Never in my life have I see such a divisive topic as the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. Riding my bike to work affords me a front seat view into the differing opinions of a neighborhood and how both sides react to those who add political signs to their yard in support or opposition of the amendment.
Take for example one street running perpendicular to Cedar in Apple Valley. One day I noticed several homes along the stretch added ‘Vote Yes’ signs to their yard and the next day several others opposite them added ‘Vote No’ signs to the mix. While I am not one to add a political sign to my yard being that I don’t believe they’ll change anyone’s opinion, I am shocked at the lengths some people will go to make their beliefs known and counter the opinions of others.
From the Savage Pacer’s Police Calls From the September 22nd Edition:
Sept. 11: A woman from the 9400 block of Maggie Lane reported that a political sign regarding the marriage amendment was stolen from her yard and a note stating disagreement with the woman’s political beliefs was left in her mailbox. There are no suspects.
Only in Minnesota would someone steal a political sign from a yard and then leave an anonymous note in the mailbox instead of knocking on the person’s door and saying to the person, “you’re a complete and unadulterated moron for believing what you do.” I have seen this ridiculousness myself. A home on 140th near the Apple Valley/Burnsville border had a “Vote Yes” sign on a fence running parallel to the road. One day it was there and the next it wasn’t. The following morning I saw it taped six ways to Sunday on the fence (as if that would stop someone from taking it off again).
Do you put political signs in your yard? If so, why? Do you think that it will somehow shame others into voting your way or will show those on the fence that they have others planning to vote the same way they are leaning and that sign may push them that way? Have you ever removed a political sign because you disagreed with it or had one removed from your property? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and vote over there —-> on the sidebar and then comment on below as I’d love to hear your thoughts. After you do both of those things feel free to check out our expired polls in the archive or read through the previous posts about polls here.
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
September 23rd, 2012 at 8:46 am
This is only the second time we have put up a lawn sign. The first time was for a school referrendum. This time we have a sign for the challenge for our State Rep and a Vote No on the Marriage Amendment. I believe that it may get a vote or two for our sides. I think on the State Rep. there may be a neighbor or two who do not know the difference between the challenger and the incumbent and may say well if JC and wife support this guy then maybe it’s a good choice. On the Marriage amendment I think people know where they stand on it. But someone in the middle or who is skittish about voting no may be encouraged that way. The Marriage amendment sign we actively sought out because we think it is a high priority. The State Rep sign we got only because they we ran into someone while walking the dog who was putting them up in the neighborhood.
September 23rd, 2012 at 9:46 am
The closest I have ever gotten to putting any kind of sign in my yard was in our current home when our neighbors across the street mowed a green bay G in their grass. My wife took that as a taunt, and immediately tasked me to planning a Vikings V. I eventually talked her into being the better person and thus my lawn remains un-scarred from sports rivalry.
Personally I am not a big on amending constitutions in general, though history has shown Minnesota citizens have little hesitation to tweak that document at will. I know for a fact, seeing a sign saying one thing or another will not change my mind. And to be honest, I don’t feel a strong need to know the social or political beliefs of my neighbors. I’m sure there are those that keep lists when the signs come out to make sure their kids don’t play with the kids of those socialist parents, or those right wing lunatic parents.
I don’t think the signs help anyone for the big VOTE NO or VOTE YES with all the other text in small print that tells you want to vote no on or what to vote yes on. But the ones that plaster a candidates name on them, certainly helps. Gives you that name recognition for who you do or don’t want to vote for on some more local election.
September 23rd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
I hang out with a lot of political types and the message I’ve got from them is clear “lawn signs don’t vote.” People who work on campaigns hate them, but candidates seem to like them.
I don’t have one in my yard because I don’t have a yard. I did put a sign in my window during the Shutdown saying I wanted to go back to work, or something like that.
I do wish everyone who was voting yes on the marriage amendment did have a sign in their yard. I’d like to know where the bigots live, so I can stay far away from them.
September 23rd, 2012 at 2:21 pm
I put up signs for school board candidates. I only do this because I believe that a lot of people don’t do nearly enough research (if any) on school board races to make informed decisions regarding the various candidates. I figure what the hell, I might as well try to influence their choices. I once had a friend that told me she only voted for a certain candidate because she recognized his name.
For bigger issues, I don’t think my having signs in my yard will change anyone’s mind.
