NOM BLOG

VICTORY: MN House Passes Marriage Amendment Bill 70-62!

 

Tonight the Minnesota House, by a margin of 70-62, voted in favor of a bill passed last week by the state senate allowing the people of Minnesota to vote on marriage in 2012.

Update: Voting yes were 68 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Voting no were 4 Republicans and 58 Democrats.

Congratulations to everyone, especially those on the ground, who worked to pass this amendment!

78 Comments

  1. Lisa
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:04 am | Permalink

    Yes! The people of Minnesota need to have the final say in this, not judges nor politicians.

  2. alvin m.
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    But it's not over yet. How many lying commercials about "gay recruitment" will be in Minnesota?

  3. Barb
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    Congrats to everyone who worked so hard on this!

  4. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:31 am | Permalink

    Wow. F*** you NOM. Congratulations? How about NO. Thanks for applauding the fact that my rights could be taken away by voters.

  5. TC Matthews
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:38 am | Permalink

    Excellent news!

  6. TC Matthews
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:40 am | Permalink

    Adam, now is your chance to make your case for the people of Minnesota. If you have good reasons to redefine marriage, take it to the people. At least now the people will be able to decide what they want, and if those arguments are good enough.

  7. SC Guy
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:44 am | Permalink

    Yahoo! Now the people of Minnesota need to do the right thing and decide this. 2011 is actually turning out to be quite a good year for those who support traditional marriage!

  8. Chad
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 2:38 am | Permalink

    No it isn't SC Guy--were you asleep when 3 states legalized civil unions, and soon to be 4, in a SINGLE YEAR...that's unprecedented.

    I can't wait to vote on other peoples' marriages. First up--the obese should not be allowed to marry because this poses a CLEAR health risk to children, given that children are exponentially likely to be obese themselves in they have obese parents. Furthermore, children with obese parents are more likely to experience problems at home and be teased in school and have chronic health issues of their own. Sounds like a great argument, and nearly equivalent to NOM's argument against gay marriage.

    Think it sounds ridiculous? Reread your own arguments...

    And not EVERYTHING is a ballot question. You're not asking the voters about taxes or the budget are you? and those directly affect them as well--I guess other issues are too complicated for your little heads to understand.

  9. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 2:47 am | Permalink

    I know if the voters amend hate into our constitution, we will look back on this and be ashamed. Ashamed that a group like NOM was ever allowed to legally spread their hate across the country. You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for being a part of NOM.

  10. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 2:55 am | Permalink

    By the way, i'm 16 years old. And I happen to be gay. How do you feel applauding taking away a 16 year olds rights? NOM's all about "protecting" the children, but what am i? I'm not a child? It's okay to take my rights away because i'm gay? No. It's not okay. and people are slowly, yet surely, realizing this. Your group in the end, will fail.

  11. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 3:43 am | Permalink

    I'm staggered by the narcissism of those promoting homosexual identity politics. To imagine that millions and millions of people, for thousands of years have defined marriage between a man and a woman, just to give offense to a tiny minority of folks sexually attracted to their same sex, is really the height of self-centeredness. If gay people were prohibited from getting married at all, there might be some justification for this "poor me" stuff. But since that's not the case, making SSM, which legally has nothing to do with being gay, and everything to do with gender, is really quite breathtakingly, appallingly egotistical. How anyone can equate giving the distinct relationship between a man and a woman its own distinct definition with hating a particular minority is more an insight into the real source of hate. Self-hate. Frankly, that kind of projection is truly tragic. I don't think anyone with that p.o.v. would know real love if they saw it. Truly, the comments of those clamoring for "equality," when they already have it (while simultaneously rejecting it), testifies of their lack of real understanding.

  12. Andrea
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    Adam wrote: "Thanks for applauding the fact that my rights could be taken away by voters."

    SSM is not a right. Maybe a revendication.

  13. Randy
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:41 am | Permalink

    Adam - Considering you are still 16 years old. I suggest you stay in school until you learn that SSM is not a right in this country.

  14. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    "First up--the obese should not be allowed to marry because this poses a CLEAR health risk to children, given that children are exponentially likely to be obese themselves in they have obese parents. Furthermore, children with obese parents are more likely to experience problems at home and be teased in school and have chronic health issues of their own. "

    Let me know when gays and lesbians start having children through homosexual sex.

    "By the way, i'm 16 years old. And I happen to be gay. How do you feel applauding taking away a 16 year olds rights?"

    We've already done it, Adam. In my state, you aren't allowed to marry at age 16 unless you have your parents' permission.

  15. Andrea
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    Adam, I didn't see you are 16 year old.

    You have the right to live a joyful life, and to fight your battle.

