U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Status: "This Space For Rent" (set 4 days ago)
 
Location: Bel Air, California
10,510 posts, read 8,490,589 times
Reputation: 13399

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kooks35 View Post
So then I assume you are against the progressive income tax? That treats people unequally.
I don't know what any of that has to do with this thread but I'm goin' out on a limb and saying if you're against something I'm for it, and if you're for it...then I'm against it. That should pretty much cover everything I think.

 
Old 06-20-2012, 01:42 PM
 
88 posts, read 68,122 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duk123 View Post
So let's look at it a different way. Why is it alright for the State of Minnesota to refuse to recognize a legal contract entered into by to consenting adults? That to me is what the whole argument is about. Gay marriage advocates just want the right, privilege and legal recognition that heterosexual couples enjoy.
If your church doesn't want to perform marriages involving same sex couple that is between the church and it's parishioner's.
Currently, gay marriage is not a legal contract. If it were only about the legal recognition then you would only see gay marriage advocates trying to have civil unions recognized (and they wouldn't have much resistance). Instead they are going for marriage and that opens a whole other can of worms.

There is nothing stopping gay people from being married and receiving those priviledges. They just have to do it with someone of the opposite sex. The state has a compelling interest in providing privledges to heterosexual couples as they can procreate and sustain the state's population.

Personally, I don't care much one way or the other on this issue as long as its dealt at the state level and through the legislative process. What I do care about is the rule of law and I don't like how people have tried to skirt the collective will of the people of a state.
 
Old 06-20-2012, 01:45 PM
 
88 posts, read 68,122 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
I don't know what any of that has to do with this thread
No, its just a way of seeing if you have some logical consistency. You say you are against anti-equality. I'm asking if you truly believe that or are just trying to paint those you disagree with in a bad light.
 
Old 06-20-2012, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Minnesota, USA
7,545 posts, read 8,328,409 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyKayak View Post
The international food giant, General Mills, has publicly declared it opposes a proposed constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage in Minnesota, and has consequently angered anti-equality groups in the state.

CEO Ken Powell affirmed his opposition for the proposed amendment, which the company’s vice president for global diversity and inclusion, Ken Charles, formally endorsed in a letter. “We do not believe the proposed constitutional amendment is in the best interests of our employees or our state economy,” Mr Charles wrote in an e-mail. “We value diversity. We value inclusion.”


read more General Mills opposes ban on equal marriage, angers anti-equality groups - PinkNews.co.uk
A more unbiased title for this thread would be "General Mills opposes ban on same-sex marriage, angers groups in favor of same-sex marriage"
 
Old 06-21-2012, 07:05 AM
 
Location: Duluth, MN
368 posts, read 553,835 times
Reputation: 492
Quote:
There is nothing stopping gay people from being married and receiving those priviledges. They just have to do it with someone of the opposite sex.

In other words, gays already have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals - all a gay man needs to do in order to enjoy that right is to...um...marry a woman. Wow - I don't think those debating this issue realize how simple the solution really is.


Quote:
The state has a compelling interest in providing privledges to heterosexual couples as they can procreate and sustain the state's population.

There are two problems here: first, there's no requirement to be married in order to "procreate," and second, I really don't think "sustaining a state's population" has been a concern of any state since the last time we had a plague, an outbreak of cholera, or a civil war...
 
Old 06-21-2012, 08:43 AM
 
88 posts, read 68,122 times
Reputation: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenaroundabit View Post
In other words, gays already have the same rights to marry as heterosexuals - all a gay man needs to do in order to enjoy that right is to...um...marry a woman. Wow - I don't think those debating this issue realize how simple the solution really is.
This is how equality is viewed under the law. It is the reason that a progressive income tax can pass the equality test. People in similar circumstances are treated in a similar manner. People making the same amount are taxed the same is the same as men can marry women under the law.

I have no problem with people who want to change the law. I only have an issue if they try bypass the legislature and do it through the courts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Beenaroundabit View Post
There are two problems here: first, there's no requirement to be married in order to "procreate," and second, I really don't think "sustaining a state's population" has been a concern of any state since the last time we had a plague, an outbreak of cholera, or a civil war...
This is why I can see the agruments for states to get out of the marriage business altogether. There used to be a much tighter corelation between marriage and child birth. Now with welfare providing for children marriage isn't as much of a necessity. It does boil down to what each state deems to be the best policy for it's citizens going forward. The beauty of that is if different states come up with different solutions people are free to go to the states who's policies work best for them and eventually other states will jump on board if they are losing ground to the other states.
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:21 AM
 
566 posts, read 500,461 times
Reputation: 239
Quote:
Originally Posted by kooks35 View Post
This is how equality is viewed under the law. It is the reason that a progressive income tax can pass the equality test. People in similar circumstances are treated in a similar manner. People making the same amount are taxed the same is the same as men can marry women under the law.

I have no problem with people who want to change the law. I only have an issue if they try bypass the legislature and do it through the courts.




This is why I can see the agruments for states to get out of the marriage business altogether. There used to be a much tighter corelation between marriage and child birth. Now with welfare providing for children marriage isn't as much of a necessity. It does boil down to what each state deems to be the best policy for it's citizens going forward. The beauty of that is if different states come up with different solutions people are free to go to the states who's policies work best for them and eventually other states will jump on board if they are losing ground to the other states.
I would agree that this might be a good idea.

