Senator,
While I have made clear to you and the general public that I am not a fan of you or the work that you do for the public in St. Paul on other issues, I wanted to take additional time to note my extreme disappointment in your decision to push for a public vote on an amendment which would effectively ban gay marriage in the State Constitution.
While we’re both conservative, I believe that the definition of discrimination also includes the government’s involvement in not permitting two people of the same sex from entering into a union of marriage. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions but you and I both know that you are supposed to act on what you would consider to be the greater good for all of your constituents. What you have done here is akin to asking the public to vote on an amendment to ban an African-American and a Caucasian from marrying and that is definitely not in the best interests of anyone.
You have failed in your duties as a senator and I hope that you and your fellow lawmakers who have decided to push forth an agenda of bigotry and hatred realize that what you have done is far worse than any moral issues you personally believe exist with these unions. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Bill Roehl
[Redacted]
Apple Valley, MN
billandkimroehl@gmail.com
As of this morning the bigot has not yet replied. Keep the comments, if any, as civil as you can. Thanks.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
May 13th, 2011 at 7:52 am
They must know that gay marriage will soon be completely legal and available if they’re making such a draconian push.
May 13th, 2011 at 7:58 am
I fail to see one big thing, and I’m saying this 1/2 sarcastic and 1/2 serious: “Who gives a crap, and why does the Gov’t need to interject?”
Seriously, if you love someone, want to spend the rest of your life with them and marry them, GO FOR IT. I don’t see why it matters if your of different color, religion, or same gender.
I really don’t see what the fuss is about? Maybe I was raised to be open minded and see beyond a gender or color, and the supposed fair and just people we have elected the congress are far from that.
Really, it’s 2011, pull your stinky dinky out of your you know where, and get with it. It doesn’t matter.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:15 am
I have never heard a good answer to the question, “What if you woke up one day and were told that (the bible, the law) said it was wrong to be married to (the opposite sex person you are married to right now).
The notion that gay people “choose” to be attracted to the same sex is the most preposterous thing I have ever heard. I have had this conversation with friends of mine who happen to be gay, and the constant is always, “Why would I choose this life?” They have lost family and friends simply for being who they happen to be.
It will be interesting to see how this thread goes, Bill, as I know you tend to shy away from religious debate on your blog, which is exactly what this is.
Hats off to you for making this stand, btw.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:31 am
I could not agree with you more!
May 13th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Let the circus begin. I would prefer the state to stay out of the marriage business. If we must recognize marriage, I would like to discuss why. What is the purpose?
Also, be aware that the current status of Perry v. Schwarzenegger is that California prop 8 is in violation of the 14th amendment. I’m not sure how close the Cal amendment is to ours. Their text is “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The ruling has been stayed pending appeal. This is expected to go to the supreme court. I am concerned about the constitutionality of this amendment.
Finally, MN requires a constitutional amendment to voted on by the people. Any time a single issue is up to the masses, I am concerned about “tyranny of the majority”.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:34 am
This is no different than if there would have been a vote back in the sixties as for or against segregation.
I thought our courts and government protected all of the people, not just the majority. (actually, I didn’t think that, but those are our ideals)
May 13th, 2011 at 8:53 am
I’m against left-handed marriage. It’s just not natural. If you are left-handed, you should not be able to marry anyone else who is left-handed. Think of the children.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:56 am
I am a liberal and strongly believe in the separation of church and state but was raised in the conservative republican evangelical religious tradition that both Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann would understand and find agreeable.
The reason I broke from this tradition is simply because I cannot understand the correlation between their political social agenda and what is typically referred to in these religious circles as the greatest commandment. “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” Luke10:27.
Loving your neighbor means treating them as your treat yourself. Love one another as Christ love us is another principal component of this tradition. How are we showing God’s love to one another by perpetuating hatred and bigotry? I understand that they believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and that they define any sexual activity outside of marriage as adultery and forbidden by the 10 Commandments. That said, bearing false witness, honoring your father and mother, coveting and taking the Lord’s name in vain also make the top ten I don’t see a full court press to change the state’s constitution to accommodate these commandments.
And don’t even get me started on the irony of a party who want less government and more individual choice wanting to grow government and reduce individual choice.
Requiring a motorcycle rider to wear a helmet is a government overreach. It’s too intrusive into people’s lives, it removes personal choice and is a symptom of a big brother/nanny state but to legally restrict the gender of your marriage partner is not? Your head, your choice. Your marriage not your choice. I just don’t get it.
May 13th, 2011 at 8:57 am
I haven’t read the proposed bill so I really can’t comment on if I agree with it or not. I do have a problem with our state senators and representatives working on bills such as this when they haven’t passed a budget. The governor is already talking about calling a special session (should never happen in my opinion). Get the budget passed then worry about other issues.
May 13th, 2011 at 9:03 am
Well said Bill. Your letter is very good. I cannot believe this is actually happening in this state, makes me ashamed to live here and if this gets passed, I will be in absolute disbelief. The whole thing is just crazy. I just don’t understand how someone feels it is a governmental function to tell some of the people that marriage is okay, but not for others. I believe government is supposed to be for ALL citizens. And, seriously, what ever happened to the separation between Church and State?
Hell, maybe we ought to make marriage as a whole unconstitutional, at least that wouldn’t discriminatory (and take the pressure off of us singles!) :)
I guess this is at least creating a good dialogue and will get people off their asses and to the polls (I hope).
May 13th, 2011 at 9:04 am
dsw,
Under which conditions would you agree to a restriction on gay marriage or any semblance of such?
May 13th, 2011 at 9:06 am
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H1615.0.html&session=ls87
Relevant portion:
May 13th, 2011 at 9:15 am
The current bill seems to be SF1308.
The text:
An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article XIII, to read: Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.
The ballot question:
“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?
May 13th, 2011 at 9:21 am
The biggest problem with this amendment is the confusion the public has with it. Too many people think that if they vote “no” that gay marriage will suddenly be legal. It won’t.
