Tony Jones, writing at MinnPost,notes that M the “Marriage Amendment” is, as he says, a “ploy”:
Dear State Senator Geoff Michel and Representative Pat Mazorol,
Your party’s move to put to a statewide vote a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is unnecessary (we already have a state law on the books that defines marriage as such). It is also a political ploy, attempting to fire up the conservative base, bringing them to the polls in hopes of defeating Barack Obama. I hope it backfires on you (and, if a recent poll is correct, it will).
The “recent poll” is just a Strib Minnesota Poll. I’d normally say no more – Minnesota Polls are unfiltered DFL propaganda at worst, printed mulch at best. Actual reputable polls disagree.
What this amendment campaign will do is flood our state with outside money from groups that thrive on an embittered and polarized electorate.
And I just looooove the way the DFLers are crying about that now. The DFL spent the past two generations building an outside money machine; they’ve politicized our public employees, our teachers, our higher education system, turning all of them not only into DFL contributors, but spigots for outside money. “Outside money” is a huge reason we have a Governor Dayton.
But, most tragically, it will send a message to my friends (and your constituents) like Rachel, that she is not a valued citizen of our state.
And here we get out of “obvious” and into “cynical”.
As I’ve noted, Gay Marriage isn’t a huge issue to me, in terms of policy – but it’s also not a government issue. So when people like “Rachel” write…
In more than 515 ways (and more than twice that federally) our marriage is inferior to that of my opposite gender counterparts.I am not asking anyone to bless what Karen and I have. God has, and will continue to do that. What I am asking is for our marriage to not be constitutionally banned. I am asking that the state in which I live and love and have my being to not put my right to ever be married to Karen to a vote.
So rather than change those “515 ways” “Rachel’s” “marriage” is “inferior”, we should impose her version of marriage – which she believes is recognized by God, and I won’t argue, but it certainly isn’t recognized by any major religion, or denomination, or anything, anywhere in the world – on all the rest of us?
The proposed amendment protects absolutely no one. It does not create jobs or attract visitors and would be Minnesotans to our state.
Either do most of our laws.
Back to Jones, who closes with a strawman that I’m getting tired of:
Read her whole post and answer me this: How is Rachel’s marriage a threat to yours, or to our state?
It’s not.
Stop asking.
Her “marriage” is of no consequence to me – I wish them well, personally. It’s all the more reason to get government out of the business of defining marriage; let people sign contracts (or not) and get them blessed (or not) by any religion they want (or not).
That may or may not be what Tony Jones wants. It’s certainly not what Big Gay or Big Progressive wants. It’s not about gays’ ability to marry; it’s about solidifying “progressive” control of society and all its institutions.
Yup. It (along with heavy use of nuclear power for electricity) and pastries, is one of the few things that the French have right. (And, by the way, gets rid of one of the sillier objections to SSM: “if two guys can marry each other, then why can’t I marry my dog?” Ans.: because, among other reasons, dogs can’t enter into contracts.)
Her marriage IS a threat to mine, but I’m not going to go through why. I’m just tired of the argument that, somehow, defining marriage as it has always been is somehow “denying rights” to anybody. How can something you never had be “denied” to you? Besides, if your marriage “before God” is what counts, why do you want government involved?
Why does the DFL and their mind-numb stooges feel that I should not have the right to vote on this? Why are do they want to take away my rights?
More importantly, why NOT vote on this? It puts an end to the debate, doesn’t it? If Minnesota votes NOT to have this amendment, then gay marriage supporters should run to the Capitol and have an amendment to vote FOR gay marriage. Right?
Karen, your “marriage”, and your political movement has made my former church (the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) apostate. That means cut off from God and what He has taught us in the Holy Bible. Now you tell me, how does THAT hurt anyone?
I could write several more paragraphs on the subject, but I’ll yield back the time.
I could write several more paragraphs on the subject, but I’ll yield back the time.
Oh, c’mon Kerm! You know you wanna pull a Doggie.
“if two guys can marry each other, then why can’t I marry my dog?” Ans.: because, among other reasons, dogs can’t enter into contracts.)
