The suggestion of violence (if this account is true) is abhorrent, especially from a man of the cloth. But should the people of Minnesota be deprived of the right to vote because somebody in the state legislature did not vet a so-called pastor?
MN Star Tribune: Prayer Controversy Jeopardizes Marriage Amendment Vote
May 21, 2011 at 10:56 am
- Categories
- Adoption
- Africa
- Alerts
- Australia
- Canada
- Catholic Church
- Children
- Civil Unions
- Civility
- Cohabitation
- Congress
- Corporate Ethics
- Culture
- Divorce
- DOMA
- Dump Starbucks
- Economics
- Education
- Election 2010
- Election Watch 2012
- Ethics
- Europe
- Events
- France
- Free Speech
- GOProud
- Human Rights Campaign
- Humor
- IRS
- Law
- Let The People Vote
- Manhattan Declaration
- Marriage
- Marriage Election Watch
- Marriage Moment
- Marriage Update
- Marriage Victory
- MarriageADA
- Media
- Mexico
- Mitt Romney
- News
- NOM Marriage News
- NOM on Facebook
- Parenting
- Pedophilia
- Politics
- Poll
- Polling
- Polygamy
- President Obama
- Press Releases
- Prop 8
- Religious Liberty
- Research/Study
- Ruth Institute
- Same Sex Marriage
- Science
- South America
- States
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Texas
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- Washington DC
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
- Statistics
- Supreme Court
- United for Marriage
- United Kingdom
- Youth
- Archives
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
23 Comments
According to Minnesota Family Council's Facebook page, amendment supporters are being pushed and shoved by anti-amendment protesters. Isn't that lovely? If you live in the Twin Cities get down to the Capitol...they need your help!
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Minnesota-Family-Council/50717491726
The majority is not now nor has it ever been authorized to vote on the rights of minorities.
Sounded like a nice prayer to me, all I've read about it was pretty bland. Are they upset because of some previous comment he made or because he mentioned Jesus' name?
If everyone was so upset right after he finished the prayer, they must have known who he was before he started. Why did they let him say it? Did they not know who he was until right after he said "Amen"? I don't know, sounds odd.
Chris, indiscriminate marriage has never been a right. You and I have exactly the same rights. Did you want special rights?
Chris, you are confused.
The majority always defends the PROPER rights of the minorities. Without the majority's approval, minorities don't even get defined as legal minorities. It happened in the abolition of slavery - Christians in England stood up against it - the minority on itself, by definition, has no political power (or they wouldn't be a minority). It later spread to the USA.
But not everyone who jumps up and down saying "i am a minority with Rights" is actually a legal minority. That would cause an avalanche of silly claims.
Where's USA's freedom of religion? If there's to be a prayer starting a day at a Legislature, why don't they prescribe exactly what religions can pray and which religions cannot?
The fact that they didn't like the prayer shows censorship - now there's a certain kind of prayer that's allowed at MN Legislature. But if that's the case, then they should write down the limits of what a prayer can contain.
Why can't each legislator pray on his own, or permit a time at the beginning of each day session to let people who REALLY believe in prayer, do so, in small groups?
Otherwise, don't call it prayer - call it pep talk, or something else. Which prayers of which religions are politically incorrect at a session opener of the MN Legislature?
I read the story, but didn't actually listen to the prayer. That said...
If Obama is setting himself dead against Christian values, then Christians need to let people know that he is not championing Christian values. That has nothing to do with hate and everything to do with preventing confusion.
I do not support any laws that would jail homosexuals for no other reason than engaging in homosexual behavior, unless they are engaging in public to such an extent that a heterosexual couple in the same act would be arrested on public decency laws.
Looks like the homosexuals are up to their thug tactics again. Doing everything they can to try to prevent the lawfull vote of the people.
The prayer is, ultimately not the issue. If you read the article, the citizens of Minnesota overwhelmingly don't want this amendment and the citizens of the United States now support Marriage Equality 54% to 43%. Keep calling for a vote on citizen's rights; you'll get it one day and you won't like it.
There are no accidents in politics. Some questions about how this person came to be invited are in order.
Amazing. No one here except Chris condemns this prayer. Note that most every legislator seems to have. Note that he is virulently anti-homosexuals. Note that Michelle Bachmann raises money for him.
There is no shame in NOM stalwarts, none at all. Note how they post (if this is true)...well, darnit, if the Speaker of the House is visibly upset, dontcha think it is true.?
And please explain where Pres. Obama " is setting himself dead against Christian values, then Christians need to let people know that he is not championing Christian values."
do tell and enlighten us heathens.
