings. Our man made laws are there to move in and correct these failings.

  56. Richard
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:22 pm | Permalink

    BTW, sounds like NOM has conceded that Minnesota will have gay marriage even with a Senate vote on Monday and signature by the Governor.

  57. Jacqueline
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    FernEagle #3 - Well said. Thank you.

  58. zack
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:56 pm | Permalink

    This back and forth is tiresome. It's obvious you fail to recognize that man is flawed. I have one question; if you saw a group of men walking towards you. Would you rather they had just come from a bible study or prison?

  59. zack
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

    And my "theories" are proven history.

  60. zack
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    And "millions" of lives weren't lost. Maybe 10's of thousands but not millions.

  61. Jacqueline
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm | Permalink

    This statement is the epitome of hypocrisy:

    "There are kids being raised by grandparents, single parents, two moms or two dads," said Rep. Laurie Halverson, a Democrat from the Twin Cities suburbs. "Some of those folks are my friends. And we talk about the same things as parents. We talk about large piles of laundry, and how much it hurts to step on a Lego. That's what we do, because we're all families." ~Star Tribune May 9, 2013

    She has the nerve to try and make it seem like homosexuals, single parents, and grandparents are all alike and normal. But I don't see grandparents and single parents demanding federal government benefits like married couples get because of their love and commitment to their families. And these grandparents and single parents pay taxes, too.

    Ohhhh…Uh-oh, be careful homosexuals and dems--don't hurt yourselves... I know that you all cannot even imagine this concept, so don't blow a fuse! Ok! Easy…eeeasyy… now...breathe...breathe...I know you don't understand, but it'll be ok. See, there you go!!

    Obviously, some of those very people she's trying to lump homosexuality in with as normal don't get federal government benefits like married couples do for their normal, natural love for their families, nor are they trying to. Yet, the hypocrisy of her trying to use them, some of which are friends, as a way of trying to normalize homosexual lifestyle/behaviors smacks of the epitome of hypocrisy. Surely you can see that. If she truly cared, she’d be trying to get federal benefits for them, too, since “some of those folks” as she put it, are her friends. Or at the very least want that for them. But it’s all propaganda—just a play on words to hit psychological triggers that are important to people in general. Just downplay the perversion, and try and make the commonalities stand out.

    Better yet, if she or any of her ilks really cared she and all those advocating for so called marriage equality would do like the rest of us, and take care our families as best we can, and not ask for special rights. That’s what the rest of do.

    Rep. Halverson is just a user, just like most homosexuals, homosexual activists and democrats. And clearly, they don't care whom they have to use to get what they want.

    How desperate and pathetic.

  62. Richard
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

    Zack, oh I believe man is flawed, just look at your posts. But the difference between you and me is that you have no faith that mankind can police itself through its constitutional and civil laws. I, on the other hand, have complete faith that mankind will continue to evolve to a better world of equality and justice through its wn power and laws. The world of religion you inhabit would make me fear the bible study group. Their tenants are riddled with hurt and hate. Men out of prison are free and, by nature, perhaps more respectful of the laws of man. You have no faith in man; I will not succumb to that. What a horrible life you must lead.

  63. Richard
    Posted May 11, 2013 at 11:10 pm | Permalink

    Jacqueline, calm down girl. Your triggers have been hit pretty hard, seems to me. Get a grip.

  64. zack
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    Richard...your lack of understanding of history, the world, mans flaws and morality...it astounds me. Worse yet you believe a Christian is to be feared more than a convicted criminal. Such moral bankruptcy and relativism.

    That's intellectually dangerous. You are someone you must be resisted.

  65. zack
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Typo: who*

  66. zack
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 12:49 pm | Permalink

    I live a very good and happy life. I'm in the military, I work a day job, and I go to school. I own my own car and pay my own taxes. I have God to thank for it all, i thank God that i live in a country founded on His teachings for it is only in this country that i could do it.

    God Bless America even in these troubling times.

    it has nothing to do with not having faith in man, but weather man has faith in God and the ability to do good by Him.

    That obviously bothers you. but I don't argue from emotion like you do richard.

  67. zack
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Whether*

  68. Ken
    Posted May 12, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    Randy, you could make the opposite argument. *Banning* gay marriage has already prevented heterosexuals from marrying. Here are a few, all celebrities so you can verify them. In addition, many young people are opting for cohabitation, because heterosexuals-only marriage is elitist to them.

    Charlize Theron
    Natalie Portman
    Jason Mraz
    Howard Stern
    Jodie Sweetin
    Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie (got engaged)

    bman, I can look into the future about as well as you can. If there is damage, how would I fix it? With counseling. You should keep your eyes on your own marriage and not be jealous of others.

  69. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    Ken->bman, I can look into the future about as well as you can.

    Don't you mean you can predict the future "better" than I can?

    After all, you said SSM does not harm heterosexual marriage.

    How far into the future do you say that applies?

    "If there is damage, how would I fix it? With counseling.