September 23rd, 2012 at 8:50 pm
I don’t believe the signs make any difference, so I don’t use them. I have seen instances where people stop being friends over something as simple as not agreeing with a candidate they support, which I find ludicrous and want no part of. On top of this, the signs NEVER get taken down in a timely manner and remain on the side of the road for months to come. Can we do something about that?
September 24th, 2012 at 6:27 am
I have noticed way more NO than YES signs on the marriage amendment. Perhaps that’s because people who plan on voting yes don’t want to provide yet another opportunity for someone to call them bigots. (See comment 3 above.)
I have state rep/senator signs on my yard. Name recognition.
In 2008 someone(s) stole my presidential signs. This time out I’m going to pass.
September 24th, 2012 at 6:28 am
I meant to say, last sentence, someone stole the sign, twice.
September 24th, 2012 at 7:31 am
J, what would you prefer to call a group of people who practice intolerance against another group of human beings?
September 24th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
September 24th, 2012 at 11:52 am
J,
While you haven’t answered my question and regardless of the outcome of this amendment, Minnesota still has laws on the books which disallow those types of marriages, including same-sex.
Thus this is an exercise in time waste and intolerance/bigotry.
September 24th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
September 24th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Sure, if your point is a clueless lack of regard for common sense.
Yeah, Bill kind of walked into your half-assed point, but a) the rest of us know better and, b) it’s still bigotry.
There are a different set of legal protections offered to members of the same family. Insurance plans, privacy considerations, legal rights. A daughter/sister cannot be denied access to her father’s/brother’s insurance plans, death bed, and so on.
Your twisted logic/slippery slope nonsense isn’t the issue here and it’s a popular tactic by bigots to try and gain support for their “yes” vote and avoid facing the real issue.
The issue here is that a class of citizens is being denied the same legal rights that another class of citizens are granted with the sole differentiator being their sexual orientation.
It isn’t about whether or not you approve of same sex marriage. It isn’t a biblical/religious argument. It isn’t some bullshit from local newspaper comment boards about “family is the building block of society and morals”.
It’s preventing the amending of the Constitution from establishing inequal rights.
September 24th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
Rather than debate the merits of the argument*, you choose to label people who support the amendment “bigots.” How Minnesota Nice of you.
* For example, should “marriage” exist as a legal concept at all? If so, why? What do we want it to achieve? What is the best way of getting there? And so forth.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
To advocate for legalized discrimination is bigotry. That’s my opinion and people are free to disagree. I don’t just apply the word thoughtlessly; I believe it to be accurate and driven by intolerance when you examine the reasoning behind the “yes” vote.
To answer your question, no, ideally I don’t believe “marriage” as it is should exist as a legal concept (and there is a lot of semantic variance here). I believe the government should be protecting the rights of people equally. If one segment of society has a two-person legal contract recognized by a municipality, State or federal government body, I believe that recognition should extend to all segments of society.
If, for example, a Catholic couple’s committed relationship is recognized by the State, then I believe a non-Catholic couple’s committed relationship should be equally recognized.
There are obvious limitations (e.g. a person of a certain age cannot be considered “consenting” which eliminates the common slippery-slope, “if we let gays, then what about adult-kid marriages, and so on”). There should be a legal threshold for what is considered consenting based on age (consistent with a billion other aspects of law). I already addressed why this does not apply to the other stuff (i.e. marrying family members).
To answer “what is the best way of getting there”, to me it’s simple (although will never happen). The government should say, “we’re going to recognize all civil commitments between two consenting adults that aren’t already engaged in a similar commitment” and go from there. They pay their fee at the courthouse and then they are on their way.
It doesn’t make religious marriages any less sacred, nor anyone else’s definition. If an organization wishes to discriminate and not let certain people marry in their domain, so be it. It takes the religious BS out of the equation which, to me, is the way it should be.
(And, FWIW, I’m a conservative, heterosexual, Christian, married person. I don’t know why my contract with my wife is any more valid in the eyes of the State than the gay couple next door).
September 24th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
p.s. – in my first post I DID devote 5 of the 7 paragraphs to “debating the merits of the argument”. You chose to zoom in on the words “bigot” and “bigotry”.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Notice that I said *nothing* about religious beliefs. An argument in favor of man-woman marriage can be constructed entirely without reference to them, though of course many people will start (and perhaps end) there. On the other hand, I detect at least a tinge of anti-religious bigotry in the anti-amendment side.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:46 pm
If you were directing that at me, I simply used Catholic marriage as an example. The reason I included mention of religion is because religious groups are the strongest institutional supporters of the amendment and very few, if any, arguments supporting the amendment are coming from secular points of view. Maybe the position of supporting the amendment to “protect children” but, to me, that’s a completely different line of thinking (which I don’t even think deserves mention, it’s so ridiculous).