    I've been 16 year old. I learned many further things after having been 16.

    So I know that what seemed to me absolutely obvious when I was 16, now appears to me obviously either wrong, or different, or more or less important.

    I wish you all the best.

  16. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    Let me just address this one more directly.

    "Furthermore, children with obese parents are more likely to experience problems at home and be teased in school and have chronic health issues of their own."

    Chad, the kindest way I can forgive your argument here is to assume utter ignorance on your part. You have just, supposedly seriously, compared the risks of obesity to the risks of being raised without a mother or without a father.

    A child who is overweight may be teased in school. A child without a mother is more likely to be unable to form attachments to other people for his or her entire life. I was teased horribly in school. (Not overweight. Other factors.) School ends. My ability to embrace friends and form bonds to my husband and children have not.

    A child who is overweight is at increased risk for a handful of health problems. A child without a father is more likely to end up in jail after committing a violent crime. A child without a father is more likely to get lower grades and engage in risky sexual behavior (well, if you're pro-SSM, you might not care about that so much).

    It baffles me that you equate teasing and asthma with attachment disorder, STD's, and violent crime.

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

    I'm sorry, I've got a lot to say this morning... but I wanted to add one more piece of advice for Adam:

    Studies show that 90% of adolescents who experience same-sex attraction go on to become perfectly healthy, utterly heterosexual adults. Don't be so sure that you are gay. Give it another 2-4 years, until your body settles down and your currently-malleable sexuality solidifies.

  18. Marty
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 10:44 am | Permalink

    Adam, you have the exact same right -- to vote, to marry -- as every other Minnesotan.

    So quit your whining. Nobody cares.

  19. Marty
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    Well you will anyway, once you grow up a little more.

  20. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 10:53 am | Permalink

    "Adam, you have the exact same right -- to vote, to marry -- as every other Minnesotan.

    So quit your whining. Nobody cares."

    Nobody cares? Wow. I bet you'd care if you were part of the most targeted minority group in the WORLD. You guys think you're protecting marriage but you're only targeting and discriminating against gays.

  21. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    And I do have the right to marry in minnesota. To a girl. But guess what? I DON'T HAVE FEELINGS FOR GIRLS. I shouldn't have to marry a girl because it's "normal." I want to marry the perfect guy in Minnesota and you guys want to push me and every other gay person back into the closet. Well you know what? We're here and we are not gonna just stand idly by anymore.

  22. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 10:58 am | Permalink

    "You have the right to live a joyful life, and to fight your battle."

    I will fight my battle. I will use anything and everything possible to beat this amendment. I know you guys may think ssm is wrong but you wouldn't if you were gay. It feels horrible. I really hope Minnesotans will vote this amendment down and finally extend marriage rights to gays as it is the right thing to do.

  23. Andrea
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    "I bet you'd care if you were part of the most targeted minority group in the WORLD. "

    Yes, christians are the most targeted and discriminated minority in the world.

    In fact, in Canada, USA, Great Britain, not "politically correct - gay-friendly " slaves become targeted citizens, bullied, and often fired just becose they support real marriage as a lifelong commitmente between a man and a woman:

    Damian Goddard
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/canadian-sports-anchor-fired-after-backing-true-marriage

    Peter Vidmar
    http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/sports_globetrotting/2011/05/olympic-champions-naber-mendoza-disagree-womens-sports-foundation.html

    So now, as we always knew, we know that defending marriage means defending our civil liberties.

    And you can bet it, we will do it.

  24. Andrea
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:05 am | Permalink

    Adam wrote: "It feels horrible."

    Why, Adam?

    Can't you see the differences between a man/woman and man/man or woman/woman relationships?

    The differences are there, under your eyes.

    I'm not saying "worse" or "better".

    I'm not saying "right" or "wrong".

    But I say "different". Better: I say "diverse"!

    And you know what?

    I want my diversity to be recognized.

    I'm heterosexual, and I want my diversity to be recognized and respected.

  25. MIke Brooks
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:22 am | Permalink

    Adam -

    You're only 16. Believe it or not, you don't have to go along with your same-sex attraction. Especially at your young age, you can re-orient yourself and live a fulfilling heterosexual life like the vast majority of people do. And you will be one of many (mostly silent) people who have made that choice and never looked back. There are some fabulous women out there who can help you along and make you very happy, unless your so addicted to sausage that you don't want to give it up. That's cool if you are, just don't expect the world to change for you. Come on in, Adam, the water's fine. Peace.

  26. MIke Brooks
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:24 am | Permalink

    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

    (thie is a re-post from the other Minnesota string)

  27. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:28 am | Permalink

    "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

    (thie is a re-post from the other Minnesota string)"

    Wow. I'm pretty sure this has nothing to do with marriage.