Will Joel, at one time Blacks couldn’t enter contracts either. So by dening a dog the right to marry a guy, is just like using fire hoses in Selma Alabama.
Kermit….ironic that the ELCA is very pro-Palestinian-Arab. I wonder how they reconcile that. Being pro-gay and pro-Muslim/Arab.
I wonder how they reconcile that. Being pro-gay and pro-Muslim/Arab.
Well, they could be doing the “Love they enemy” thing. I’m just not sure that you’re supposed to love your enemy to the point that you cut off your nose to spite your faith.
Remember DOMA? I remember when the pro same-sex marriage people said that DOMA meant that there was no need for a federal constitutional amendment to protect the institution of traditional marriage.
No state has ever existed that did not concern itself with the moral ordering of society. The US founding documents go to great length to tie the authority of the federal government to natural law. Allowing the state to redefine existing social relationships — especially those, like the marriage and the family, that provide an independent and parallel form of social organization to the State — is NOT a libertarian solution. The right to enjoy the product of your own labor is just a tradition, after all, and a tradition with a far shorter history than that of marriage.
I wonder how they reconcile that. Being pro-gay and pro-Muslim/Arab.
Lutherans have a bad history of anti-Semitism. One of the last tracts Luther published was a scathing attack on Jews. It’s just further proof of the fallibility of man in contrast to the perfection of God. But we strive to improve. (disclaimer: I am solidly pro-Zionist)
Mis-defining marriage may not be a threat to my marriage, but given that government gets into family law for the purposes of protecting the weak and vulnerable in society (specifically women and children), mis-defining marriage law could well be a threat to women and children, as it undermines the very basis for family law.
It ain’t about beautiful bouquets and dresses and wuv, twue wuv, but rather about what happens when the relationship ends. Undermine that basic fact, and you have simultanously induced intentional amnesia about the needs of women and children to be protected in their times of vulnerability.
“which she believes is recognized by God, and I won’t argue, but it certainly isn’t recognized by any major religion, or denomination, or anything, anywhere in the world – on all the rest of us?”
I can think of at least one religion that recognizes gay conduct an offense, punishable by death!
If the state defines marriage as one person and one person, what does the state get out of the deal?
Kermit wrote: “One of the last tracts Luther published was a scathing attack on Jews.”
Well, Kermit, the LCMS is creationist and believes that the Pope is the anti-christ, if you read some of its documents very literally and use the popular meaning of words. The reality is more subtle than that.
People on opposite sides of this debate have radically different answers to the “what is marriage, what purpose does it serve, and is it useful?” questions, but only one side uses the insult “you’re a bigot” as if were an argument.
Troy, the state did not create the institution of marriage. It recognized an existing cultural institution.
What the state gains is the legal precedent to define what marriage is and is not, regardless of its organic definition.
Terry, I’m not a member of the LCMS or WELS because they insist that you have permission to accept communion. IMO, that permission is granted by God, and is between you and Him.
As for the Pope, well we shall see. My disagreements with the Catholic church are minimal.
The Catholic Church gives communion to anyone who walks in the door? I didn’t know.
“Kermit….ironic that the ELCA is very pro-Palestinian-Arab. I wonder how they reconcile that. Being pro-gay and pro-Muslim/Arab.”
…..must suppress thought about what kind of porn they actually found in Bin Laden’s mansion……OK, OK, OK, it involved GOATS, I know.
The Catholic Church gives communion to anyone who walks in the door? I didn’t know.
They don’t, but as a practical matter they don’t ask you for ID, either. You might recall an incident during Clinton’s presidency where he strolled up and received Holy Communion from a priest during a Mass he attended.
The one obvious exception in recent years is that priests have denied Holy Communion to the Rainbow Sash folks in this archdiocese.
I should hasten to add, however, that receiving Holy Communion if you are not a Catholic is considered a serious sin.
Whether you are homo or hetro, we all have the same rights.
Chuck: yup, it was. And the general consensus — a few nutcases aside — is that was a huge mistake.