Also, if the “anti-religious bigotry” was in response to my comments, you’ll note that I pointed out (for context) that I am a Christian (Lutheran). I am very active in my church. My family (parents/brother’s family) are Catholic. My Dad’s family was Jewish. I have absolutely no issue with religious convictions.
September 24th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Yard signs are effective for giving people a feeling of overwhelming community support for a candidate or a position, and groupthink is powerful, so there’s some benefit there to the candidate/issue being supported. Signs don’t impact my vote in most elections, but they do tell me in local elections such as city council races who is actively campaigning and who isn’t, so it could be something that helps me decide between two candidates with similar views.
As for the marriage amendment in particular, I’m sick of the blowhards all around and am just ready for it to be over. But it won’t be over until the Supreme Court finally issues a ruling that impacts the nation, which will likely take 20-30 years. Until then, this thing isn’t going anywhere and people will continue to be called various insults and we’ll have plenty of examples of “love your neighbor” going out the window. *sigh*
September 24th, 2012 at 4:02 pm
As I’ve posted here many times I’m a political guy. A self-identified Wellstone Democrat. Lately I’ve been called a socialist, a communist, and most recently a fascist. :-) Some folks get confused easily. So, as you might expect, I do have lawn signs in my yard – partially to piss-off my next door neighbor; a tea-bagger.
On the marriage amendment: I’ve had many conversations on the topic with friends and strangers. I’ve yet to meet/speek to a “Yes” voter who, when challenged, doesn’t end up with a religious justification for their position. I’m 68 years old, been in the church (Christian) my whole life. Our church, by consensus, supports the Vote-NO! position. We’re a happily progressive congregation. That’s why my wife and I are members.
September 24th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
You’re such a Marxist C&V.
September 24th, 2012 at 4:34 pm
THANK YOU, MSPD! I’ve hit for the cycle!
September 24th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
My pleasure. It was kind of a glaring ommission.
September 24th, 2012 at 5:18 pm
Actually, the Nazis — the model fascists–were, well, “national *socialists*. So fascism and socialism are flip sides of the same coin.
MSPD, I didn’t have you in mind, particularly, when I made my comment on religious bigotry.
As for the original topic, I agree that yard signs do have something of a bandwagon effect. After all, most people don’t pay a great deal of attention to politics (and rationally so).
September 24th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
I don’t know that I would label someone a Bigot, though I suppose the outer definition works, but that also means I’m a Bigot because I have a thing against Rapists, and Murderers. But in general I believe it is a mistake for government to be placing restrictions on adult relationships. An action that will have a direct impact on a large portion of the public and their life and liberty and pursuit of happiness.
I can understand the position of the pro amendment folks, but I think their motivation comes from fear and/or some attempt to hold onto a past that isn’t as golden as they might want to think it was.
September 24th, 2012 at 8:36 pm
My house isn’t so good for lawn signs, end of court. But even if I did live on a good street for that Mrs S wouldn’t hear of it. Probably a good idea not to put one out.
Today I saw my first Vote yes on Voter ID sign, protect my vote sort of deal. Now I know where a true moron lives.
September 24th, 2012 at 10:00 pm
The Nazi Socialist Party is nothing like socialism as it loosely exists in Democratic Republics, and you know it. Furthermore, I’m still disgusted by the Incest/Bestiality canard that ALWAYS gets tossed out in these types of political discussions. As was said before, it’s an intellectually lazy method to derail a conversation about why people think it’s OK to legislate away a marginalized groups’ rights using majority rule. Certainly, it’s entirely within your rights to disagree with gay marriage, as it is to publicly say so, just as it’s entirely within my rights to call your beliefs repellent and antiquated. I certainly don’t think it’s an American value to legalize discrimination.
September 24th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
” but that also means I’m a Bigot because I have a thing against Rapists, and Murderers.” Nope, that’s not bigotry in the true definition of the word because rapists and murderers aren’t a race or ethnic group/minority. They’re just assholes who rape and kill people.
