Minnesota's SF 1308 on Nov. '12 Ballot (Kimball: home, live, shops)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Yes, I do not understand how Bachmann could have won, let alone twice. No one that I know understands this either, but than again, I dont know a whole lot of people from her district. There must be something in the water up there. Is there anyone on this forum from her district that can enlighten us as to how she pull this off? What the logic is up there?

I was told in the past that her pro-life stance has helped her get the seat in addition to other issues. The north metro area has always struck me as having more concern about social issues than other areas (though obviously this is just a stereotype and I'm sure it isn't that far off from any other place).

[Lily0fthevalley]

At this point in my life I'm just weary of social issues being politicized.

All of us will NEVER agree on abortion, rights for homosexuals, yadda yadda yadda.

And making every election about these social issues is just a pointless waste of time.

So, when we vote can we not all concentrate on the true governmental sphere of making sure the water lines work, getting the streets fixed, working on the economy, having beneficial relationships with other states and countries, and etc?

The constant haggling over social issues distracts government on EVERY level from getting the basic work that needs to be done - done.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I was told in the past that her pro-life stance has helped her get the seat in addition to other issues. The north metro area has always struck me as having more concern about social issues than other areas (though obviously this is just a stereotype and I'm sure it isn't that far off from any other place).

Many folks who are sensitive to social issues have different positions on a few of them. Abortion is one of those issues ... you can see people with very strong opinions on both sides of that issue, and yet all of them are concerned about the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Many folks who are sensitive to social issues have different positions on a few of them. Abortion is one of those issues ... you can see people with very strong opinions on both sides of that issue, and yet all of them are concerned about the poor, the hungry, the homeless, etc.

I think perhaps you read my post wrong. What I meant by the north metro caring more about abortion than "others" perhaps came across as "other issues". What I meant was "other areas of the metro".

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I think perhaps you read my post wrong. What I meant by the north metro caring more about abortion than "others" perhaps came across as "other issues". What I meant was "other areas of the metro".

I've always considered places like the U of MN campus areas and Uptown (not conservative at all) to be the center of folks "sensitive to social issues", so I had a hard time seeing conservatives as having some sort of edge in that regard. That isn't my experience, though I'm sure YMMV... Many pro-life bible bangers seem blind to some of the more serious issues around them.

[Blue Earth]

Originally Posted by Missourian11

I know most Minnesotans do not like to discuss politics. However, I can't help my curiousity by wondering if SF 1308 will be successful or defeated in November 2012. I happen to be from the bellwether state of Missouri so politics is big part of our lives. LOL!

For those who are not familiar with SF 1308, it would amend Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. MN already has a statute banning same-sex marriages.

State ballot measures adding a ban on same sex marriage to a state's constitution have gone on the ballot 31 times. Out of those 31 times, voters have voted to ban same sex marriage 30 times. Voters have only rejected the measure one time. That was in 2006 in Arizona, by a vote of 51% to 49%. The same issue was put on the ballot again in 2008 in Arizona, and they passed it the second time. Some of the more liberal states that have voted for same sex marriage bans are: California (2008), Oregon (2004), Colorado (2006), Hawaii (1998), Michigan (2004), and Wisconsin (2006).

It would not surprise me at all to see Minnesota join those states whose majority electorates have voted for a ban on same sex marriage. You can't rely on the majority to vote for the rights of a small minority. That's what the history of these referendums has shown.

How this issue became that thing that our society decided that they could decide through a majority popular vote, I have no idea. How many states would ban mosques if the majority voted on it? How many states would ban interracial marriages if the majority voted on it? My guess is quite a few. If Mississippi got to vote in 1965 on whether blacks should be allowed to vote, they most certainly would have rejected it. In fact, the white voters in Mississippi today might reject it if you let them vote on it in secret. But that issue was solved legislatively, and the gay marriage issue should be solved legislatively as well.

U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I've always considered places like the U of MN campus areas and Uptown (not conservative at all) to be the center of folks "sensitive to social issues", so I had a hard time seeing conservatives as having some sort of edge in that regard. That isn't my experience, though I'm sure YMMV... Many pro-life bible bangers seem blind to some of the more serious issues around them.

That's probably true. Well, probably not so much the UM area - most of the students I've lived with probably have an opinion, but couldn't care less most of the time - they're too busy getting drunk.

But I've always found that people I know who vote with social issues at the forefront tended to be more conservative than liberal. Obviously, I know people on both sides who do that (and they both tend to be small groups - I know far more people who vote for fiscal/defense/other-"non-social" issues).

Originally Posted by Blue Earth

State ballot measures adding a ban on same sex marriage to a state's constitution have gone on the ballot 31 times. Out of those 31 times, voters have voted to ban same sex marriage 30 times. Voters have only rejected the measure one time. That was in 2006 in Arizona, by a vote of 51% to 49%. The same issue was put on the ballot again in 2008 in Arizona, and they passed it the second time. Some of the more liberal states that have voted for same sex marriage bans are: California (2008), Oregon (2004), Colorado (2006), Hawaii (1998), Michigan (2004), and Wisconsin (2006).

It's certainly a sad history of voting. I hope Minnesota can be the first (technically second, I suppose?) to knock down the measure...and keep it that way.

[audadvnc]

Gay marriage? It's a cultural fad. Same with Xian evangelists telling other people how to live their lives.

Remember Pet Rocks? People would actually buy rocks in cute little boxes and give them to their friends and family as presents. That fad came and went, as will this hoo-ha.

[Radical_Car]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

Gay marriage? It's a cultural fad. Same with Xian evangelists telling other people how to live their lives.

Remember Pet Rocks? People would actually buy rocks in cute little boxes and give them to their friends and family as presents. That fad came and went, as will this hoo-ha.

Except it isn't a fad. Homosexuality has been around as long as humans have. It's starting to get buzz and attention and becoming accepted, which is probably why people are now starting to be more open about it and come out now. Would a gay person come out 50 or 100 years ago? At one point in time, women weren't allowed to vote, blacks didn't have equal rights, and interracial marraiges were illegal. Those things weren't fads either. Once gay marraige is legal and they become accepted and treated like everyone else you won't see or hear so many problems about it anymore.

It isn't comparable to pet rocks, electronic pocket pets, JNCO pants, or any other 90s fad. And Xian Evangelists telling people to live their lives still exist very much. Religion isn't going away any time soon either.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Radical_Car

Except it isn't a fad. Homosexuality has been around as long as humans have. It's starting to get buzz and attention and becoming accepted, which is probably why people are now starting to be more open about it and come out now. Would a gay person come out 50 or 100 years ago? At one point in time, women weren't allowed to vote, blacks didn't have equal rights, and interracial marraiges were illegal. Those things weren't fads either. Once gay marraige is legal and they become accepted and treated like everyone else you won't see or hear so many problems about it anymore.

It isn't comparable to pet rocks, electronic pocket pets, JNCO pants, or any other 90s fad. And Xian Evangelists telling people to live their lives still exist very much. Religion isn't going away any time soon either.

I won't say with 100 percent certainty, but I'm pretty sure than audadvnc was sort of joking.