  28. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    "I want my diversity to be recognized.

    I'm heterosexual, and I want my diversity to be recognized and respected."

    You want to be recognized? Your relationships are respected! I'm over here fighting for BASIC civil rights for my relationship to be recognized and respected.

  29. Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:33 am | Permalink

    @Adam

    What right's do you lack that others have?

  30. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    @Mantronikk

    I can't serve openly in the military. I can't donate blood. I can't get married to a man. I don't get any of the 1,300+ rights that marriage brings. The federal government won't recognize my relationship in any way, shape, or form. Those are SOME of the rights I lack. Or as you NOM'ers would say, I'm getting treated equally. You just choose to ignore all the rights i'm being denied.

  31. Mark D.
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Permalink

    Please look in the mirror and ask yourselves...Why am I against loving, committed gay couples marring each other?
    From a gay man's perspective:
    I fell in love with another man, and have been living with him for 15 years. We adopted twin boys whom are now 19, and VERY heterosexual. I belive my state should recognize my family in the best legal way possible.
    We are NOT religious, and do not conform to the rules of the bible, but as Americans, we have that right. We work, pay taxes, obey the laws, and are very happy.
    Why do we feel sad and angry ? Because we can't understand WHY it's acceptable for people not to accept us for whom we ARE.

  32. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Permalink

    @mantronikk

    first off, i can't serve in the military openly. i can give blood because i'm gay. i can't legally get married or get any of the 1,300 + benefits that marriage brings and the federal governement refuses to acknowledge my relationship in any legal form. Those are some of the rights I lack. Or as NOM would say, I get treated equally. You can't just choose to ignore the rights i'm being denied.

  33. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 1:27 pm | Permalink

    Adam...

    "first off, i can't serve in the military openly. i can give blood because i'm gay. i can't legally get married or get any of the 1,300 + benefits that marriage brings and the federal governement refuses to acknowledge my relationship in any legal form."

    You can't join the military at age 16.

    You can't give blood at age 16, except in some areas with parental consent.

    You can't get married at age 16, except in some areas with parental consent.

    Again, what rights did you possess previously that are now being taken from you?

  34. Marty
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    "I bet you'd care if you were part of the most targeted minority group in the WORLD. "

    Adam, don't buy into the hype everyone is selling you. Or at least recognize when you're being played.

    I don't consider you a part of the most targeted minority group -- I consider you a red-blooded american male, just like I am.

    Your "orientation" isn't particularly relevant to me (re: Nobody cares), and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Marriage.

  35. Marty
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

    Adam: "I bet you'd care if you were part of the most targeted minority group in the WORLD. "

    Adam, don't buy into the hype everyone is selling you. Or at least recognize when you're being played.

    I don't consider you a part of the most targeted minority group -- I consider you a red-blooded american male, just like I am.

    Your "orientation" isn't particularly relevant to me (re: Nobody cares), and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with Marriage.

  36. afdasf
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    "i can't serve in the military openly."

    Um, DADT was repealed more than 6 months ago.

  37. marriageequality=oneman+onewoman
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:39 pm | Permalink

    Adam~

    Blood from men having sex with men can't be accepted for donation because of the risk of disease. That has nothing to do with being "gay," and everything to do with behavior. Two straight men having sex with each other would disqualify their blood as well. You want to donate blood? Don't have sex with another man.

    You can be legally married (once you're an adult). Call your local county court, and ask if a marriage license requires that you show proof of sexual identity. You'll quickly discover that claiming to be "gay" won't prohibit you getting married. If you do decide to be married, you'll be following the same rules for eligibility as everyone else. But if you're feeling ostracized, remember that two siblings can't get married, a parent and child can't get married, and some adults with disabilities can also not get married. Also, remember that those who love multiple partners can't get married either. REmember that the govt. isn't licensing and regulating love, it's licensing and regulating marriage. You can love whomever you choose. Take comfort in the fact that the only thing stopping you from getting married--is YOU! And you can change that.

    You can't serve in the military because you're a child, not because you're gay.

    Perhaps as you grow older and really study the Constitution, you'll also come to know that though the govt. may choose to legalize SSM, it can't "legalize" respect. No amount of legislation can give you that. If you don't respect yourself, you can't count on others respecting you either. Certainly, if you engage in behaviors which are demeaning or degrading, or cost you or others unpleasant consequences, you are guaranteed not to be respected. Again, it's entirely up to you. The gay rights folks would have you believe you're a victim. You're only a victim if you decide to be.

  38. Marty
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

    Adam, your inability to love a woman -- any woman -- simply because she's a woman -- is your own problem. It changes nothing about the meaning and nature and importance of Marriage.