September 25th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Hold on there Aliecat, or should I say “Ms. Webster” You don’t get to unilaterally determine the “true meaning” of “Bigot”. Let’s look to a generally accepted source: Websters defines it as “One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.” Prejudices are not limited to racial groups, ethnic groups, or minorities. According to this definition, everybody here is a bigot about something, myself included. You just have to ask yourself if you are comfortable with being bigoted about the things you are bigoted about.
September 25th, 2012 at 10:46 am
sg, in the case of Aliecat and Kassie, they’re using the accepted definition to pertain only to those who are bigoted against race, religion, etc. Semantics are stupid and you know it.
September 25th, 2012 at 11:43 am
So is name calling.
September 25th, 2012 at 11:46 am
Facts are facts, sg.
September 25th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Fact is, you like to throw the word bigot around to describe people who don’t agree with you on this issue due to its negative connotations. You are simply name calling. Whatever, I do it too. It is no different that calling an African American and “Uncle Tom” because they support a conservative candidate, or calling someone a “communist” because they support a liberal candidate. Their morality is different from yours. Should they be allowed to enforce their personal moral standards on the rest of the nation? I hope not in this case, but civil rights is a moral issue. Determining what groups deserve protections is a moral issue. Some consider the denial of civil rights to a group because of their sexual orientation to be morally wrong. They would like that to be made illegal. There is nothing wrong with that, and I happen to agree with it. That doesn’t change the fact that it is a moral stance that people attempt to legislate.
So J, why are you against allowing same sex couples to receive the same protections and benifits from the state that hetrosexual couples enjoy? For example, why shouldn’t a same sex partner be able to enter into the same agreement as an opposite sex partner to allow them to inherit property through laws of intestacy? To be considered “next of kin”? To enjoy the same responsibilities and protections when, as unfortunately happens from time to time, the relationship ends?
September 25th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
J,
Do you think being gay is a choice? I have never met a “vote yes” person who didn’t understand that that homosexuality is actually something that a person is born to be.
Just so you know, it is not a choice, just like (I assume) you are attracted to the opposite sex. How would you feel if the situation was reversed and only gay people were allowed to be married and you couldn’t be? You have stated that religion is not relevant to how you think, and I am very interested in your thoughts on why because I really, honestly don’t understand how someone could feel as you do without religion coming into play.
Would appreciate your thoughts.
lefty
September 25th, 2012 at 6:00 pm
The way I see it, a sign for a candidate who voted to put this amendment on the ballot/voted against it is almost the same as a vote yes/no sign anyway.
September 25th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“Fact is, you like to throw the word bigot around to describe people who don’t agree with you on this issue due to its negative connotations.”
Yeah, I think voting to deny people rights is pretty negative and I’m totally comfortable with calling a spade a spade. I’m really not sure what you’re argument is here? That I should pat these people on the head and say “well, isn’t that special?” If people think it’s name calling to confront people regarding bigoted viewpoints, then that’s their problem, not mine.
September 25th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
“Hold on there Aliecat, or should I say “Ms. Webster” You don’t get to unilaterally determine the “true meaning” of “Bigot”. Let’s look to a generally accepted source: Websters defines it as “One obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own opinions and prejudices.””
I find it telling that you left out the parenthetical modifier in Webster’s definition of bigot. Namely: “especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.” Nice spin, there.
September 25th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Left nothing out. Copied directly from my Websters book. Admittedly, it is a copy from the mid ’80s. In any event, the point wasn’t that the view point isn’t bigoted, just that we are all guilty of one bigoted view point or another. If you feel the need to attack the person with name calling rather than the issue with argument, it leads me to believe you are operating more from emotion than logic in framing any argument you have, and so are really no more reasonable or enlightened than those you attack. Is it wrong to confront view points you don’t agree with? No, it isnt. Is it wrong to do so by resorting to name calling and attacking the person instead of the argument? Absolutely. Resorting to these tactics is, to coin your own phrase “intellectually lazy”.
September 26th, 2012 at 9:56 am
Sui, I’m going to have to respectfully disagree with you.
I don’t agree that “we are all guilty of one bigoted view point or another”. Whichever way people want to mince the word, it does not hold true. I would challenge this even in the context of mikeh’s ridiculous and extreme example of murderers and rapists.
