Minnesota Nice? Pro-SSM Legislators Get Downright Rude


Minnesotans are nice people. That's why it was especially disheartening to witness the nasty jabs that legislators opposed to the Marriage Amendment hurled at the bill's supporters once it became clear that the Senate was indeed going to pass the bill (as it turned out, in a bi-partisan vote) on to the House.

UpTake Minnesota catalogued many of the accusations that were made during their live coverage of the debate via Twitter:

Sen Dibble: Angry, divisive campaign to denigrate gays will send message to MN schools that it's OK to bully.

Sen Pappas reads letter from German Jew comparing anti-gay marriage amend[ment] to Nazi revok[ing] of citizenship

Sen Harrington: I'm not comfortable using Leviticus to legislate since it also says slavery is OK.

Sen Goodwin: Think about how different Christianity would be if Jesus ask crowd to vote on stoning Mary Magdalene.

Sen. Berglin: At one point law said women were property of men when they got married. She's glad that was not put in [the] Constitution.

So, to review, in the combined opinion of the Senators mentioned above, people who believe Minnesotans should be able to vote on the definition of marriage are pro-bullying, Nazi-inspired, slavery-sympathetic, pro-stoning, anti-woman, and (of course) anti-gay bigots.

None of which is very nice, or at all true.

Will the House debate be a better example of Minnesota Nice? Stay tuned.


  1. Posted May 17, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    Jeff Jacoby makes this observation .

    Pro, con, or undecided, Americans should be able to discuss something as serious as redefining marriage without resorting to slander and ad hominem attacks. There are sincere, compassionate, and thoughtful people on both sides of this issue. How can you tell who they are? They aren't the ones calling people bigots.

  2. Ken
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    I'm sure the majority of Minnesotans (who btw oppose a marriage amendment) do not describe crusading against the rights of your family members and neighbors a "nice" thing to do. They probably see it for the vile act of bigotry that it is.

  3. John Noe
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    This shows the desperation of far left democrats and how they have become beholden to special interests and bribe money. As you have noted in previous blogs, Tim Gill's and other wealthy donors bribe money has turned liberal Democrats into puppets.

    The comparisons and red herrings they use have no relevance at all. The amendment was going to once and for all allow the decent citizens of MN to vote on the definition of marriage. Government for the people and by the people means just that. It is we the people(all of us, not only a select few) that decides this issue.
    This is known as states rights and the people using the lawfull means to define marriage in their constitution. What also would be great is having these state senators being ousted in the next election also.

  4. Gothelittle
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

    In that case, Ken, I'm sure the Marriage Amendment will pass with flying colors!

  5. Barb
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 3:36 pm | Permalink

    Single people are an oppressed class. They are treated differently than married people. It's time for the bigots and singlephobes to recognize the rights of single people by allowing them to marry their siblings, uncles, college dorm room mates or any other person with whom they live. Only then will there be equality for single people.

    Don't be H8in' the singles!

  6. John N.
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 5:33 pm | Permalink

    Thank you Barb: As a single person who supports NOM I understand the humor. But to get serious if you use the singles issue properly you can get more single voters on your side and can debunk the SSM advocates.
    The SSM advocates always say what effect will SSM have on your marriage. Singles are ignored. But the singles question goes to the heart of the matter. For years singles were not treated equally and were treated differently. We still are.
    The marriage license and subsequent benefits that married people get was justified as being fair because the state was promoting procreation where we all benefit. But SSM destroys this.
    Do you see any SSM advocate posters like Ken, Richard, Carlos, Zak and others posting that on behalf of being fair to singles we will give up the benefits. Nooooooooo!!!!!! They will gladly knife us in the back
    They scream inequallity yet justify unequal treatment to singles in the first place. I believe if more singles were made aware of this we would get more single voters on our side.
    Read all of my posts carefully. I have raised this issue and none of the pro SSM posters can refute it. They just call me bigoted and hatefull or like Ken just say that I am an ignorant person.

  7. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 5:39 pm | Permalink

    The above quotes are nothing more than quick sound bites promoting the self-victimization that is homosexual identity politics, emotionally provocative and reliant on cheap theatrics and an uninformed, morally adrift public. Fortunately, the thoughtful, patriotic citizens of the country know that marriage isn't a matter of "straight" or "gay," but the union of two opposite-sexed individuals for the common good. The citizens of 30 plus states are wise enough to realize that there is no bigotry in categorizing different relationships, differently. Only the socially irresponsible (to say the least) would demand that every man, woman, and child in our country redefine marriage to suit the private abnormal sexual proclivities of the social "elites."

  8. Ken
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Barb, Stop being so ridiculous. It's about the right to marry, not whether or not someone has exercised that right.

  9. Accept your equality
    Posted May 17, 2011 at 8:54 pm | Permalink

    Both gays & straights, & everything in between, can already marry, according to existing law.

  10. Ken
    Posted May 18, 2011 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Accept: Limiting gays and lesbians to marriage with members of the opposite sex is no more a right than limiting straight people to marriage with members of the same-sex. Read the Iowa decision - they addressed your argument and destroyed it.

  11. Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:47 am | Permalink

    I agree and support everything that was said and quoted there, all of what's said are fair and accurate depictions of the hypocrisy of the anti-marriage crowd

  12. Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:48 am | Permalink

    I mean the anti-marriage equality crowd.

  13. Posted May 23, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Permalink

    I'm sure the majority of Minnesotans (who btw oppose a marriage amendment) do not describe crusading against the rights of your family members and neighbors a "nice" thing to do. They probably see it for the vile act of bigotry that it is.

    So then almost every human who ever lived was a bigot?

    Limiting gays and lesbians to marriage with members of the opposite sex is no more a right than limiting straight people to marriage with members of the same-sex.

    The fundamental right to marry does not encompass "marrying" someone of the same sex.

    In order the understand the nature of a civil right, one must look into the nation's history and tradition for a careful description of that right. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 703 (1997).

    What was the careful description of that right?

    The relationship of “husband and wife” is “founded in nature, but modified by civil society: the one directing man to continue and multiply his species, the other prescribing the manner in which that natural impulse must be confined and regulated.”

    1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.

    “the establishment of marriage in all civilized states is built on this natural obligation of the father to provide for his children

    id. at *35.

    Marriage is “is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman.”

    John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)

    Marriage “was instituted … for the purpose of preventing the
    promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,
    and for securing the maintenance and education of children”

    Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. ) (1828)

    Marriage is a “ contract, made in due form of law, by which a man
    and woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their
    joint lives, and to discharge towards each other the duties imposed by
    law on the relation of husband and wife.”

    John Bouvier, A Law
    Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
    105 (1868)

    “For certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and
    necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit
    to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the Union, than that
    which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as
    consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one
    woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that
    is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guarantee of that
    reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in
    social and political improvement. ”

    Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885), quoted in Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890) and United States v. Bitty , 208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908)

    All emphases added.