    Being gay isn't stopping you from marrying a nice girl someday. Being Adam is.

  39. Posted May 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

    @Adam

    So it's your CHOICES that have eliminated some of life's options. I know that being gay isn't an overnight choice, but your homosexuality still comes from choicES. You chose to ignore the normal biological compatibility of the human female and all of the abundant examples of romance between men and women, AND the Word of God and have sexual relations with men.

    If I became a heroin addict because of my choices, the military wouldn't accept me either. Nobody chooses to become a heroin addict, but their CHOICES lead them to heroin addiction.

    Also, you can marry one woman at a time, just like I can, so you already have marriage equality. Just like I can't marry my mother/sister/daughter, you can't marry another man. What if I fell in love with my consenting, adult sister and got a vascetomy so we could have sexual relations? Would I have the right to redefine marriage because of my love and personal sacrifices?

  40. John Noe
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 5:40 pm | Permalink

    This is so great for the people of Minnesota finally get to exercise their constitutional right and vote on marriage.
    Get out the vote and need to reward those reps who voted to allow the people to vote when they are up for reelection. Punish those reps who voted to take away your constitutional voting rights.

  41. Mary Ann
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Permalink

    Adam, I hope you seriously don't think you're part of the most targeted minority in the world. Even if I were to agree that people who identify as gay are a minority, I think you need to spend some more time reading about current genocides, brutal regimes, civil wars, and terror attacks around the world.
    You really seem to be feeling sorry for yourself, and in a way that is out of proportion with real injustice around the world.

  42. SC Guy
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Chad said, "No it isn't SC Guy--were you asleep when 3 states legalized civil unions, and soon to be 4, in a SINGLE YEAR...that's unprecedented."

    Interesting, yet sort of backwards logic. I'm fully aware of this sad trend but you must notice that in all 4 of these LEFT-LEANING states (Hawaii, Illinois, Delaware and apparently soon Rhode Island), they opted for civil unions as opposed to gay marriage which is a victory of sort in themselves. You can reassure yoursef if you want but there is absolutely no doubt that gay marriage is far from a certainty, regardless of what unreliable polling has to say on the subject.

  43. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

    On most targeted minority: I once pulled the FBI Hate Crime statistics and made a correlation between them and the U.S. population percentages of the victims. (In other words, if five people out of a population of 25 are victimized, the percentage of victims to victim population is lower than if 3 people out of a population of 5 are victimized. Follow yet?)

    The #1 most victimized minority in the U.S. by population percentage are the Jews.

    Black males make a distant #2, and I do mean distant.

    Gays come in at #3.

    Ironically, the gay activist folk have been known to harass both Jews and blacks.

    Worldwide? The most targeted minority group is definitely the Jews. Entire nations exist with the sole purpose of wiping them out.

    Adam, the world is so much bigger and more complex than you've been taught to believe.

  44. TC Matthews
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Permalink

    "We work, pay taxes, obey the laws, and are very happy. Why do we feel sad and angry ?"

    That says a lot right there. Mark, Do you want society to accept your choices? Then convince them. Don't try to force them by calling them names, abusing the courts or abusing the legislative system. Not all actions are created equal. I don't approve of single motherhood, or many other choices that people make with their lives either. You are welcome to live how you wish, just don't get your knickers in a bundle when other people don't agree with you. You can never force people to accept your choices as good and right.

  45. Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Wow. F*** you NOM. Congratulations? How about NO. Thanks for applauding the fact that my rights could be taken away by voters.

    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.

    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 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)

  46. Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    I bet you'd care if you were part of the most targeted minority group in the WORLD.

    The whole world?

    If the whole world is against gays, gays must be doing something wrong. I wonder what it is.

    I can't serve openly in the military.

    That will soon change.

    I can't donate blood.

    The purpose of blood donation is to save the lives of receipients, not soothe the ego of donors.

    I can't get married to a man.

    No other man in Minnesota can marry a man. As Judge Mary Dufresne explained, until Baker v. Nelson , 191 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971) summarily aff'd 409 U.S. 810 (1972) is overruled or the Minnesota legislature repeals the state DOMA, "same-sex marriage will not exist in this state."

  47. Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

    @ Michael Ejercito

    Your post was brillant. Your heteroJedi skills are strong. Please Google "heteroseparatist."

  48. Chad
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    He Gothelittle: PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. Please please stop comment, you are completely inaccurate and true to NOM fashion, are utterly twisting data to suit your own needs. YOU ARE WRONG about hate crimes statistics, and you did NOT run a correlation (read up on statistical tests, that is NOT a correlation test.)