Murder and rape are choices/actions with unique circumstances, not intrinsic characteristics of the person. As horrendous as the perpetrator may be, each individual that has chosen to murder or rape deserves individual consideration, deserves the protection of their Constitutional rights, and (in my belief system) has equal standing as it pertains to their humanity. The “bigotry” you and mikeh would apply is flawed in that the distinction of “rapist” and “murderer” is not a single class or single belief or single group characteristic in the true sense. Even the justice system has a multitude of classes within the definition of “murder”.
Being black, female, Native American, etc. are not choices or actions. Therein lies the distinction.
Now, this is the trailhead of the debate over sexual preference and whether it is an intrinsic biological trait or an environmental factor/lifestyle choice. I’m not going to go there except to say that, personally, I feel strongly that the preponderance of evidence exists that it is clearly an inherent biological trait that not only exists in people, but has been plainly evident in the animal kingdom.
FWIW, I also feel strongly that even if it is a pure lifestyle choice, even if I may strenuously object to that lifestyle choice (I don’t, but for the sake of example), I don’t believe it is one that supercedes the person’s Constitutional right to equal protection.
This is where I feel comfortable — and not “intellectually lazy” in applying a term — calling a segment of the “Yes” vote supporters bigoted.
September 26th, 2012 at 10:33 am
I couldn’t disagree with you more, Tim.
If I assume that to be true, it means that I’m also inherently supporting every other viewpoint that a candidate has if I put their sign in my lawn.
There’s virtually no possible way that any candidate can possibly line up with all of another person’s views. This is especially true for anyone who’s fiscally conservative but socially liberal (or vice versa). It’s completely plausible for someone to place a higher value on fiscal policy than on issues such as gay marriage.
Of course, as much as a lot of us like to say we care about fiscal policy more than anything else, I don’t think that’s really true of most people. We tend to look to moral issues (abortion, gay marriage, drugs, etc.) as fundamental rights (or restrictions) that demand our foremost attention and must be fought for over all else. This makes it pretty difficult for those who think fiscal issues should take priority.
A good example of this is the Kurt Bills campaign. Bills is an economics teacher who was endorsed by Ron Paul. He’s got a lot of Ron Paul supporters in his camp. But a lot of those Paul supporters are opposed to the marriage amendment, something that Bills supports. Is it so implausible that those people could be supporting Bills’ economic principles and not his stances on social issues? I don’t think it is.
September 26th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
MSPD – I don’t necessarily disagree with what you said. The difference is, choice or not, to pass judgment that a person is a “murderer”, or is evil because they have taken a human life, with no information behind the circumstances of the event is bigoted. (could be self defense, could be a defect in the legal system resulting in a wrong conviction, could be an assisted suicide, could just be cold blooded murder while knocking over a liquor store.) To decide that a person believes abortion is wrong just because they claim to be a republican is bigoted. To decide and call a person a bigot because they support the Marriage Amendment, or whetever the hell they are calling it, without any insight into their reasoning or without any knowledge into why they hold their opinion is bigoted. It may very well be that the person who supports the amendment is a bigot, I would even go so far as to say it is probable. It is, however, just a lable based on assumptions by people firmly entrenched in thier own opinions and unwilling to even investigate the reasoning behind a belief before applying it.
September 26th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Yes. But I have never met a person that lumps every single murder that has ever occurred into a single class. (BTW, here’s an interesting read along those lines: http://us.toluna.com/opinions/821543/Father-Kidnapped-gets-Revenge-1984-Remember.htm)
Here’s a challenge: Please, present the argument for a “Yes” vote that does not have an aspect of prejudice against an entire group of people, or does not have an origin of intolerance against homosexuals (be it their biology, choice, etc.)
To date, I haven’t heard one. I’ve read almost the entire “Minnesotans for Marriage” web site. Not a single statement that doesn’t point back to classifying an entire group of people with one common characteristic as not deserving equal treatment.
September 26th, 2012 at 2:29 pm
MSPD- I don’t have a good argument supporting the amendment, and personally don’t support it. However, just because I can’t think of one and haven’t heard one doesn’t mean someone doesn’t have one. I just prefer to hear a person’s reasoning (or lack thereof). Once the reasoning is revealed, everyone can make their own determinations as to what label to apply to that person, whether it be bigot, asshole, or saint, without me doing it for them.
September 26th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
Joey, you are correct that just because you support a candidate, it doesn’t mean you agree with all of their positions.
However, it does mean that you agree with enough of them (or at least on certain key ones) to give them your support. It means that there is no position they hold that is a dealbreaker; that you are at least willing to look past those things.
