Comments on: Time for equal marriage in Minnesota? http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/ Tracking Minnesota Politics Since 2005 Sat, 13 Mar 2010 19:23:18 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: DantheMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38958 DantheMan Sat, 09 May 2009 00:58:42 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38958 "Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. " I'm still mulling over this issue, so I have more questions than answers. How is not calling it marriage discriminatory? That is the part I don't get. Part of any dialogue is ensuring we are answering the right question and in the right setting. I'm not so sure the state legislature is the right place to define what marriage is. “Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. ”

I’m still mulling over this issue, so I have more questions than answers. How is not calling it marriage discriminatory? That is the part I don’t get.

Part of any dialogue is ensuring we are answering the right question and in the right setting. I’m not so sure the state legislature is the right place to define what marriage is.

]]> By: Susan http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38957 Susan Fri, 08 May 2009 22:41:03 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38957 Are you all aware of Project 515? Project 515's goal is full equality for same-sex couples and their families, but isn't advocating for marriage now. First we need to education folks about the discrimination against same-sex couples that exists in Minnesota law right now. In fact, just about 515 such laws! The folks behind Project 515 think it is more productive to get people to talk about the issues that to come down on one side or the other of marriage equality. Are you all aware of Project 515? Project 515’s goal is full equality for same-sex couples and their families, but isn’t advocating for marriage now. First we need to education folks about the discrimination against same-sex couples that exists in Minnesota law right now. In fact, just about 515 such laws! The folks behind Project 515 think it is more productive to get people to talk about the issues that to come down on one side or the other of marriage equality.

]]> By: Holly Cairns http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38955 Holly Cairns Fri, 08 May 2009 22:10:49 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38955 Elected, rural legislators represent their districts. They shouldn't cater to single issue voters who are asking for what 25% of the pop would ask for.... sorry, but it hasn't been framed right, yet. Elected, rural legislators represent their districts. They shouldn’t cater to single issue voters who are asking for what 25% of the pop would ask for….

sorry, but it hasn’t been framed right, yet.

]]> By: Dan http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38945 Dan Fri, 08 May 2009 19:31:35 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38945 DFL rural legislators aren't to blame. If every single member of the DFL caucus voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn't pass. Save the "growing a pair" for when the votes actually matter. DFL rural legislators aren’t to blame. If every single member of the DFL caucus voted for gay marriage, it still wouldn’t pass. Save the “growing a pair” for when the votes actually matter.

]]> By: John S http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38932 John S Fri, 08 May 2009 17:21:52 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38932 'GLBT's? That's funny, I thought they were called US citizens. That's not just snark, that's highlighting something very important here. We are talking about rights that US citizens enjoy. One of those is that to be married. Only civil, yes, but it makes no demands of any organized religion to recognize anything it does not wish to. But marriage, not second right alternative. When does any group of US citizens have to accept second class status on a biologically determined set of criteria? It is in no way dramatic to call these limitations of marriage, these unconstitutional limits on the rights of US citizens, as Jim Crow laws. Segregation had its polite sounding, 'moderate' adherents in its day. They are now remembered as exactly what they were. ‘GLBT’s? That’s funny, I thought they were called US citizens. That’s not just snark, that’s highlighting something very important here. We are talking about rights that US citizens enjoy. One of those is that to be married. Only civil, yes, but it makes no demands of any organized religion to recognize anything it does not wish to. But marriage, not second right alternative.

When does any group of US citizens have to accept second class status on a biologically determined set of criteria? It is in no way dramatic to call these limitations of marriage, these unconstitutional limits on the rights of US citizens, as Jim Crow laws. Segregation had its polite sounding, ‘moderate’ adherents in its day. They are now remembered as exactly what they were.

]]> By: John S http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38931 John S Fri, 08 May 2009 17:10:46 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38931 And as it was said, by law, to African-Americans in South. 'You can get married. Just not anyone who isn't your own skin color.' These are exactly the same things, and a court case struck most of those laws down as well. And as it was said, by law, to African-Americans in South. ‘You can get married. Just not anyone who isn’t your own skin color.’

These are exactly the same things, and a court case struck most of those laws down as well.

]]> By: Holly Cairns http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38928 Holly Cairns Fri, 08 May 2009 16:49:23 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38928 Oh, HHH. Gotta love that guy. My father was called a Hubert Humphrey as an insult. Damn that Gresser. All wo(men) are declared equal. It must be unconstitutional to discriminate, especially monetarily, against gays. Well, where is Skadden on this one? I'd like to see the Supremes take this one on. Let's look to Marbury vs. Madison. It is time! It'd be easiest with civil unions... Oh, HHH. Gotta love that guy. My father was called a Hubert Humphrey as an insult. Damn that Gresser.

All wo(men) are declared equal. It must be unconstitutional to discriminate, especially monetarily, against gays.

Well, where is Skadden on this one? I’d like to see the Supremes take this one on. Let’s look to Marbury vs. Madison.

It is time! It’d be easiest with civil unions…

]]> By: DantheMan http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38927 DantheMan Fri, 08 May 2009 16:45:23 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38927 You could get married. Just marry a female :) You could get married. Just marry a female :)

]]> By: amuseinc http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38926 amuseinc Fri, 08 May 2009 16:19:30 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38926 Hubert H. Humphrey gave a famous speech at the 1948 Democratic National Convention Address. He talked about how civil rights was not a question of right time but that it was 172 years too late, that now was the time. During that speech the Happy Warrior quoted Senator Alben Barkley. Speaking of the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, he quoted from Alben Barkley: "He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and Catholic men are equal; that all rich and poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal. What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support." Bluntly, "What he declared was that all men are equal" and short of the using the male pronoun to mean all citizens, this is true today. Hubert H. Humphrey gave a famous speech at the 1948 Democratic National Convention Address. He talked about how civil rights was not a question of right time but that it was 172 years too late, that now was the time. During that speech the Happy Warrior quoted Senator Alben Barkley. Speaking of the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, he quoted from Alben Barkley:

“He did not proclaim that all the white, or the black, or the red, or the yellow men are equal; that all Christian or Jewish men are equal; that all Protestant and Catholic men are equal; that all rich and poor men are equal; that all good and bad men are equal. What he declared was that all men are equal; and the equality which he proclaimed was the equality in the right to enjoy the blessings of free government in which they may participate and to which they have given their support.”

Bluntly, “What he declared was that all men are equal” and short of the using the male pronoun to mean all citizens, this is true today.

]]> By: Andrew http://mnpublius.com/2009/05/time-for-equal-marriage-in-minnesota/#comment-38924 Andrew Fri, 08 May 2009 15:46:19 +0000 http://mnpublius.com/?p=5553#comment-38924 Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. If the Gov wants to completely eliminate the term marriage and everyone has civil unions, sure whatever. And it is a matter of equal standing, you can get married, I could get a civil union. That isnt equal, plain and simple. It isnt the rights only that are important, its the fact that by calling it marriage, my relationship with a guy will truly be equal to yours with a man/woman. If our government uses two terms with one being relegated only for a certain group of people, that is inherently unequal. Because not calling it marriage is still discriminatory. If the Gov wants to completely eliminate the term marriage and everyone has civil unions, sure whatever.

And it is a matter of equal standing, you can get married, I could get a civil union. That isnt equal, plain and simple. It isnt the rights only that are important, its the fact that by calling it marriage, my relationship with a guy will truly be equal to yours with a man/woman.

If our government uses two terms with one being relegated only for a certain group of people, that is inherently unequal.

]]>