You’re now choosing between status quo (gay marriage is illegal) or gay marriage is now illegal and will be much harder to become legal at some future time as it will require a repeal of the amendment.
May 13th, 2011 at 9:23 am
I wrote a letter to my senator yesterday regarding the very same subject and no response back yet. Every day without a response goes to show that they truly don’t give a shit about what their constituents think.
May 13th, 2011 at 10:11 am
I don’t see what the big deal is with this vote. It is an issue that will work itself out through the normal process. If everyone thinks this bill is an outrage, then it will blow up in the sponsors faces, and they will be voted out of office. If it gets defeated then the path may be paved for a bill that will allow gay marriage.
The only thing I do agree with everyone here on is the issue of timing. Why are we wasting time on this now? We are drowning in red ink, and we need jobs and other pressing issues addressed.
I see some of you wrote Chris and are expecting an immediate response. I write Chris from time to time, and it usually takes quite a while to get a response. I do eventually get a response, but it can take up to a couple of weeks. I guess what I am trying to say is, if he doesn’t get back to you TODAY, don’t feel “special”. ;)
May 13th, 2011 at 10:16 am
Sean, the last time I asked to meet with him they got back to me quickly. When I posted on my site about my visit with the Senator he was on top of it like flies on shit.
Believe me, the man isn’t as busy as he may let you believe him to be.
May 13th, 2011 at 10:36 am
Sean:
I’d recommend reading up on Locke and his views of the tyranny of the majority. This is wrong, any way you cut it.
May 13th, 2011 at 10:40 am
I do think it’s a religious issue – anybody I’ve talked to who’s been against it has gone back to the Bible/religion to hide behind. I think it’s bollocks, but whatever. I’m also Asian married to a white guy. I always think back to, 40 or so years ago (Loving v. Virginia?), it would have been illegal for my husband and me to marry. How’s that for effed up? (I used to live in VA)
I’m glad you wrote this letter, hopefully he’ll pay attention. I wrote a letter about the transit de-funding to both my senator and representative, and one never replied to me while the other replied asking for my address to confirm I was in his district. He lives a few streets down from me. Sometimes I’m tempted to walk my dogs over and encourage them to poop in his yard. Is that too childish of me? Eh.
May 13th, 2011 at 11:05 am
100% fail to see why anyone would care who gets married.
Its an old and tired joke, but why shouldnt gay people be able to be miserable like the rest of us?
May 13th, 2011 at 12:27 pm
I believe the reason politicians care comes down to money and taxes. I’m not well versed in either so my comment is just to put perspective on possible motives.
I’ve also heard that a reason to allow it is for legal definitions of relationships not by blood (for wills, hospital visitations etc.) so that they can be defined with a license in the even that one side is incapable of confirming or denying. As a software engineer that makes sense to me and people are just getting hung up on the nomenclature. Although, this just raise more questions as to why they would care.
May 13th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Oh, well done, Bill!
And Adam Rechnor, it is true: two of my children are left-handed, and my right-handed husband is looking at me askance.
What’s backward to me, is that this amendment, if passed, will allow government to dictate to religion: churches will not have the choice to decide on this issue. That’s just crazy to me, that religious leaders would encourage this kind of legislation.
Also, I think promiscuity has caused so many problems in our society; why on earth would any government not support fidelity between adult partners?
I think the world would be a better place if people would stop trying to “fix it” for the second coming or whatever, and devote their time on earth to fixing themselves.
May 13th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
well said. i concur.
May 13th, 2011 at 1:37 pm
My husband and son are both left-handed. The dog was left-pawed. I was in the minority.
Well said, everyone. Keep both the government and the church out of peoples’ bedrooms and stop looking for reasons to be projudiced and hateful. If two individuals want to team up and support each other in this scary world, it’s a good thing.
May 13th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
The Star Tribune notes that 55% of people in their poll would vote against this amendment. Everyone knows that the Strib is a liberal left leaning bunch of hemp addicts, so take that for what it is worth.
I am glad that our racist government passed the Surly bill today. Nice to see they are getting something important done.
May 13th, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Sandy really summed it up for me.
“If two individuals want to team up and support each other in this scary world, it’s a good thing.”
Honestly, I doubt there is a simpler or more eloquent way to say something so true.
May 13th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
You know what? Maybe we should be thanking Gerlach and the rest of the do-nothing, panty-waisted “legislators” we have down in St. Paul. Maybe we should take this trend of our elected officials avoiding like the plague the representative democracy the United States is supposed to be, and take it a step further.
Abolish these assholes! Shutter the Capitol.
That’s right, no more legislature and no more Governor. If their solution for solving problems they’re too stupid and dug in the sand to solve is to “put it to the people”, let’s just put EVERYTHING to the people.
Hell, let’s solve the State’s budget problem by firing these tools, opening up a toll-free phone bank to take our votes American Idol style, and charge $2.99 for each time you call in.
Monday night: Gay marriage. Text 20999 for “yes” and 21999 for “no”.
Tuesday night: Voter ID! 1-900-FUCK-YOU. Press 1 for “yes” and 2 for “no”.
Wednesday can be the Vikings stadium and Thursday legalizing non-Native American gambling.
Friday can be Raffle Ticket Day. Winner gets to roll three dice and that’s the amount x 1 million we fund education for the next two years. (Let’s hope the first roll is a 6 kids!)
By next Wednesday, we’d have the deficit hole plugged, we’d have all of the issues solved, and we could send jerk-offs like Steve Gottwalt, Mark Dayton, and Tom Rukavina out to pasture to blather endlessly to themselves and a bunch of corn stalks.
May 13th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Well done Mr Roehl. not only is this amendment an abomination, but the worse thing is that this movement to start placing these types of referendums into elections is a very slippery slope to bad government. Look at California… they essentially have a “government by proposition” and a legislature that is useless. This type of move basically is what happens when legislators are controlled by their extremes, rather than “legislate” which involves rational meaningful compromise they default to the extreme view of their partisans who fund their campaigns.