Perhaps it’s not equivalent — fair enough. But, at least for the gay marriage amendment, it tells me where someone’s priorities lie. So maybe a more accurate way of phrasing it would be that, for me, and this issue in particular, I would view it the same way.
September 27th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Years ago I supported marriage amendments like this. I’m pretty sure I’m the only person in my entire family (wife’s and mine) who has changed their view on it. My view changed when I decided that I really didn’t have a good non-religious reason for my view (and even the religious reasons aren’t as black-and-white as we like to think they are). Theocracies are a pretty terrible thing and I have no interest in seeing theocratic legislation passed. So, I’m adamantly opposed to the amendment and have taken a fair amount of flak for my position.
That said, there’s just one non-religious angle that I’ve thought of to this whole debate. I’m not sure I’ll do a great job of laying out the position since it’s not one I hold, but I’ve thought of this issue in terms of other relationships that we prohibit (or at least don’t endorse via marriage), such as polygamy. If what goes on between TWO consenting adults should be not only permitted (as homosexual relationships are) but also endorsed (via marriage certificates) by the state, thereby granting various state-sponsored benefits to that relationship (taxes, health insurance, death benefits, hospital visitation, etc.), why should we prohibit similar relationships between THREE OR MORE consenting adults? After all, don’t they also want the same visitation benefits, health care,, and other benefits that two-person couples get?
Now, some supporters of gay marriage probably do endorse polygamy for similar reasons, but I think most probably don’t. I think their chief argument is that the state should endorse any relationship between TWO consenting adults regardless of their gender. However, most people still agree that some relationships between two consenting adults (such as relationships between relatives) should be prohibited due to biological or moral concerns.
Again, perhaps I’m doing the pro-amendment crowd a disservice in this argument since it isn’t my view, I’m just trying to understand a non-religious reason as well as rationalize other positions on marriage prohibition that many people hold.
I realize that many of us who oppose the amendment know gay couples and have a different perspective on the subject of gay marriage than others. We’re able to personalize the issue and it’s so obvious to us that they should be granted the same state endorsement that the rest of us have that we’ve become incredulous that others don’t hold the same obvious view.
But I think some of that incredulity is overblown. It’s hard for me to be too incredulous about people not wanting to change a policy that’s been in place forever, no matter how much I think that policy should change. There are still millions of people whose social circles don’t include gay people and the thought of gay people getting married just doesn’t compute for them. For many, I think it’s fair to say their reasons are bigoted. But I think for others, their reasons are more ignorant. These are people who just haven’t computed an alternative world that what they’ve always known. They’re people whose opinions change when they’re personally affected, either by getting to know gay people or having a gay family member come out. When they see the reasons those people want the recognition of marriage, their views change.
I think of people like Dick Cheney in this category, whose daughter is gay. My guess is he was opposed to gay marriage prior to his experience with his daughter. I think most people are like this. When personally affected, I think a lot of us will change our view. Certainly this isn’t true for all, especially the most religiously zealous, but I think personal experience impacts our views as much as anything. There are just a lot of people whose personal experience with gay people doesn’t go beyond “that guy who lived 2 floors up from me in my college dorm” and whose view of gay marriage doesn’t go beyond either “it’s wrong,” “it”s not normal,” “because the Bible,” etc. (I doubt many people hold the view that the state should only support heterosexual marriage due to supporting procreation, so I don’t think that reason is even worth considering.)
Perhaps I’m being too charitable with the pro-amendment crowd. Of course, the pro-amendment crowd probably thinks I’m being too critical. Regardless, I think we have a much greater chance of convincing people that they’re wrong if we stop throwing names at them, no matter how accurate we think those names are.
September 27th, 2012 at 11:36 am
While I could care less if individuals willingly enter into a polygamous relationship and don’t have any moral or ethical issue with it, I can see why it would be disallowed from a government perspective:
Because there are supposed tax breaks for married couples, if people were allowed to marry just about any number of other consenting adults, this would effectively allow anyone of legal marriage age to claim tax benefits. Obviously this would directly impact tax revenue and thus why regardless of ethics/morals, it will remain banned.