    Here is a copy and paste directly from the FBI website--nice try on the "Jews are the greatest victim"...they're actually second, and only 1 percentage point ahead of gays...

    An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:

    48.8 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
    18.9 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
    17.8 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.

  49. Kathleen
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Permalink

    He Gothelittle: PLEASE GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT. Please please stop comment, you are completely inaccurate and true to NOM fashion, are utterly twisting data to suit your own needs. YOU ARE WRONG about hate crimes statistics, and you did NOT run a correlation (read up on statistical tests, that is NOT a correlation test.)

    Here is a copy and paste directly from the FBI website--nice try on the "Jews are the greatest victim"...they're actually second, and only 1 percentage point ahead of gays...

    An analysis of data for victims of single-bias hate crime incidents showed that:

    48.8 percent of the victims were targeted because of the offender’s bias against a race.
    18.9 percent were victimized because of a bias against a religious belief.
    17.8 percent were targeted because of a bias against a particular sexual orientation.

  50. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    "Adam, I hope you seriously don't think you're part of the most targeted minority in the world. Even if I were to agree that people who identify as gay are a minority, I think you need to spend some more time reading about current genocides, brutal regimes, civil wars, and terror attacks around the world.
    You really seem to be feeling sorry for yourself, and in a way that is out of proportion with real injustice around the world."

    You don't think gay are targeted? What about the "Kill The Gays" bill in Uganda? There isn't a kill the blacks bill, or kill the women bill, or kill the Jews bill.

  51. Tennis Ace
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    I keep seeing reference to gays being a "tiny minority." Putting aside questions about how many millions of gays there are, I don't think this has any bearing on what is right or wrong. In many places in the world, Christians are a tiny minority. Does that dictate how they should be treated. Is it the height of egotism and self-centeredness for Christians to ask to be treated in a certain way in say, Yemen? No, so let's leave that point out of this. It just suggests that you believe that small groups of people are inherently unworthy of protection. And I would've thought it was the tiny minorities that were in most need of protection!

  52. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

    "Again, what rights did you possess previously that are now being taken from you?"

    What happens in 2 years when i turn 18? huh? I'm still gonna be denied those rights in 2 years.

  53. Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Permalink

    I'm still gonna be denied those rights in 2 years.

    Nobody is denying you the right to marry a woman, a right adult men in Minnesota currently have.

    In two years, there will be no bar against homosexuals in the military.

  54. Carry wood
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:11 pm | Permalink

    Who says God is not watching over and protecting traditional marriage. God's truth prevails again!

  55. Gothelittle
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Permalink

    When you turn 18, Adam, you will have the exact same rights as the rest of us.

    If you're going to live a lifestyle that is not normal, you are going to have to deal with the fact that the world is not going to redesign itself to bow to your desires.

    I'm a full-time homemaker in a very liberal state with a strong feminist presence. Much of everyday society makes life more difficult for me, from the accounts (I can't ask for information on the mortgage I refinanced unless my husband takes time from work to let them know it's ok for me to reference the loan) to taxes (I get no childcare tax breaks, no schooling tax breaks because I homeschool, no Social Security points) and more.

    You, Adam, are demanding rights that have not been granted in the entire history of the world back before Ancient Rome. I am being denied rights that have belonged to women for thousands of years.

    But you don't see me joining feminist sites and public school blogs in order to tell them how outrageous they are. I don't need their affirmation. I don't even need their respect, as long as they let me live in peace... which, by and large, they do.

    You might also note that, through respectful discussion and a willingness to prove ourselves, homeschoolers have managed to make their lifestyle legal in all 50 states. Years of bullying, name-calling, floods of emotion, and blatant intimidation haven't gotten gays the special privileges they demand. Maybe you should reconsider your tactics.

  56. ncghostwriter
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

    I will clear the water for both parties on this one so you both can get some sleep tonight. Christians are not and homosexuals are not the most discriminated "minority" in the world. Women are the winner on this one guys. Although not a small minority, women are the most discriminated and oppressed class of people on earth. Both claims of victimization from Christians and gays does not propel the case of the other. Christians hold a religious majority in the United States so claiming a minority in the US is irrational. If this case was made in Iran or China perhaps this is a valid statement. Gays are discriminated class, however homosexuals have much more freedom now than they did 50 years ago. This fight would not only have been a lost cause then, but they would have been jailed for bringing it up.
    The topic of obesity and children however is a valid point though it was misused as a name calling device which holds no argumentative validity. Name calling has won no wars and has helped no cause. Be nice to each other, rude arguments build hate in the opposition. Hate sparks violence, and not a soul needs to get hurt from this cause, either side. Peaceful debate leads to peaceful resolution.

