Same-Sex Marriage (bill, retirement, health)

[HiFi]

I will support same sex marriage, when its made a requirement for government welfare benefits. Two birds with one stone.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Govie

When did the idea of shoving homosexual marriage down our throats become an issue?

It became a more serious issue for me when a group of conservatives decided they wanted to embed their own opinions about the definition of "marriage" into the state constitution.

They apparently believe that their code of moral conduct should apply to everyone in the state regardless of each person's religious beliefs or moral code.

Before that step was taken, which I see as massive overkill and an affront to the type of personal freedom this country stands for, it was just a fairly normal legal debate. But these social conservatives have crossed a line.

[Minnesota Spring]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

It became a more serious issue for me when a group of conservatives decided they wanted to embed their own opinions about the definition of "marriage" into the state constitution.

They apparently believe that their code of moral conduct should apply to everyone in the state regardless of each person's religious beliefs or moral code.

Before that step was taken, which I see as massive overkill and an affront to the type of personal freedom this country stands for, it was just a fairly normal legal debate. But these social conservatives have crossed a line.

Could not have said it better myself.
That's why I say, this should not be a democrat/republican debate. It's a debate about a group of people that want to use the law to discriminate against and force their beliefs on another group of people - plain and simple.
The passage of this amendment brings us closer to a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia where religious doctrine is the rule of the land.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Minnesota Spring

Could not have said it better myself.
That's why I say, this should not be a democrat/republican debate. It's a debate about a group of people that want to use the law to discriminate against and force their beliefs on another group of people - plain and simple.
The passage of this amendment brings us closer to a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia where religious doctrine is the rule of the land.

Of course, nothing will change when the amendment passes. I'm sure you all understand that the only opportunity to change the status quo is to defeat the amendment, and then pass a law, or more likely, obtain a court ruling extending the definition of marriage. And supporters of the amendment aren't trying to force anything on anyone. They hope to keep us right where we are, where we've always been on this issue. And they want the people of this state to decide what should happen. Not some judge.

It's the opponents of the amendment who are advocating change. And they want to see it happen through the back door with a court ruling rather than let the people decide.

If you really think that passage of the amendment will make us like Iran or Saudi Arabia, you must think that's what we're like now, because the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is the current law. If you think that makes us a theocracy, you don't know what a theocracy is.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Of course, nothing will change when the amendment passes. I'm sure you all understand that the only opportunity to change the status quo is to defeat the amendment, and then pass a law, or more likely, obtain a court ruling extending the definition of marriage. And supporters of the amendment aren't trying to force anything on anyone. They hope to keep us right where we are, where we've always been on this issue. And they want the people of this state to decide what should happen. Not some judge.

Keeping us "right where we are" would be to defeat the amendment and allow the normal law-creation process to be the determining factor.

"Some judge" can't create state law, as I'm sure you are quite aware.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

If you think that makes us a theocracy, you don't know what a theocracy is.

This image comes to mind when you say that:

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

Keeping us "right where we are" would be to defeat the amendment and allow the normal law-creation process to be the determining factor.

"Some judge" can't create state law, as I'm sure you are quite aware.

By keeping us "right where we are" I am, of course, talking about retaining the current definition of marriage, and while a judge cannot make new laws, they can overturn existing ones. To suggest that the courts are not an avenue to the legalization of same sex marriage is simply disingenuous, and ignores the many states where this has occurred. Thirty states currently prohibit same sex marriage in their constitution, with a clear motivation of stopping the courts from overturning laws which ban same sex marriage. Minnesotans will soon have a voice in whether to join them.

[Cruz Azul Guy]

Just out of curiosity, what is the libertarian/tea party view of this issue? Technically these people should oppose it since it involves adding a restricting ammendment to the state constitution. However, it seems to me that this would create a conflict with the religious views held by alot of people that associate themselves with these groups. Could anyone provide a perspective on this?

[dravogadro]

I personally do not lump in Libertarians with Tea Party types. Libertarians have been around long enough to develop a set of policies:
https://www.lpmn.org/platform.php#marr

I did not find anything specific about the marriage amendment on MN-based Tea Party sites but usually the Tea Party 'policy' I find (outside of free markets and limited government) sounds like this.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Cruz Azul Guy

Just out of curiosity, what is the libertarian/tea party view of this issue? Technically these people should oppose it since it involves adding a restricting ammendment to the state constitution. However, it seems to me that this would create a conflict with the religious views held by alot of people that associate themselves with these groups. Could anyone provide a perspective on this?

I believe you're confusing the tea party with an organization of people who have any intelligence, any reasonable arguments, or any principles whatsoever. "Government, Hands Off My Medicare!" pretty much says it all.

The libertarians appear to oppose the amendment. Ron Paul certainly does.