September 27th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Screw it, the State of MN should get out of the business of marriages. Let the churches have “Marriage”. The State can simply concern itself with Civil Partnerships, for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. Any government granted privileges, rights and responsiblities formerly associated with “marriage” now belong to civil partnerships. That being the case, any church can declare two people “married” in what ever manner they wish. Any organization what-so-ever can do it for that matter. The status would have no legal effect and would probably mean nothing outside of the organization performing the ritual. Perhaps there will be privileges or rights granted to the status in the church or something. Whatever, that isn’t the governments concern. These Marriages would have no meaning under the law, and ministers would not be automatically granted the ability to execute civil partnerships. Civil partnerships would be executed by judges, justices of the peace, attorneys, maybe even notary publics. Those who have the authority by virtue of thier position to execute these documents will not have the discretion to refuse to execute the documents, or discriminate based upon the sexual mix of the couple seeking partnership. As long as legal requirements are met (age, consent, competence), the partnership will be executed and the paperwork filed with the government.
The religious organizations get to keep the word “marriage”. A church can refuse to accept or accept any marriage it wishes. It is of no legal consequence. The civil rights of the citizens are protected by offering the same rights and responsibilities to all consenting adults who wish to enter into a civil partnership (or maybe domestic partnership sounds better) without requiring one class of citizens to enter into “separate but equal” relationships. Anybody married before the effective date of the law would be grandfathered in and have a civil partnership.
September 27th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
From: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/09/it-all-about-word-marriage
September 27th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Joey, here’s a good read (point and counterpoint…presents boths sides) on the “slippery slope” argument. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-lavy-davidson21-2008may21,0,4548609.story
This section of the counterpoint sums it up for me:
Opposite-sex couples do not have the right to engage in polygamy so there is no inequity in protection of rights. It’s irrelevant to this issue.
September 27th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
MSPD, I think the polygamy and incest examples are relevant when discussing the argument that what’s done between consenting adults shouldn’t be any of our business. And like I said, I expect my argument to have some holes when I’m arguing for a position I don’t hold.
Gay marriage would actually bring up an interesting point related to incest. The biggest reason against marriage between cousins, for example, is the biological problem of them procreating, which wouldn’t be an issue in a homosexual relationship. So, would that be okay for a gay relationship but not a heterosexual one?
Also, Bill’s comment on the MinnPost article reflects what I would expect: there are a lot of people who are fine with a civil equivalent of marriage but can’t get past their religious position on the definition of the word “marriage.”
September 27th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Joey, homosexuals cannot procreate, cousins can and depending on their closeness in their family trees, they have a much higher tendency of carrying severe genetic defects which can negatively impact future generations (think hemophilia).
September 27th, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Joey, as for the “marriage” thing, it’s ridiculous. Who cares what it’s called? It’s just a word.
September 27th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I know that’s a popularly stated opinion, but that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is the denying of equal access to rights — rights that already exist! — to a segment of the population based solely on a biological factor or religious belief.
Polygamy and incest are not existing rights. They are illegal for one and all.
Marriage recognized by the government IS an existing right. But it is not equally protected as the Constitution demands.
Again, incest is illegal whether you are a heterosexual, homosexual, black, white, martian or otherwise.
The whole “slippery slope” argument is irrelevant. ***This isn’t about what might happen next***. This is about two sets of people being given two different sets of Constitutional protections.
September 27th, 2012 at 3:04 pm
Actually, in MN, having sex with your cousin is not considered incest. 609.365 requires the cosanguinity to be closer than cousins. It also only defines sexual intercourse as being an illegal incestuous act. While sexual intercourse is not specifically defined, the way it is listed in other definitions would make for a very strong argument that same sex couples are incapable of illegal incestuous conduct. And now away from this tangent and back to the regularly scheduled argument.
September 27th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Bill, I’m aware that homosexuals can’t procreate, that’s why I mentioned that I would think there would be no issues with homosexual cousins marrying since there’s no potential for genetic defects that would exist with heterosexual cousins who are barred from marrying.
As for the “marriage” thing, I was just stating the obvious regarding the views of a significant number of people who do see some religious meaning or value in the word “marriage” but are willing to extend the same legal rights of marriage to others regardless of their own religious views on the subject. It’s why I think separating the state from marriage would be the ideal scenario in the first place, but since that won’t happen, I think marriage should simply be extended to everyone.