I am guessing that your readership’s views in these comments is indicative of an age group well under 65 years old… to most people under 35 years old this simply isnt an issue. so the supporters of this amendment know that time and demographics are not on their side, but they also know that people over 65 years old vote at much higher rates.
Time for a Surly … there is so much these days in politics to be surly over.
May 13th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
I’m a crazy liberal and very much against this, obviously. But I can understand fiscal conservatives. What I can’t understand is people who think it is okay to take away rights from some people based on things they cannot control.
I know Marcus Bachmann has “changed” his sexual preference, but it is accepted by 99% of the medical and psychatric communities that being gay isn’t a choice. Taking away rights based on who someone is is just flat wrong.
Social conservatives have long been on the wrong side of history and they will be again on this one. It is just a matter of time.
May 14th, 2011 at 8:19 am
I am sincerely heartened to hear/see so many viewing this initiative as misguided, at a minimum. As a Wellstone liberal (politically) and attend a church where gay marriages are blessed, I’m vehemently opposed to this amendment and many other conservative positions. But, to oppose discrimination transcends politics, thankfully.
May 14th, 2011 at 1:42 pm
The right-wing agenda never changes: Guns, God and Gays.
And they repeatedly raise these same issues — not because they want to effect change — but because they’ll do whatever it takes to get their conservative base into the voting booth in 2012.
By framing these issues as constitutional amendments and putting them to a vote, the Republicans are taking a huge risk. People tend to vote on candidates, not issues. And the more issues they have to decide on, the less likely they are to vote on any of them. If a voter chooses not to vote on an amendment, it’s counted as a No vote. I hope this comes back to bite them in the butt. Hard.
Although I’m not a member of the GLBT community, I am an advocate, and out of respect for their community, I’m asking for just one thing:
Please don’t call this “gay marriage.” Let’s call it what it is: Marriage Equality.
May 14th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
Its amazing how much I have changed on this particular issue over the past ten years. I remember a point in my life (when I was young and single) when I was adamantly opposed to the whole idea of gay marriage. Once I matured and actually befriended openly gay people for the first time in my life I went through a lot of changes. In a way I learned to get over myself. I’ve heard time and time again how marriage is under attack by the idea of gay marriage. Given the current divorce rate marriage seems to be under attack from homosexuals that enter into it without the proper mindset. What can they do to ruin it that we haven’t already done ourselves?
I don’t care about who loves who or somebody’s religious values. I do have an extreme sense of fair play and if they want to get married I don’t care. I’ve got Dakota County property taxes to pay, a job that doesn’t pay nearly enough for what they expect me to actually do, and the Vikings trying to steal from us to enrich themselves. Unfortunately my legislature is obsessed with abortion, gay marriage, and trying to gerrymander the state so they can have a permanent majority.
Fill the potholes, pick up the trash thats blowing all over and stay out of crap that doesn’t matter. Everytime these knuckleheads get a majority they waste their new found power on stupid crap like this. If we get to the point where we deliberately place discrimination in the state constitution it is the start of the proverbial slippery slope.
P.S. Tony Sutton is a fat pig…
May 15th, 2011 at 10:59 pm
Fully on board with a message to our legislators to quit wasting their time and our money on things like this. None of my business who wants to be “partners”. I choose to be married under the tenants of my religion, what others choose should be up to them.
And I am 100% against virtually all of these constitutional amendments. Having once lived in a state that allows easy access to placing items into the state constitution (Colorado) it severely messes things up. For the ultimate case, look at California and the mess its government is in. As legislator, do your job and don’t force me to do so.
May 16th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
I’m so glad the legislature got their important work finished early in the session (remember “jobs, jobs, jobs”?) so they can tackle things like this.
May 17th, 2011 at 7:44 am
This is all about distracting the electorate and getting their conservative base into the polling booth on Election Day. Gerlach is a hyporcite on this, but he does come from a evangelical background.
BTW, Don’t let Tara Mack of the hook either. She voted against the Domestic Partner Death bill that provided domestic partners with legal right to determine the disposition of their partners remains and with the right to determine who they wanted as executor of their wills. A bill so mean spirited that most republicans supported it and it happened to pass.
Tara was on the losing side of that one.
I did write her a letter asking her to vote against it, and for the first time ever, in her case, did not receive a reply.
I can’t WAIT for to come to my door in August.. then again if she’s going to take the line from her Fundie Evangelist Preacher Husband.. now that shes knocked up.. maybe she’ll retire to mind the home fires and leave politics to the menfolk..
Or not.
May 17th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
“We take these truths to be self evident…”
May 17th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Saw this on Twitter earlier today:
“When in the name of Schwarzenegger are the gays going to stop undermining the sacred institution of marriage???”
May 18th, 2011 at 9:54 am
Charles Barkley on gay marriage: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2011/05/charles-barkley-gay-teammates-nba
May 18th, 2011 at 2:09 pm
“Its amazing how much I have changed on this particular issue over the past ten years. I remember a point in my life (when I was young and single) when I was adamantly opposed to the whole idea of gay marriage. Once I matured and actually befriended openly gay people for the first time in my life I went through a lot of changes. In a way I learned to get over myself. I’ve heard time and time again how marriage is under attack by the idea of gay marriage. Given the current divorce rate marriage seems to be under attack from homosexuals that enter into it without the proper mindset. What can they do to ruin it that we haven’t already done ourselves?” – John R.
Well said John. When others adamantly are against gay marriage, and putting the religious tenets aside (because from purely government perspective, aren’t we talking about a civil right? The Bible should have absolutely NOTHING to do with it – and frankly, even if it did – I can quote just as many passages to counteract the biblical “it’s an abomination” argument, trust me), I often ask: Have you ever really, honestly had a friendship or even a conversation with a gay person? More often than not, the answer is: No. Because, if the person had, the exact same “lightbulb” moment that John R. has described would have occurred. That is:
“They” are no different from “Us”.