  57. Dani
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

    "Come on in, Adam, the water's fine."
    umm...you just invited an openly gay guy into a pool with you...i think theres a hidden meaning in your words. BTW, I'm Adams best friend and hes one of the greatest people i've ever had the pleasure to meet and I like him more than my straight friends.

  58. Adam
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    "Who says God is not watching over and protecting traditional marriage. God's truth prevails again!"

    Oh god. I can't even.

  59. Adam Judovsky
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    "You, Adam, are demanding rights that have not been granted in the entire history of the world back before Ancient Rome. I am being denied rights that have belonged to women for thousands of years."

    You're being denied rights? You can marry, you can join the military, you're marriage is recognized federally. I don't have any of those rights.

  60. Little man
    Posted May 22, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    Oh, my!!!

    The arguments offered the age 16 young man "Adam" are not all very compassionate, on this comment string....

    From his perspective he sees certain civil rights that should be his/hers upon reaching age 18. But the Minnesota Amendment that is to be put on the ballot (putting the present definition by lay man & woman couple) does NOT cancel the present law (or does it) if the Amendment doesn't get majority vote.

    What people like Adam want to know is how they can get some analogous rights, and as Christians we would not desire civil rights to be cancelled for any person.

    The problem is in how their legal activists have gone about promoting same-gender civil marriage or civil unions - civil unions, of course don't get (for sure) any Federal benefits or privileges.

    The effective, though not rapid way to get them these benefits is to create bills that provide benefits to same-gender partnerships - but this would have to be on its own merits, and applicable to any same-gender couple: whether of homosexual behavior or not, and including blood-related partnerships. Sexual behavior, since it is a right of privacy (and, in fact, has to be private) cannot be the basis of a legal partnerships to which benefits are granted depending on the interest the government would have have for these types of all same-gender partnerships. This is the proper way (call it civil unions or call it reciprocal beneficiary relationships act), not trying to piggy back onto the civil marriage act, so as to get the rights reserved for Motherhood (yes, mothers who sacrifice 9 months of their life in pregnancy, and engender the next generation). Same-gender couples who would bring in a third party to engender a child would be in their own category. But it took a long time to set up the marriage of man and woman as a legal, civil institution, and it's not going to be possible to piggy-back on it to benefit same-gender couples who are in essence hybrid. Trying to go that way, legally, is bound to develop such a back wave of confrontation in our USA society, that the same-gender couples will be worse off from it.

    I say this, in compassion for Adam, who criticized NOM for it's success. We love all people, Adam (or at least we are supposed to do so). We won't try to change you, but you have options, as you will see.

    Just don't ask us to add 2 +2 and get 5, because we will write you back to tell you we respectfully disagree, but the answer is 4 (and we would vote that way).

    ALOHA

    Little man

  61. David
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:29 am | Permalink

    A great victory for those who LOVE popular self-government rather than judicial despotism, for those who LOVE traditional marriage rather than the sexual revolution.

  62. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:50 am | Permalink

    Bravo Minnesota!

    If present trends hold in New York, this will in fact turn out to have been a great year for marriage.

    The observations about civil unions (from bnoth sides of the issue) were interesting.

    It is true that the civil unions have increased precisely as a result of the crushing defeats suffered by gay marriage in the same states.

    It is also true that at some point relatively soon, the gay marriage movement is going to realize it cannot win either ion elections or in legislatures, and will, predictably, go back to the only tactic that has ever worked for them:

    seeding the laws with Trojan Horse civil unions bills.

    Here's hoping NOM is preparing a response in advance.

  63. Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:21 am | Permalink

    Congrats MN. I hope more states will push this for 2012.

  64. Gothelittle
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:46 am | Permalink

    Er, wow. First off, I am not an actual degreed statistician. When I say "correlation", I mean the dictionary definition, not the statistical analysis type. Second, those of you who are claiming that my numbers are wrong did not listen to my explanation. I took a percentage of the victims based on the number of victims versus the population of victims. There were more gay hate crime victims than Jewish, but there are far fewer Jews in the country. Hence there are more Jews victimized in proportion to their population in the country than any other group, including gays, and black men take second place.

    Adam, of course I wasn't saying that no gays are persecuted at all, anywhere. But your claim was that they were the *most* persecuted minority, and that is untrue.

    The bit about women is a good point, but I'm afraid it doesn't quite fit into the definition either, as women are actually (barely) the majority gender. Oppressed, yes. But we were looking at the most oppressed minority in the world, and in that contest the gays are pretty well down the list.

  65. Gothelittle
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    "The arguments offered the age 16 young man "Adam" are not all very compassionate, on this comment string...."

