Same-Sex Marriage (estimated, yard, cars)

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I do agree that if the amendment passes, nothing will change.

Nothing will change . . . FOR YOU. You left out the part that conservatives believe but won't admit: "as long as I'M OK!" Same-sex couples won't feel the same way. So you're wrong. Dead wrong.

Unfortunately, I feel like the courts have usurped the power of the legislative and executive branches of our government in making these decisions...

Oh really? I can only assume, then, that you disagreed with the MN supreme court's decision in overturning Mark Ritchie's amendment titles.

The yes vote is a vote to preserve the status quo, not to change anything, or take anything away.

FALSE. If we're ever to have marriage equality in Minnesota, this amendment's passing makes it much more difficult. It would take another amendment to repeal it. Furthermore, we are enshrining homophobia and bigotry into the state constitution. Hate does not belong in there, and the constitution should not be used to take rights away.

The status quo remains the status quo regardless of what happens Tuesday. Same-sex marriage will still be illegal in Minnesota if the amendment fails.

cielpur is correct though -- equality will come. The dinosaurs will eventually die off.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

Nothing will change . . . FOR YOU. You left out the part that conservatives believe but won't admit: "as long as I'M OK!" Same-sex couples won't feel the same way. So you're wrong. Dead wrong.

Wrong how? You don't say.

Oh really? I can only assume, then, that you disagreed with the MN supreme court's decision in overturning Mark Ritchie's amendment titles.

Of course, in this case the court did not overturn a law but mediated a dispute between the other two branches of government. That seems like a perfectly reasonable role for the courts.

FALSE. If we're ever to have marriage equality in Minnesota, this amendment's passing makes it much more difficult. It would take another amendment to repeal it. Furthermore, we are enshrining homophobia and bigotry into the state constitution. Hate does not belong in there, and the constitution should not be used to take rights away.

The status quo remains the status quo regardless of what happens Tuesday. Same-sex marriage will still be illegal in Minnesota if the amendment fails.

cielpur is correct though -- equality will come. The dinosaurs will eventually die off.

All in all, this is a very confusing post. First you seem to be arguing that I am wrong because things will change, then you seem to argue that they won't. Then you vent. Then you argue that nothing changes, before you state that it eventually will anyway. Then you call names. Nice job.

[Jimrob1]

I don't care at all if two people of the same sex marry and neither should anyone else. Its nobodys business except the two getting married. If the gays can't have marriage as it is known in this country, then let them have a marriage especially made for them. With the rights that come with it. I believe that is what gays want some protection thru life. I don't blame them.

With some of the morons in this country that only vote because of issues like this. Then no one should be allowed to vote on two people rights. Its wrong and it needs to stop. Two gay people getting married, has no bearing whatsoever on a straights person marriage. If they feel it does. Then there is something wrong with their marriage to begin with. Or they are offended because two same sex people share something they do. Its either one or the other so fess up or shut up.

America is so overwhelmed with these religious fanatics, that want to control everything and everyone in America. Its more than time people whether gay or not put them in thier place. Live your own damn life and leave other people alone. Or find yourself another country and move there. See how long being around everyone that is the same is going to last. It won't last.

I hope Minnesota will have enough sense to do the right thing. I hope America will get over itself because it is faltering. It does not behave as the country of the free and the brave. Way to much oppression in America. We have so many problems in this country, and yet so much emphasis is put on gay issues in th USA its alarming. As if gay people are one of the roots of its problems. The country looks like a predjudiced and self righteous fool that doesn't take care of itself.

So Minnesota show the country your over this, and let people be who they are and get on with life Maybe there is still some time left to fix the really serious problems America has. Gay Marriage isn't one of them.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Wrong how? You don't say.

Of course, in this case the court did not overturn a law but mediated a dispute between the other two branches of government. That seems like a perfectly reasonable role for the courts.

All in all, this is a very confusing post. First you seem to be arguing that I am wrong because things will change, then you seem to argue that they won't. Then you vent. Then you argue that nothing changes, before you state that it eventually will anyway. Then you call names. Nice job.

You don't think same-sex couples will wake up Wednesday and feel like outcasts or second-class citizens? Perhaps I should first ask whether you're capable of empathy; most conservatives are not. And that is the root of this issue and many other issues our society faces.

Your condescension notwithstanding, you and the rest of the Vote Yes crowd have completely failed in convincing that gay marriage will cause any problem whatsoever -- except for making you mad.