Sen. Gerlach either hasn’t had that opportunity, has not developed the intellectual acuity to understand it, and/or is so beholden to the conservatives that he is unwilling to take the “risk” to accept it.
I once had a conversation with someone who, when faced with this rationale, his only comeback was, in essence: Well, gay marriage creates too much of a slippery slope. If we let gay people marry, the next thing will happen is people will want to marry their dogs. My response was: Really – that’s all you’ve got? You want to deny a civil right to people because of some whacked out slippery slope argument? Involving dogs? Talk about a lack of intellectual exercise facing our country.
There are rare instances where government decisions should not be subject to “majority rule” – (where we should be able to rely on the intellectual, non-biased, well reasoned civic leaders to, well… LEAD – and lead well) – and granting civil rights to a group of citizens is one of those instances. One only needed to have paid attention to the civil rights unit in high school American history class to have learned that lesson. At that time, we had true leaders in government who recognized the fallacy of the argument posed by the majority to support its rationale for the oppression of the minority. Sure, it would have been “easier” and “more popular” to put civil rights to a vote. But the outcome would have been wrong. It would have been wrong then, and it will be wrong now if this matter is put to a vote.
Sorry to be so preachy. But almost nothing gets my dander up more than discrimination. To see representatives leading our state down the path of government-sanctioned discrimination is even more abhorrent.
May 18th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Dogs are a hell of a lot more loyal than humans. I was a dog widower for years, but I have redogged. Thinking about getting another dog. Is that Paldogamy?
May 18th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Thanks, W-o-W! Nicely said. But, my fear is when 2012 rolls around the lousy Republicans will still win the day. The south of the river crowd seems much to conservative to vote in Dems – even if the Repugnacans are turning Minnesota into Mississippi.
May 19th, 2011 at 7:23 am
I don’t know about that, C&V — there were Dems in the legislature from SOTR before the most recent election. I think Republicans will still get elected in some districts here for a long time to come, but others may shift back and forth.
May 22nd, 2011 at 10:13 am
Well, the legislature pushed it through and we’ll be voting on the ban come the next election.
http://www.kare11.com/news/article/924007/391/Minn-voters-will-decide-on-gay-marriage-ban
May 22nd, 2011 at 10:16 am
Remember. We are voting either way to have it be banned. If it is approved it’ll be banned in the constitution and not just banned as it is today.
May 22nd, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The Republicans who voted for this are cowards. They are hiding behind the “let the people vote” mantra instead of being honest and saying their religious beliefs trump peoples equal rights. They have no integrity.
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:24 pm
Did anyone ever hear back? If so, what did the email say? I wrote in (to Chris) and still have not received a response. I also wrote Chris about the current budget battle and received a form email response a few days later.
I received a lot more personal and timely responses from Rep. Bills.
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:28 pm
Sean, as of today I still haven’t heard from Senator Chris Gerlach about his bigotry, hatred, and lack of understanding about what discrimination means.
May 22nd, 2011 at 3:41 pm
So nobody reading this blog post is in favor of this amendment? C’mon out cowards! Let us hear your wisdom.
May 22nd, 2011 at 7:24 pm
I think it is entirely asinine to take something so stupid and make it a constitutional law. If you want it to be a law, fine make it a law. To have it be part of our constitution, I think it’s stupid. Why, I dunno. I guess it just seems like a lot of energy being put into a negative. Don’t we have bigger issues that could use some energy and move us forward as a state instead of something like this which only moves us backwards?
May 22nd, 2011 at 8:18 pm
Lefty, are you surprised? Look at what happened in the House last night — nobody who voted for putting the amendment on the ballot spoke out in favor of it. They were all cowards.
May 23rd, 2011 at 7:40 am
Sank’s post on the topic is beautiful: http://oldandintheway.org/2011/05/22/the-battle-for-genital-control/
May 23rd, 2011 at 8:38 am
Tim, I don’t know if I am surprised, I just was hoping there would be an idiot or two that might have wanted to banter.
I think this probably will not pass, anyway. Maybe this ends up being a good thing. Hopefully the LDS folks will keep their nose out of our business like they didn’t in California.
May 24th, 2011 at 8:53 am
http://feeds.minnpost.com/~r/minnpost/~3/ymieH-pwiwc/wording_matters_on_ballot_questons_like_the_marriage_amendment
May 24th, 2011 at 9:52 am
Kind of ironic that I just pulled up this post and there was an ad for the Mormon faith.
I am aware that you don’t have a lot of say in what show up on the ads.
May 24th, 2011 at 9:55 am
I don’t know why anyone in 2011 is still browsing without AdBlock enabled.
May 24th, 2011 at 9:56 am
However, I am glad that they do as it pays the bills :)
May 24th, 2011 at 10:10 am
So you call me an idiot and thank me for being one. Hmm.
I usually don’t get the latter from my wife and kids.
May 25th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
http://www.minnpost.com/severnsguntzel/samesexstatemap/
May 25th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/freshmn/~3/53apkb7A7wo/5840713286
May 25th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
The governor’s “symbolic” letter is great! Thank someone (the voters, I guess) for NOT putting Emmers in that position. I truly believe we dodged a bullet there.
May 26th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
More greatness from Sank regarding Tara Mack’s ignoring the seriously horrible thing she did: http://oldandintheway.org/2011/05/26/tara-mack-same-sex-bigot/
May 27th, 2011 at 8:23 am
Why make it a constitutional amendment? Because then it can not be declared unconstitutional against the state constitution. If passed as a constitutional amendment, I am sure the constitutional provision will be challenged as violating the federal constitution, just as is happening in CA. Reason to vote for passage of this bill if you are against it? It might speed up the process of getting the issue before the federal Supreme Court. Probably not a good reason to vote for it though. You would be gambling that the US Supreme court will eventually declare this type of discrimination to be unconstitutional.