    This is true.

    On the other hand, he started out with "F*** You" as the introduction to his tirade, and immediately went off demanding of us rights that are not ours to give and could not be legally acquired by him no matter his orientation for the next few years.

    In my ancestral culture, if someone under the age of adulthood comes in screaming insults and throwing fits in an attempt to get his own way, the adults do not treat him like one of them. In that culture, you become an adult when you begin behaving like one, and at age 16, that burden is not quite expected of you yet. So the adult explains and lectures... it is not the adult's job to validate a tantrum-throwing child's feelings. It's just the way I was brought up.

    You wait until the tantrum is over, and then you can start discussing instead of laying down the law, if the child shows the maturity necessary to understand or at least try to listen.

  66. Zak Jones
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    ke Brooks:
    "Believe it or not, you don't have to go along with your same-sex attraction. Especially at your young age, you can re-orient yourself and live a fulfilling heterosexual life like the vast majority of people do".

    Wow, you are one twisted individual. I was once where Adam is now. Believe me, he is not "questioning" his sexuality, like you did at that age, he KNOWS his sexual orientation, and now amount of psychotherapy or prayer will change Adam's sexuality.
    You may have subjected and accepted being brainwashed at a young age, Mike, but you know who you are are on the inside, and you can't lie to yourself.
    Adam is of a new generation, and kids today are more in touch with reality today than we were when we were Adam's age. Church was mandatory in the 60's and we were forced to believe and adhere to what we were taught in Sunday School. Kids have a choice these days to believe and adhere to religious doctrines and have the common sense to separate "real" from parable and know the difference.

  67. Simeal
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 9:56 am | Permalink

    Ahhhhh, NOM, NOM, NOM. No, the rights of the minority are not voted by the majority. Oh sure, Minnesota can have its own little circus. But that's not how it works in a cirilized society. It's never been that way, and it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS no longer denies the discrimination that is done to citizens by banning them from seeking marriage for their relationships...

    The point is not how many children gay couples can foster or not. We've covered the fact that marriage is not linked to reproduction. This, anyways, is forgetting that gay couples do have and raise kids. Anyways.

    So much hate, again, coming from the little coterie of NOM homophobic supporters, which every year grows thin. So much cruelty in the responses above. But that in fact only suport our cause. The average American is not impressed by the lies coming from NOM, and it's only a matter of time before those lies get exposed.

  68. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:31 am | Permalink

    There are a lot of truths, half-truths and outright lies in the comments on this post, and they are all mixed up into an indistinguishable mash-up. So lets start with a documented fact. This year, the majority of Americans are in favor of same-sex marriages (see link 1 below). Given that the vast majority of Americans are religious (or at least not identify as non-theist) this majority must include a lot of people of faith as well. Another fact is that the acceptance of gay relationships has seen a steady increase in acceptance (link 2).

    So what does that mean for MN in this post? It means that even if voters will approve the ammendment, it is likely that at some point in the future that ammendment will be overturned again. Or.... given the same trends, it may be possible that at a federal level legislation will be overturned (DOMA) or introduced that will introduce marriage equality in some form. Alternatively, SCOTUS may at some point in the future rule that prohibiting marriages of a same-sex couple is unconstitutional.

    The world is changing in regard to same-sex marriage, much to the dismay of organizations like NOM and their supporters. And that is fine, because standing up for principles is not bad per se. Just as HRC for example is rightfully standing up to their principles. Unfortunately, a lot of debate about same-sex marriage come from gut feelings, manipulation and name-calling, rather than facts and figures. And that unfortunately goes both ways: pro-SSM and anti-SSM.

    Wouldn't it be much better to try and have a civil debate to reach a common goal, rather than being so hung up in this "yes, we beat them" mentallity that goes around on both sides? Just wondering....

    1: http://www.christianpost.com/news/gay-marriage-supported-by-us-majority-for-first-time-50381/
    2: http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/americans-acceptance-gay-relations-crosses-threshold.aspx

  69. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 11:36 am | Permalink

    Simeal:

    There is a real insight to be had by comparing your words above to objective truth-which is that thirty one straight times your arguments above have been rejected by your neighbors in free and fair elections.

    It is lunacy to imagine that calling those who uphold marriage as it has been understood through all of human history "bigots", is persuasive.

    If it is persuasive of anything, Simeal, it is persuasive of the essentially Bolshevik mindset of violence and intimidation which underlies the agenda of the gay marriage movement.

    It is a matter of extreme urgency that it be defeated.

    NOM is doing a great job.

  70. mary sue butch
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    Anyone who wants the right too prohibit same sex marriage is violating everyone else's constitutional rights. Your may choose your own religion, but not mine, and a law enforcing the rules of your religion is unconstitutional. I hope the people of Minnesota realize this.