That said, I’m not making the argument that SSM is a natural right — because I think that the societal benefits of letting adults make such choices is good public policy, so we don’t have to get to the issue of rights. And the public policy of getting government out of the business of deciding whether or not a contractual arrangement between adults is, it seems to me, clearly a good thing. (While mandating, say, that the Catholic Church must offer communion to, say, same sex couples or people who use mechanical means of contraception would be a bad thing. The government is bad enough at picking winners and losers when it comes to governmental contracts for services; having it being in the business of deciding what is or isn’t a “real marriage” makes no sense to me. YMMV, of course.)
And, no, under the present circumstances, I don’t think that governmental bans on SSM are anywhere near as bad as Dred Scott, and I do think that demagoguery and exaggeration around the SSM issue — on both sides — has led to a situation where too many (but not, by any means, all) people end up talking at each other in soundbites.
When SSM advocates talk about the near limitless restrictions gays face as a result of SSM being legally unavailable, they are usually talking about three big items: inclusion in an employer provided health plan, next-of-kin recognition, and Social Security spousal and survivor benefits. If people were allowed to arrange these three things contractually the demand for SSM as such would be much diminished.
The first item, inclusion in an employer provided health plan, is relatively easy to accomplish within existing the legal system. The second is more difficult. Kin is a blood relationship and making a partner of either sex next-of-kin outside the bounds of traditional marriage mangles the meaning of the word “kin” beyond recognition. Kin is kin for life (admittedly the serial monogamy that is considered a social norm these days does the same). The last, Social Security survivor benefits, is the most difficult. Social security is not a contractual obligation. It is not property. Married or unmarried, childless or not, you have no say in how your SS spousal and survivor benefits are distributed.
Another reason to change old age pensions from a government gimme to a 401k-style arrangement if you ask me.
I am especially enamored with tuna salad. Why can’t I marry my tuna salad? Why can’t my tuna salad and I adopt some kids?
Why do people H8 tuna salad lovers?
Homosexuality is defined by behavior.
Homosexuality is not about love, it’s about sex. I love my brothers, but I don’t want to fuck them…’cause I’m not a homo.
The color of a person’s skin, or scales in the case of tuna, is an inherent characteristic over which a person, or fish has no control.
Why do people H8 tuna salad?
It’s not a behavior, Swiftee, it’s an “orientation”!
Of course the only way of detecting this “orientation” is by examining an individual’s behavior, but don’t worry, teams of scientists are working to solve this thorny problem even as I write!
Terry: yup.
I don’t hear the SSM advocates talking about near limitless restrictions; I do hear them talking about the same ones you mention, more or less: next-of-kin issues, parental rights, health insurance, tax policy (lots of gay/lesbian DINKS seem to want to sign up to pay the marriage tax) including social security, employment issues, and — lastly and least subject to legislation — societal acceptance.
Most of those can be worked around with contracts and such. Most. But there are cases on the record of one of a lesbian couple, say, fleeing the state and taking the kid during a custody dispute (I don’t think there’s any reason to think that the worst of lesbian moms are any better or worse than the worst of straight ones), leaving the other without any practical recourse.
As to next-of-kin, though, we already do acknowledge a married spouse as that — even though, outside West Virginia, few are closely related.
Swiftee: I don’t think so. I think you’re straight all the time, whether or not you’re engaging in sex at the moment. In fact, I’d guess that the vast majority of the time, you’re not engaging in sex; you’d be too tired to type. Same thing with gays and lesbians — and bis, for that matter.
And, yup, gays and lesbians generally want the rest of us to recognize their relationships as being fundamentally the same as ours. And on that, taking the long view, they’re definitely winning. What we’re arguing about, these days, is legal and expanding the social recognition of their relationships, not whether Alice and Betty down the street lose their jobs and/or go to jail for what they do behind closed doors.
Which is why, by the way, I’m in (slightly) in favor of putting this amendment on the ballot. Sure, it’s likely to succeed, this time around, but in the long run, acceptance of same-sex relationships (of any relationship, in fact; there was a time when two straight people living together as a couple without “benefit of matrimony” was a scandal, not a yawn) is up to society’s consensus, and the results of trying to take judicial shortcuts have been mixed.