The definition of marriage according to the state does not really affect religious institutions as some allege. Ministers and churches do not have to perform marriage ceremonies that are not in keeping with the beliefs of their faith. As it stands now, churches can not perform legally binding same sex marriages in this state. The passage of this amendment would not change that. If an amendment was proposed defining marriage as a union between two concenting adults and it passed, churches would still not be required to perform the ceremonies. Judges, on the other hand, whether they agreed with same sex marirage or not, would probably be required to sign the documents necessary to establish the marriage.
May 27th, 2011 at 9:05 am
I just don’t understand why these legislators want to be on the wrong side of history.
It is clear that this issue is one generation, maybe two from being over. The “35 and Under” set already sees gay marriage as no big deal or imposition on their life. Gay individuals are coming out much earlier than they did a decade ago and so on. It increases the chances that they will actually meet and get to know someone different than them (sort of like desegregation forced white people to meet a black person).
I think sui generis is right, the federal govt. is going to have a say in this. I am not sure if that time is now or not, but eventually persons who are gay will get treated equally in our country, no matter what a specific State constitution may say. We just need the rest of the bigoted, racist generations to die off, specifically the Baby Boomers and the one that is mostly dying off above them right now.
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:46 am
http://www.thisweeklive.com/2011/06/02/supporting-ban-on-gay-marriage/
My reply: http://www.thisweeklive.com/2011/06/02/supporting-ban-on-gay-marriage/comment-page-1/#comment-6315
June 2nd, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Couple of good comments to that letter.
July 19th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
If the goal is “marriage equality”, what about bisexuals?
Shouldn’t they be allowed to marry those they love?
Thus, the restriction that marriage places on being only for “two” is just as discriminatory.
July 19th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
@Kevin K. What the f#@& are you talking about? Ones sexual identity has nothing to do with the marriage question.
July 21st, 2011 at 9:17 am
@C&V:
Well, when I hear people talking marriage equality, the grounds for allowing two people of the same gender is that people should be allowed to marry the one they love.
Thus, if a person loves both a person of the same gender and one of the opposite gender, then why can’t that person marry both people?
Why does the marriage partnership need to be limited to two people?
That’s all I’m asking.
July 21st, 2011 at 1:52 pm
Kevin, while I don’t care about how many people are in a marriage (I certainly don’t care if people are married to multiple people as it doesn’t affect me in the least), what you are talking about makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
July 21st, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Kevin K. is just trying to go down the boring road that most of those bigots want to go.
Eventually he will try to get you to admit that we are headed full steam into a society in which a man marries a cow and then we will all agree that we need to stop this crazy nonsense about gay people getting equal rights.
July 21st, 2011 at 2:14 pm
I don’t care if someone marries a cow. Being that your poor wife married you, we’re clearly doomed as a society ;-)
July 21st, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Kevin
Last I checked, polygamy was illegal in this state so your question is moot. It’s just your way of inserting your homophobic agenda into the argument.
Nice try though.
July 21st, 2011 at 3:11 pm
kevin k has been spewing this kind of disgusting bigotry on other sites; The Minnesota Independent specifically. You’re right, lefty, it’s a boring road he travels. Take a long walk on a short pier, kevin.
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:45 am
Nurd52: I wouldn’t call the point moot. Polygamy is illegal in this state, but for all intents and purposes, so is same sex marriage at this point. While everyone has been willing to shout down the question, I have yet to hear anyone offer an intelligent argument as to why same sex marriage should be allowed, but multiple marriages should not be if the question is truly about marital freedom. Best answer is that it isn’t about marital freedom. It is about equal treatment, and the ability of every person, capable of consent (lets cut off the arguments about pedophiles marrying children right here) to marry one person of their choice. Polygamy deals with a whole separate set of policy issues, the biggest of which is probably the government’s concerns over having to referee fights over who gets to make decisions concerning dead bodies, who gets inheritance, who is responsible for supporting who, etc. I am sure there are many other reasons too. I am not saying the reasons are good or bad, just that the issues are very distinguishable from one another and recognizing one does not require recognizing the other.
As far as the bisexual question goes, equal treatment would be to allow that person to pick either the male they love or the female they love and marry them, but not both.
Chapter&Verse: It sounds like one’s sexual identity has everthing to do with the issue, as those who identify as heterosexual are permitted to marry, but those who identify as homosexual are not.
As far as Kevin K. and his 2 comments here go, I saw nothing inappropriate in the way his questions were posed here. He did not call names, he did not unfairly jump to conclusions and label people, he did not shout anybody down. In short, he actually came off as looking like the more rational person when others immediately declared him a biggot and immediately dismissed his arguement without so much as an attempt at intelligent debate.
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:55 am
sui g, if you’re against gay marriage you’re a bigot. Sorry.
July 22nd, 2011 at 7:59 am
At no point did Kevin K. indicate here that he was for or against gay marriage that I see.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:01 am
Here. Exactly.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:08 am
sui generis: discrimination based on sexual identity is the problem within the marriage equality issue, you are correct. I was responding to kk’s logic that restricting only 2 people to get married was equally discriminatory and trying to link it with the marriage equlity question. When posing the polygamy question the sexual identity portion of the argument should be set aside. It becomes a question of numbers – not identity.
Marriage equality is a very hot button for me for a long list of reasons. I often react quickly, strongly and inarticulately when confronted with what I perceive to be bigoted discrimination. I’ll try to be a bit more measured with my comments, but no promises.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:10 am
Point being, if this is the window someone uses when they first look at the issue, how do you want your side of the debate represented? Let it play out making the same arguements in support of the position that you may have made in any other venue. When and if he finally says something stupid, or actually takes a stand, then call him a bigot, curse his family name, whatever.
Disclaimers: The “you” in the above statement is the universal “you” and does not refer to any one person in particular.
July 22nd, 2011 at 8:38 am
Kevin K. was using a tool called “baiting”. It is as clear as day, and I don’t need what he said on a different website to help legitimize that.
The only other tact that one could take from his supposition is that he is a proponent of plural marriage, and that is not what this thread is about.