"Obama is setting himself dead against Christian values, then Christians need to let people know that he is not championing Christian values."
Where exactly is this happening?
How can NOM say this story (if true....).....if the Republican Speaker of the House is visibly shaken and offers a wholesome apology, you might kinda think it is true?
Glad Chris can show common sense!!!
cheers!
House's debate It's right now in Internet video at:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/mnhouse.asx
Omg, he calls the amendment social engineering, and compares it to prohibition. Doesn't engineering involve changing something? This amendment merely formalizes that which has always been the case in Minnesota.
Thanks for letting us know this was being debated online, Little Man!
Listening to the dems talk about handicaps, race, but nobody is talking about homosexuals. IT's all emotion, but no substance.
At Minnesota House debate on Marriage definition Amendment to their Constitution. Debate consists on Opposition is seen to try to waste time with emotional baggage. Supporters try not to waste time, because the Legislative session is about to end:
They have arguments missing the point of the Bill, which puts a current law on the ballot - takes a risk for the sake of the voters. Opponents claim polls show the MN population don't want to vote on the Amendment, yet refuse to vote to put it on the ballot.
The opposition has, generally, 4 forms of argument, all irrelevant:
a) argument by analogy (an analogy explains by similarity, but doesn't prove anything.
b) argument by trends (like saying, what will people say of you 200 years from now.... who cares?)
c) argument by sympathy (forget couples of homosexual behavior claim to be "different", but want to be treated "equally")
d) argument by civil rights (couples of homosexual behavior have a right to get their legislators to assign benefits to their partnership, according to the government's interest in their particular type of friendship)
It shows how most of the legislators think, by emotional constructions, ignoring pure logic.
I can't forget how the guy/Pastor who led that "prayer" before the MN House of Reps. didn't actually do a lot of praying, but went into a personal speech telling the House to go back to beliefs 100 years ago.
The right to speak to the Legislature is a great privilege and not a license to give a speech. So, i think the Speaker should have pushed a button and cut of his microphone as soon as the inappropriate speech was evident. Obviously, if he was out of order, there should be an emergency procedure to cut him off. That Pastor took the opportunity to "preach", not to "pray", and then he says "i just did a prayer..."
Bad energy. It's NOT about freedom of religion as i wrote before, but about following procedure. A loophole. Now the loophole can be closed.
Marriage Amendment passed 70-62 !
Amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution will be put on the ballot. Debate was one-sided (no debate), and there were no truly logical arguments put against it - all kinds of analogies were made for an opposition motivated by sympathy, though same-gender couples fall into a different category. But what about the rights of the voters to decide the issue, if they have to live with it?
Many Legislators said Minnesotans couldn't be trusted to be civil and vote accordingly. Well, can Legislators be trusted to be civil? Many Legislators didn't feel good passing the power to the voters. They wanted to keep the power to decide things for Minnesotans.
In USA, sometimes the laws are not made by Legislators, specially when support for the Constitutional marriage amendment is so great. It showed lots of people are just beginning to inform themselves on the civil side of this issue.
Opposition tried every trick in the book, from begging, to accusations. They were not persuasive, because most talked out of confusion.
I see the house passed the bill; and I don't believe that a governor can veto this, so it's vote time in 2012.
Here's an interesting document on sex education that was discussed at the Minnesota School Health Education Conference. No wonder they want a Constitutional Amendment. Scary stuff:
http://www.mfc.org/site/DocServer/BirdsandBees09.pdf?docID=323
No amount of "pushing and shoving" can compare to the daily trampling on the rights, lives, families and psyches of gay Americans done by NOM. I don't know why all of a sudden traditional marriage advocates are shocked by the comments of a Bradlee Dean. The comments of Gallagher or Brown are just as despicable, the same rhetoric as Rev. Fred Phelps without the tacky signs.
NOM is not a pro-family organization. It is anti-family, attempting to destroy families with gay members. Gay people are not some race of fanatics hell bent on destroying tradition. They are human beings, who want to be a part of those traditions. NOM denies their basic humanity. Gallagher has complained about being compared to the Klan. How are the lies NOM tells against gays any different from the lies the Klan told about Jews and blacks?
Please, tell me. My email is legit.
Wow, MIke, the people promoting this kind of sexualization of children should be considered child predators and put on a watch-list. This material is truly perverted. Let kids be kids. They don't need to know this kind of information. They don't need adult perverts to rob them of their innocence.
In order the understand 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?
1 William Blackstone, Commentaries *410.
id. at *35.
John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government § 78 (1690)
Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. ) (1828)
John Bouvier, A Law
Dictionary Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States
105 (1868)
Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45 91885), 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.