Gay marriage became legal in Canada in 2005. I don't recall hearing about any sort of moral collapse there. The country still exists. It did not implode. Oh, but this is America. Gay marriage should be illegal because freedom.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Jimrob1

I don't care at all if two people of the same sex marry and neither should anyone else. Its nobodys business except the two getting married.

This is one of the fundamental problems of conservatism. It absolutely kills them to know that people they've never met are doing things considered immoral or bad or against the bible. It's the entire basis for the abortion debate. The idea that we could trust others to make their own decisions about their lives is simply infuriating.

Your comment about these social issues being a distraction is spot-on. They figure they can distract us from the heavily slanted economic policies of the last 30 years. When you convince voters that gay marriage or abortion is the reason they're unemployed or without health insurance, then you begin to see how people like Reagan, Bush and Michele Bachmann can get elected.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I reject your premise that the place for educating children about sex is the school, but since I'm generally a minimalist when it comes to government programs, and you're a more of a statist, that difference should not be a surprise.

In the end, what we know of what's being taught right now comes from my current, albeit second hand, accounts, or your outdated experiences, neither of which is going to change anyone's mind on the topic.

And as I said initially, I disagreed with the substance of the radio ad because I don't believe the proposed amendment has any bearing on what is or will be taught in schools anyway, and from re-reading your posts, I believe we agree on that.

I would argue this isn't a "statist" (this is more of an economic term, but I suppose we can apply it) vs "minimalist" (probably a better word would be "liberal" in the classic sense or "libertarian", perhaps, but that seems a bit of a stretch) issue. After all, the statist position on marriage is government strictly defining marriage. The statist position on sex ed might be teaching sex ed in the schools, although this view is less clear. So we can see how we both exhibit both statist and classically liberal views depending on the issue.

I would argue instead that it is a moral issue. It depends on your view of parents "right to control" (for lack of better words) the information their children learn vs a student's "right to information". So it comes down to where we strike that balance. I think we can offer students this information so they can make the correct decisions with their bodies (we know teens have sex and experiment, regardless of whether or not they're being taught in school...and we know abstinence-only education/no education has far worse results when it comes to teen pregnancy) with the ability of students/parents to opt-out of certain parts if they so wish. A student doesn't need to be force-fed the information and can ignore it if they please, but my position is that it's moral to tell students how their bodies work, the consequences they can face if they're not careful, and the precautions they can take should they decide to be "active". And that extends to GLBT students, who face different risks (HIV rates significantly higher, for instance) and need to be made aware of them, especially since they are even more likely to be "experimenting" and therefore susceptible to such risks.

I'm glad we're able to agree on something. (hopefully that doesn't look sarcastic...because it's not)

Originally Posted by globe199

This is one of the fundamental problems of conservatism. It absolutely kills them to know that people they've never met are doing things considered immoral or bad or against the bible. It's the entire basis for the abortion debate. The idea that we could trust others to make their own decisions about their lives is simply infuriating.

I think we need to be careful about painting conservatism as evil or the enemy. I know many conservatives who support gay marriage. I think of conservatism in general as more of an economic point of view, not necessarily a social one. This is especially true for many emerging, young conservatives, who are very open to the idea of gay marriage and other rights.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by xandrex

I think we need to be careful about painting conservatism as evil or the enemy. I know many conservatives who support gay marriage. I think of conservatism in general as more of an economic point of view, not necessarily a social one. This is especially true for many emerging, young conservatives, who are very open to the idea of gay marriage and other rights.

Perhaps I should have inserted the word "social" before "conservative," but you obviously knew what I meant. There are social conservatives and there are fiscal conservatives, but they frequently overlap.

[Glenfield]

We are just a few short days from the election so we will soon know the results. No matter what the result, I will be satisfied, because the people of Minnesota will have decided this issue for themselves. And that's really all we can ask for; to have the people or their representatives decide, and not for the court to impose their will.

During this process, I have tried to conduct myself in a respectful and responsible manner. I have not questioned anyone's intelligence, impugned their character, or mocked anyone, and I thank those, like xandrex, who have done likewise. To the extent that anyone perceives that I may have deviated from that path, I assure you that it was not my intention.

In the end, proponents and opponents have a different perspective on the issue. If these exchanges have at all helped anyone to understand the other point of view, they have been successful. I know that they have been very interesting to me, and I appreciate that many of you took the time to engage.

[Minnesota Spring]

I'll just say that I find it ironic that I see Vote Yes sings in the yards of people that have once been divorced and are now married to someone else as well as couples that are not married but living together, IN SIN!
If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

If that's not hypocritical, I don't know what is.

Shh