    So, if marriage declines to 10% after 30 years of SSM law, what will you say to an entire society to persuade them to return to the much higher rates of, say, the 1940's?

    And, given your "ability" to predict the future, how do you know your counseling method will work?

  70. bman
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Also, how far would you let marriage rates drop before you step in to save marriage?

  71. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    bman, I said SSM does not harm heterosexual marriage. I did not say SSM will not harm heterosexual marriage, though I think I'd say that, too. My reason is that the people who marry the same sex and the people who marry the opposite sex are overwhelmingly different people. I'm sure that the legalization of gay marriage hasn't given you the sudden urge to divorce your wife and marry your fishing buddy; I'm sure that's true for a lot of guys.

    In states and countries where gay marriage is legal, heterosexual marriage has not been harmed. One possible exception next.

  72. Ken
    Posted May 13, 2013 at 7:26 pm | Permalink

    In France, before gay marriage, the government decided to institute civil unions for gay people, but they were also open to heterosexuals. The heterosexual marriage rate plummeted, because young heterosexuals found it easier to get civil unions than to get married.

    The number of heterosexuals getting into a legally defined relationship of one type or the other remained the same.

  73. bman
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

    Ken->bman, I said SSM does not harm heterosexual marriage. I did not say SSM will not harm heterosexual marriage, though I think I'd say that, too.

    So, you go about saying "SSm does not harm marriage," but whether or not "SSM will harm marriage" is not even being addressed?

    We got into this discussion because you said, "...preventing gay people from marrying does not preserve or protect heterosexual marriage at all."

    Are you claiming that statement had nothing to do with the future of heterosexual marriage?

    What about your use of the word "preserve?"

    Doesn't that imply the future?

    After all, how can you "preserve" something unless you are preserving it for the future?

  74. Onlycmeonce
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 2:38 pm | Permalink

    I think a lot of ppl are confused about socialism lol. Country has moving in that direction for awhile. In 2008 we nationalized the banks and the government owns big portions of larg corporations all threw out America. The Bush administration set alot of this is place after all it was his secretary or treasury that set it into place. I just wish the Supreme Court hurried up on its ruling so we can get past this and fix the important things like our 2 useless wars. The fact that nom didn't see a shift like this coming is hilarious bit ehhh u think you still got a fight in this then go ahead

  75. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    bman. Whatever. I'm just trying to be open and fair.

    In any given country or state, after SSM has been legal for a year or so, it becomes a ho-hum issue.

  76. bman
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Ken->bman. Whatever....

    You are avoiding cross examination by avoiding the questions I asked.

  77. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:02 pm | Permalink

    Okay bman, I see your point. I'll answer the questions.

    SSM does not harm heterosexual marriage. Will it in the future? I can't answer that yet, because I don't have future data, but based on what has happened so far, I don't think it will

    The Netherlands has had gay marriage for 12 years without ill effect..

  78. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Suppose I want to know if putting cherries in a can will preserve them in the future. I open a can of cherries that were canned two years ago. If those cherries are good, then canning the cherries in a can will probably preserve them. If cherries that have been a can are in the same condition as cherries that have been out in the open for the same time, then canning the cherries doesn't preserve them. (1/2)

  79. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:19 pm | Permalink

    States that allow gay marriage have lower divorce rates than states that ban it. Therefore gay marriage has no effect on traditional marriage (2/2)

  80. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Most people in traditional marriages don't even know anyone in a gay marriage, or if they do, they probably just ignore them. You can't be influenced by someone you have nothing to do with. That's probably why gay marriages and traditional marriages have no effect on each other.

  81. Ken
    Posted May 14, 2013 at 8:26 pm | Permalink

    My parents were in a tradition marriage that lasted over 60 years until they died. Once they were invited to a party and discovered that the people in the neighborhood had an alternative type of marriage: they were swingers. My parents left immediately and came home. It had no effect on their marriage at all, even though they didn't shun the neighbors afterwards.

  82. bman
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    Ken, I am trying to cross-examine your statement, "I [Ken]did not say SSM will not harm heterosexual marriage.."

    I view that statement as effectively false.

    If you answer my previous question about the word "preserve" I think it would show why your above statement was effectively false.

  83. bman
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 1:00 pm | Permalink

    A. "...preventing gay people from marrying does not preserve...heterosexual marriage at all."

    B. I [Ken] did say SSM will not harm heterosexual marriage.."

    C. I [Ken] <i<did not say SSM will not harm heterosexual marriage..]

    Compared to A, is the "did" in B correct, or the "did not" in C?

    I am saying the "did" in B is effectively correct.

  84. bman
    Posted May 15, 2013 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    Ken->The Netherlands has had gay marriage for 12 years without ill effect..

    What do you based that claim on?

  85. bman
    Posted May 21, 2013 at 5:18 am | Permalink

    Ken->In the United States, all political terms are meaningless epithets. If someone calls Obama a [political term], it means nothing more and nothing less than "I don't like Obama."

    -----
    Or, it can mean they have a rational objection to some action that was taken.

    Odd how you missed that option!

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.