July 22nd, 2011 at 9:42 am
Perhaps, Lefty, but does that justify the response to his “baiting”. Three choices: 1. attempt to engage in civil, rational discourse and let him hang himself by becoming unreasonable and emotional; 2. Ignore him completely, don’t even acknowledge the comment; or 3. Lash out with names, and simply shouting the commenter down without an attempt at intelligent debate.
Put it this way: I used to be against same sex marriage. Felt it should be illegal. This was largely and emotionally and religiously/morally based opinion. When people responded emotionally, with names like bigot, (and lets face it, everyone is a bigot, it is just that it is considered OK to be bigoted against certain groups. How many people here who throw out the word bigot are bigoted against republicans as a group, making slurs, etc. without regard to the fact that there are republicans who have very different thoughts from a majority of the party). At any rate, when people responded emotionally, I also responded emotionally. No one was swayed, no one won that battle, and both sides became further entrenched in their emotions. It wasn’t until I encountered people (other Christians as it happens) that were willing to discuss the issue calmly, without name calling and self righteous indignation that I was able to put the emotional fire out and concentrate on the logical, and legal aspects of the argument. It was then that I discovered there really isn’t a good, legal reason to deny same sex couples the right to enter into marriage. My attitude shifted from being a person who would have voted in favor of a constitutional amendment to being a person who would vote against it.
Maybe Kevin K. showed up looking to start an emotional bonfire. In fact, it is very probable. People on the side of same sex marriage proceeded to hand him gasoline and matches. From someone who was swayed to a different way of thinking on the issue, you did more harm for your cause than good.
That being said, say and do what you want.
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:11 am
But doesn’t his argument create a polygamous situation if carried through to it’s natural conclusion that we should allow bi-sexual people to marry one person of each gender?
I agree with Bill that he’s baiting (I call it trolling myself). As for the “intelligent” argument as to why it should be allowed:
One argument could be that it would certainly free up our legislators time to spend on legitimate issues such as deficit reduction, reforming tax laws, etc. You know STUFF THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS TO PEOPLE! rather than phony conservative Christians that are playing to a narrow minded (but who actually vote in numbers to matter) base.
I don’t like to be told how to live and think by religious right and I’ll fight that tooth and nail.
July 22nd, 2011 at 10:38 am
nurd52: Ummm…of course it creates a polygamous situation, which is why I went to the effort to distinguish polygamy from same sex marriage and why the recognition of one does not require the recognition of the other. As for your “intelligent” argument as to why same sex marriage should be allowed, it really doesn’t address the issue at all. Same sex marriage is not allowed right now. If the legislaters were to concentrate on “STUFF THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS TO PEOPLE”, and not, presumably, same sex marriage rights, same sex couples would still not be permitted to marry. However, would you still consider it a waste of legislative time if the legislature instead was seeking to pass an amendment declaring same sex marriage to be legal in the State of MN? If your answer is not “Yes, it would still be a waste of time”, then you must acknowledge that this is a subject that matters a great deal to people. I’m sure it matters very much to the gay couple that would like to share their lives together and enjoy the protections and prioroties our government has set up for married couples.
By all means, fight tooth and nail, but do so effectively.
July 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 am
Today it is Sui Generis’ world. We are all just living in it.
July 22nd, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Damn straight.
July 22nd, 2011 at 6:02 pm
On a side note from the main topic, I do kinda wish suspected trolls were not called out quite so quickly. its so much more fun to let them post several times, let them really dig a hole, and then use their own words against them. its a lot more fun that way than scaring them off after one or two posts. Remember “AJ” on the Goodfellas thread? Good times…
July 23rd, 2011 at 11:36 am
wow, I calls em like i sees em. i can’t anyone slack on this one. i use both feet… can’t help myself.
July 26th, 2011 at 9:27 am
first off, if there are other “kevin k’s” out there on other blogs, those are not me. i’m not the same guy on The Minnesota Independent, as I don’t go there.
(Bill, maybe to clear up confusion, change my name to “KevinKuck” so that I won’t be accused of being someone I’m not. Thanks)
@sui, thank you for seeing that I have not stated my position, I only asked why marriage is limited to two people.
I’ll put my cards on the table: I am one who leans towards defining marriage as “one man one woman.” But I know I am persuadable on this issue. My once strong feelings on this issue are eroding away and I am not looking for an “emotional bonfire” in this.
One of my hangups on this issue relates to why marriage is also restricted to 2 people. Would it make me a bigot if I was against polygamy?
I know I’m a bigot against a 15-year-old marrying a 30 year-old. I’m glad the laws on marriage address the issue of age for marriage. That is a good thing for society, and I would not want that changed.
The arguments I hear for allowing gay-marriage generally do not persuade me when they are based on the premise that “we should be allowed to marry the person we love.” If that is the reason to allow gay-marriage, then I see no reason why polygamy should remain illegal.
In other words, I want a better reason for gay-marriage than “we should all marry the person we love.”
Is it unreasonable for me to have these concerns when I read this in the NY Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/21/opinion/21turley.html?_r=4&hp
(i don’t want to be a troll, but I only check my email every couple days, so sorry if my delays are long.)
July 26th, 2011 at 9:31 am
Per KevinKuck’s request I have changed his username.
July 26th, 2011 at 10:48 am
I’ll bite.
KevinKuck,
For the sake of my response, I am going to make an assumption that you are a male heterosexual and either married or hope to marry a woman some day. If that is so, your biological makeup is such that you are physically attracted to women. How would you feel if they made it a law that you could only marry men, and though you would be free to be “with” a woman, she could not make decisions on your estate if you died suddenly, for example or basically be told that since you are not “like the rest of people”, you don’t get treated the same or have the same rights?
I think that is the basic reason that I feel that gay marriage should be allowed. Just because I was born in the “majority”, does not mean I have more rights than someone who was born different than the majority. To me it is no different than saying that black people can’t get married.