  71. Posted May 23, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink

    No, the rights of the minority are not voted by the majority.

    I have already shown in Post 45 that the right to marry does not encompass the right to "marry" someone of the same sex.

  72. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Mr. de Vries:

    It is true that a level of respect and civility in political discourse is greatly to be desired.

    It is also true that the HRC strategy to brand supporters of marriage as bigots has rendered such an atmosphere exceedingly difficult to obtain in practice.

    As to the rest of your post, the gay marriage movement has never lost a poll, nor won an election.

    Our civilization is not governed by polls, but by elections.

    The failure of the polls and the elections to point to the same state of opinion leads us to conclude that the polls- much easier to employ as a political tool- are less trustworthy than the elections.

    This is now a political battle, it does not appear to be one susceptible of compromise, and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the ultimate outcome will be the defeat of gay marriage.

    But I am all for conducting the battle with mutual respect.

    Let us see if HRC agrees.

  73. fiona64
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Permalink

    Gothelittle wrote: Studies show that 90% of adolescents who experience same-sex attraction go on to become perfectly healthy, utterly heterosexual adults.

    This straight, married advocate for equality would like to see those "studies" you cite ... unless, of course, you just made them up. And surely you would not have done such a thing ...

    I suggest that all of you look long and hard about how you are PERSONALLY affected if some couple you don't even know, gay or straight, gets married. Because you AREN'T. And if your marriage is in any way weakened or threatened by someone else's? Get counseling, because it's obviously on shaky ground.

  74. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 23, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    Now fiona 64's comment above is a perfect example of why the tone of the discourse is so ugly.

    In fiona's mind anyone who supports the concept of marriage as the union of the genders (which, after all, it has been always and everywhere since the beginning of recorded history) needs "counseling", because we are "on shaky ground".

    No, ma'am. We do not need counseling. We have examined the function and constitutive elements that make *marriage* unique (as opposed to one of the many other forms of loving, committed relationships between couples).

    We do not need "counseling", merely because we have elected to uphold what all of humanity has upheld before us.

    It is *you*, fiona, who bears the burden of proof, and it is far greater than your flippant dismissal of 5,000 years of recorded history suggests.

    In fact we are confident that our neighbors will reject your claims, and embrace ours, in any free and fair election.

    And we won't even have to suggest you need "counseling", either (although it is ever so tempting......)

  75. Johan de Vries
    Posted May 24, 2011 at 3:50 am | Permalink

    Mr. DeLano,

    In reply to comment #72, I would like to point out that there are at least two sides to any conflict. HRC is indeed using some tactics that I disapprove of, but opponents of SSM also say and do things that don't help civil debate.

    As for your reply in #74, I would have to disagree with your statement that Fiona bears the burden of proof. If someone posing the 90 percent statement as fact, he or she should be able to support that as such. Would you accept the statement that just eleven percent of the Dutch dissapprove of gay marriage at face value, or would you like to have that backed up by numbers?

  76. Rick DeLano
    Posted May 25, 2011 at 12:11 am | Permalink

    Mr. DeVries:

    I do not understand why you think the percentage of Dutch who approve of gay marriage is relevant to the question of whether the marriage laws in America ought to be radically redefined.

    In fact, the position of the Dutch is completely irrelevant, one way or the other, as I would have expected you to understand clearly.

    It is good in one sense, however, to see that you allow that thjs radical redefinition of marriage cannot be legitimately imposed without the consent of the people.

    Now all that is needed is for you to grasp that "the people", in this case, are not Dutch.

    Perhaps we can find some common ground on the question after all.........

  77. Midge
    Posted May 26, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Was the state constitution designed as a means for the majority to vote on the rights of a law-abiding minority?

    Was the state constitution designed as a way for a current generation to stifle the debate and conversation (and trends towards acceptance of gay citizens) of the next generations?

    Should we use the constitution this way?

  78. Sashabill
    Posted May 27, 2011 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

    Homophobia, defined, is any perspective which is different from that of liberals.

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] Washington – The National Organization for Marriage (NOM) praised the Minnesota Legislature for voting in a bi-partisan fashion to put an amendment on the ballot in 2012 that would preserve marriage as [...]

  2. [...] Maryland and Rhode Island both rejected same-sex marriage, and in Minnesota the legislature just passed a marriage amendment defining marriage as the union of husband and wife. A vote for gay marriage [...]

  3. [...] W. defenders of marriage scored a big victory in Minnesota this weekend, when their State House voted to pass a bill already passed by their State Senate to allow Minnesotans to vote on the definition of marriage in [...]