It seems to me that things are consistently viewed in two ways:

(1) Marriage (from the state's perspective) is a legal contract that influences social behavior in ways the state deems beneficial. Then, the state ought to be able to set whatever parameters on that contract it deems appropriate. This might be not having a state-sponsored marriage altogether. Or, maybe marriage can be allowed as now. Or, maybe you allow marriage as now, but you also allow same-sex couples.

(2) Marriage should be a right allowed to ANY pair of people who desire to enter into the contract. But, that means that we would allow marriage to a pair of brothers or sisters or cousins. You would also allow marriages between two people with no intention of living together (probably who just want the financial/legal benefits). And, you would also allow marriage between roommates who don't have much intention of a long term relationship, but only want the benefits for a few years.

I guess I just don't see how two unrelated males have a right to marry, but not two related males. I can see how one might argue that only allowing unrelated males to marry is good policy (going the route of (1) above).

I don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment here, but it seems to me that it is the only way to stop the courts from making the policy decision of where the boundary of marriage should end. Personally, I don't know how to vote on the amendment since I see allowing same-sex marriage to be good policy, but I think it would be better policy to allow state-sponsored marriage to basically any pair of people who want to go into the contract. Right now it seems like I'm forced to choose between marriage being only heterosexual with little option of changing this (except by further constitutional amendment) or between restrictions on who can be married to be up to the whims of a court. I don't like either of those options.

In short, I think the courts have really messed this issue up. It would have been much better to wait for legislation allowing same-sex marriage.
 
Old 06-21-2012, 09:28 AM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,578 posts, read 5,098,421 times
Reputation: 8995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
I support angering anti-equality groups.
I did not know there was such a thing as an anti-equality group of people. What are they about? Are they part of a movement that says we are better than the rest? Nothing wrong with that- I think if everything in the world was equal all movement would stop and the scale of justice would be seized up like a rusty clock..

There is no such thing in the universe as totally equal forces..Trying to achieve total equality within the human race is like turning a city into a cluster of human bacteria... There is nothing wrong with one being stronger than another- or one having more power than the other- we do not need more useless education regarding equality. We need to educate our people on the use and abuse of power- Abuse is the real issue- not some social engineering that is designed to rid the world of the bright and strong.
 
Old 06-21-2012, 10:41 AM
 
440 posts, read 308,530 times
Reputation: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by kooks35 View Post
This is how equality is viewed under the law. It is the reason that a progressive income tax can pass the equality test. People in similar circumstances are treated in a similar manner. People making the same amount are taxed the same is the same as men can marry women under the law.
True. I would rep you, but I need to spread the love first, apparently. "Equality" doesn't require that everyone's various preferences be indulged. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anybody can get married. Hence, equality. (And that is also why this is appropriately referred to as an effort to redefine marriage.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsub View Post
It seems to me that things are consistently viewed in two ways:

(1) Marriage (from the state's perspective) is a legal contract that influences social behavior in ways the state deems beneficial. Then, the state ought to be able to set whatever parameters on that contract it deems appropriate. This might be not having a state-sponsored marriage altogether. Or, maybe marriage can be allowed as now. Or, maybe you allow marriage as now, but you also allow same-sex couples.

(2) Marriage should be a right allowed to ANY pair of people who desire to enter into the contract. But, that means that we would allow marriage to a pair of brothers or sisters or cousins. You would also allow marriages between two people with no intention of living together (probably who just want the financial/legal benefits). And, you would also allow marriage between roommates who don't have much intention of a long term relationship, but only want the benefits for a few years.
I think you kind of hit the nail on the head here. When this issue has been debated in the past around here, I think people have failed to really understand this. For the most part, people who want to redefine marriage are operating under paradigm #2, even if subconsciously, whereas the defenders of (so-called "traditional") marriage are operating under paradigm #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kooks35 View Post
I have no problem with people who want to change the law. I only have an issue if they try bypass the legislature and do it through the courts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by northsub View Post
I don't like the idea of a constitutional amendment here, but it seems to me that it is the only way to stop the courts from making the policy decision of where the boundary of marriage should end. [...]

In short, I think the courts have really messed this issue up. It would have been much better to wait for legislation allowing same-sex marriage.
This is one thing that I think a large majority should be able to rally behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by northsub View Post
Right now it seems like I'm forced to choose between marriage being only heterosexual with little option of changing this (except by further constitutional amendment) or between restrictions on who can be married to be up to the whims of a court.
I understand your position, but I would remind you that passing a further constitutional amendment is not that difficult of an undertaking. It just requires popular support.

Last edited by southernsmoke; 06-21-2012 at 10:52 AM..
 
Old 06-24-2012, 12:15 AM
 
558 posts, read 387,097 times
Reputation: 364
Quote:
Originally Posted by kooks35 View Post
Currently, gay marriage is not a legal contract. If it were only about the legal recognition then you would only see gay marriage advocates trying to have civil unions recognized (and they wouldn't have much resistance). Instead they are going for marriage and that opens a whole other can of worms.
That's because legally, they are treated differently. You can register for a domestic partnership in Minnesota, but the legal protection varies by city. Sounds equal to me. There are also little to no benefits included in these partnerships. Benefits that you receive by getting married.

And FYI, domestic partnerships tried getting legal traction to have the state recognize them and treat them the same without using the 'm' word and it was vetoed by Governor Pawlenty. So it has been tried and has failed, despite not having 'much resistance' against the idea.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:24 AM.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top