I understand the procreation part of it that usually creeps in at this point. People of the same sex can’t make babies. We all get that. I would offer to you that for a gay couple, the inability to share the specialness of creating a child as one of many sacrifices that they are forced to make in their life. To me, having laws that take away things from individuals who have mostly had a tougher life already is just wrong.
Equally relevant, nobody is hurt here. Show me where anybody is harmed by calling it marriage vs. “civil union” or some other term. This sort of plays into your plural marriage question, and I am not so sure why 3 consenting adults shouldn’t be allowed to be married to each other if that what floats their boat. I do struggle when polygamists try to convince people it is about religion when it is really about the man’s narcissism more than anything else.
My only caveat is that kids in plural marriages can be put in a bad spot regarding bullying and things like that, so there would be one significant difference at this time.
July 26th, 2011 at 11:01 am
Kids in same sex partner families also face bullying. But then kids will always be bullied for whatever makes their situation different drom the “norm”.
As far as the procreation argument goes, the government has made marriage about way more than procreation. You don’t need to be married to procreate, and further, there is no call to prevent sterile persons from marrying each other.
I even have trouble with the “damage to the sanctity of marriage” argument. How many people are cheating on their spouses? How many marriages end in divorce? There really is no high road heterosexuals as a group can take concerning the sanctity of their relationships vs. anyone elses.
July 26th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
Everyone keeps using the word “Discrimination” no one is getting discriminated against. Both Homosexuals and Heterosexuals will not be allowed to marry the same sex. The law is blind! People on the other hand are not blind and add their personal and religious views and theese viesw find their way into our laws. Sometimes we agree with it and sometimes we don’t but it applies to all of us equally.
I have a libertarian view on these sort of issues. The government has no rights to say one way or the other. It is none of their business. I’m not saying that because I am personally in favor of Gay marriage, I’m not, my personal view is irrelevant, your personal view is irrelevant. The real issue is “does the Government at any level have the right to raise the question at all?” I believe that answer is NO they do not.
Abraham Lincoln said it best…
“The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselvesin their separate, and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, GOVERNMENT OUGHT NOT TO INTERFERE.”
July 26th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
I agree with @Sui that kids will get “bullied” anytime there is something about them that makes them different from the norm. Sadly, that’s life. I got picked on as a kid just because I was really skinny. Only later did I learn why- I have muscular dystrophy.
And I never bought the “sanctity of marriage” argument either.
But as I read @lefty’s response, (yes, I’m a straight, married male who won’t have kids) I still don’t see how the same arguments for gay-marriage will not eventually be used for polygamy (as they already are in some cases).
If marriage in its legal form is simply allowing any 2 people who want to be together be given certain legal presumptions (estate issues and hospital rights and so on), then I see that the possibility that those who wish to have the same legal presumptions to be applied to multiple people (e.g. polygamy or polyandry) will in the future also become a reality.
That was a confusing sentence, so I hope it made sense :)
Put another way:
If I am in favor of gay-marriage, what stops me from being in favor of polygamy?
Why should marriage be neutral in gender, and yet be firm that it is only between 2 people, and never for 3+ people?
And just saying polygamy is really just about a “man’s narcissism” is not convincing enough for me. I get that response to my question almost every time there is not another reason given for why polygamy should remain illegal.
If we are going to use “right to privacy” or “marry the one you love” as the bases for changing the current law, those arguments are already being used to challenge the anti-polygamy laws.
Though, making polygamy legal in Utah would mean a change to their constitution.
Side question: am I a bigot if I want marriage to be “one man one woman” but I also am in favor of civil union laws?
July 26th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
@KevinKuck – I’m pleased to hear you are not THAT Kevin K. Let me start over, hopefully a little more calmly.
There are two main arguments against same-sex marriage; religious and legal. Sometimes (often?) the two get intertwined. Both are hot buttons for many people, certainly they are for me. On the religious side, conservative/fundamentalist Christians seem to be the most vocal. The selective reading of scripture to support an argument is a fool’s game, IMO. For every favorite passage in support of a position a neutralizing counter passage is available. Bottom line themes of most all religious belief systems – love, do good things. Marginalizing groups seems counter to those themes to me.
On the legal side, we are a country of laws based on the constitution. The pertinent part of the 14th Amendment states in Section 1: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, how does one justify, on legal grounds, unequal protection?
The most influential book I ever read on the topic is: “A Time to Embrace,” by William Stacey Johnson, he’s an ordained minister, a lawyer, chair of the theology dept. at Princeton Theological Seminary. I have the book. I’ll loan it to you if you truly are open minded. (Bill, you can give him my name and email address if he asks you for it.)
July 26th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Marriage, in the eyes of the law, is the same as a civil union. Please stop confusing the religious “marriage” with the legal.
July 26th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
I honestly think polygamy is off topic to this discussion. I think you are trying to bring this discussion down a slippery slope that simply does not exist in the case of same sex marriage.
That said, I am not sure why anyone in government really needs to have a problem with that either provided it is 100% consensual by able minded adults.
July 27th, 2011 at 10:41 am
@lefty: why is it a slippy slope argument when it is becoming an actual reality that people are now also challenging anti-polygamy laws using the same arguments that the pro-gay marriage side has used?
If marriage can be changed in its restriction of gender, then it also can be changed in its restriction of number. See this link for more explanation:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2011/07/sister-wives-lawsuit-to-challenge-polygamy-law.html
@c&v: in your study of world religions, have you found any that promote same-gender marriage? I am unaware of any that do (at lease of the major world religions). I am aware of the Rev Prof Johnson book and his arguments. I am not persuaded of his Biblical exegesis of the texts he uses. So, on this issue, I not persuadable on the religious grounds, but I might be on the “this is what is best for society” grounds.
To your 14th Am question, I’m sure you have heard this before, but I’ll state it anyhow:
The law is “unequal” in many places.
~You can’t drink until you are 21,
~ can’t drive until 16,
~ can’t fish without a license,
~ if you murder a pregnant woman it’s a double murder but if the pregnant woman terminates her pregnancy it’s not murder.
I could go on with other examples where the law appears to be unequal.
Specifically to the Marriage Laws: they set up restrictions that society had previously deemed as rational and within the proper view of a compelling State interest. The law blindly says that marriage is for anyone as long as they meet 3 basic requirement: age restrictions, gender restrictions, exclusivity restrictions. In other words, must be over 18 (with some exceptions), opposite genders, and not be currently married to anyone else. That is the law that is equally applied to everyone.
The law does not care who you love or are attracted to.
Marriage from the beginning of this country, and the beginning of English Common Law that the US is based on, has always been defined as one man and one woman.
Now, if we want to change the gender restriction, I just want to know if there is any reason to do so other than saying “people should be allowed to marry the person they love,” or “the Government shouldn’t care what consenting adults do.”
Maybe there is not another reason. And that’s fine if there isn’t.
July 27th, 2011 at 10:50 am
As I think of it, the argument I have more trouble rectifying is not the poligamy issue. Like I said, it is about equal protection, and same sex persons who are over 18 and not currently married to someone else to be able to marry. They are not asking for special rights, just the same rights.
The argument I have trouble rectifying would be laws that prevent consenting adults from marrying within certain degrees of cosanguinity. Breeding is usually the concern, but I am not familiar enough with the science to know where that aregument begins to fail. States vary on this issue. Also, would this restriction need to aply to same sex marriages where the breeding issue would not be a factor?
July 27th, 2011 at 10:57 am
Why is it that I feel the actuaries for insurance companies (health, life, auto, etc) are perfectly happy to let us idiots keep tying religion to who can and can’t get married so they don’t have to figure out the right rate to charge for a family with two moms vs a mom and a dad vs two dads, let a lone one dad and four moms, or one mom and 4 dads?
Somehow we need to recognize that using marriage to promote nation building, requires changes to the definition of what marriage is at the nation level. If you can have happy citizens that will consume, and produce for you if they are man and woman, or woman and woman or man and man, or (you get the picture) then you should recognize those relations. What you want is stable family units, regardless of their structure.
July 27th, 2011 at 11:03 am
You are fighting a religious debate KevinKuck. You say you are not but the only reason that our government has had laws about what marriage is defined as is because many of our laws have been based on religious views.
Hell, almost every state once had laws against sodomy so that people couldn’t be gay. Those laws changed pretty fast once our wonderful leaders learned that it also meant they couldn’t legally receive certain favors from their wives and girlfriends (or both).
Regarding the slippery slope, here is where this goes:
Same Sex Marriage
Polygamy
3 guys get married to each other
4 guys get married to each other
Parents of a 16 year old boy give consent for their son to marry a 65 year old man who is already married to 4 other men.
I would be against the last one. So your slippery slope would I suppose make me back up and say, well since I don’t want that then I should be against the concept of gay marriage.
I don’t agree with your religious views that marriage need be between a man and a woman, but stop mucking up the waters with your polygamy query as they are two completely separate issues to be debated on their own merits or lack thereof.
July 27th, 2011 at 11:15 am
@Mikeh I 100% agree (as stated in my overly simplified comment earlier). I feel the issue is attempting a bureaucratic definition, but because politicians seem to be elected on religious morals — defeating the point of keeping church and state separate — this becomes a religious debate. Bill hit it on the head when it should be a debate about civil unions and not the ‘marriage’ amendment. Reword the phrase and look at how the debate changes.
If I’m off base or if someone has anything to add on what this affects (other than the ability to purchase a marriage licence) my ears are always open.
July 27th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@sui~ your question about “degrees of consanguinity” is a good one. One that I have not thought about before.
July 27th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
@KevinKuck: In the U.S. The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Ecumenical Catholic Church, Church of God Anonymous, ALEPH: Alliance for Jewish Renewal, Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian Universalist Association bless same-gender relationships as a matter of policy.
The United Church of Christ and various Quaker groups leave the decision to clergy, congregations or local governing bodies.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) allows the blessings of same-gender unions with terminology restrictions.
The United Methodist Church forbids blessing same-sex unions, which has inspired ecclesiastical disobedience, church trials and much debate.
Your comment “I not persuadable on the religious grounds,” tells me the argument is closed.
On the 14th amendment, the courts do not agree with you. You take take your argument up with them – I’m done talking to a wall.
July 28th, 2011 at 7:51 am
If we presume that it is just as unfair to prevent polygamy and siblings to marry when one is adopted, or cousins to marry, etc. as it is to allow same sex couples to marry, does that really justify refusing the right to same sex couples? Unfairness does not need to be eradicated all at once. Should we have denied African Americans the right to vote under the pretense that women were not allowed to vote either? Of course not.
July 28th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
@c&v: I’m not exactly sure how you think the 14th Am applies to the issues of marriage as it relates to sexual orientation.
But as of this moment in time, the 14th Am does not give suspect-class status to sexual orientation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause#Suspect_classes
Thus, States are allowed to have laws to limit marriage to one man and one woman and not be in violation of the 14th Am.
In other words, the State law is equal when it allows a person to marry anyone they want if that person is of the other gender. This does not violate the 14th Am (though I recognize that in the future the Supreme Court could change this).
July 28th, 2011 at 2:00 pm
That’s because the government continues to be ruled on all sides by those guided by religious ideals and not the ones they should be following.
Carry on.
May 9th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Obama now supposedly supports gay marriage. Do you think that we could avoid a lot of the problems associated if the government stopped naming their role in this “marriage” and instead moved towards civil unions for all and let the religious institutions continue to perform marriage ceremonies?
May 10th, 2012 at 2:40 am
Churches can marry whomever they want, or not.
Should marriage laws be presumed to follow their lead?
July 31st, 2012 at 11:47 am
[...] no secret that I am pro-gay marriage and I have penned strongly worded opinions against politicians who support Constitutional amendments whi…, I have publicly denounced the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to exclude homosexuals from [...]