September 27th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“If you feel the need to attack the person with name calling rather than the issue with argument, it leads me to believe you are operating more from emotion than logic in framing any argument you have, and so are really no more reasonable or enlightened than those you attack. Is it wrong to confront view points you don’t agree with? No, it isnt. Is it wrong to do so by resorting to name calling and attacking the person instead of the argument? ”
Again, why is calling someone who believes in denying someone rights a bigot name calling? It’s what they are. I have no time for tone policing when it comes to human rights.
September 27th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
*pats Alicat on head*
Well isn’t that special!
September 30th, 2012 at 7:02 am
[...] week’s poll asked about political yard signs and whether you used them or not. While the vast majority of people said they didn’t, with [...]
October 7th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Who’s name calling now, SG?
October 8th, 2012 at 7:40 am
I’m sorry, what name did I call you? I simply used your own words. I don’t agree with your attitude and I refuse to further discuss the issue with you, as you are either unwilling or incapable of understanding the damage that your overall attitude can cause to such an important subject.
October 8th, 2012 at 9:44 am
http://feeds.minnpost.com/~r/minnpost/~3/0SRkYS39UYM/same-sex-marriage-times-they-are-changin-or-are-they
October 8th, 2012 at 10:20 am
That is an excellent article.
October 8th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Glad Bill posted that , I concur, SG, it is an excellent article in Minnpost today.
October 8th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
It will all ride on the election and turn out by region of the state. Hopefully election turn out will be high so we get a true sense of where the state is going.
I wonder how election turnout will be this year. I have a sense that it could be huge. 1992 turnout was 73.91%, 2004 turnout was 78.77%, 2008 was 78.02%. Will we top 80%?
October 8th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
That’s OK, SG, as I”m unwilling to discuss the topic with someone who is more interested in making sure bigots don’t feel bad about themselves.
/pats head.
October 11th, 2012 at 9:05 am
http://sunthisweek.com/2012/10/11/stealing-signs/
Recently I was at the Mall of America with my children and several bigots were wandering around wearing their obnoxious “VOTE YES” t-shirts. I caught the attention of one, someone no older than 25, and shared my opinion with a single word, “Shameful,” while shaking my head.
The bigot replied, “And fucking proud of it!”
Yes, civility does need to be a part of our political process and that civility stretches to those marginalized by bigotry, misunderstanding and hatred.
October 12th, 2012 at 10:02 am
Civility? Really, is that even possible anymore? After reading many of the comments here I have to wonder.
http://www.lazylightning.org/the-rack-bar-grill-burnsville-mn#comment-283971
October 12th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Mikeh, if you can’t distinguish between that line of comments and this one, you are as dumb as those Rack employees.
And I say that with the utmost respect, of course.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
MSPD, thanks for making my point.
October 12th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Always happy to help!
October 12th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
When did Mikeh become such a prude?
October 15th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
I think people have diluted the word “bullying”: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/savagepacer-mainfeed/~3/Vy9l1aP-uE0/article_8fc6b2c8-9606-5c0a-830e-a01e144a9918.html
People do a lot of stupid things, including giving up their rights, however I fully support the banning of signs in neighborhoods. Too bad they can’t ban EVERY SINGLE POLITICAL sign everywhere: http://www.topix.com/city/apple-valley-mn/2012/10/watchdog-can-a-condo-association-ban-political-lawn-signs?fromrss=1
October 15th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
I’m not sure why the woman in the condo association thought she could put up a sign in what I’m assuming is a common area. I thought that sort of rules was the norm in most HOAs. But the idea that it could lead to discord is silly; if that were the case they would have to ban bumper stickers on cars and things like that as well.
October 19th, 2012 at 10:51 am
I should have had popcorn while reading this thread. We have a Vote No sign. It’s the only sign I’ve ever had.
October 23rd, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Well, I can tell you one impact of these yard signs. My husband has been voluntarily shoveling the walks of our next-door neighbor for years each snowfall, and is contemplating not doing it this next year. He’s not finding it in his heart to forgive our neighbor her Vote Yes sign. Me, I’m more inclined to let her know how sad we were to see her sign, but not let it affect the shoveling. Then again, I’m not the one out there in the predawn cold dark, humping my ass everyday for the benefit of the sorely misguided.
And on the entire topic and for the benefit of anyone still reading, I’ll just drop these excellent links here.
The Iowa Supreme Court decision on this matter is a good and very readable explanation of the failure of the state to present a compelling reason to restrict marriage rights. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/assets/pdf/D213209243.PDF
Ted Olson, the conservative attorney who argued with David Bois in the California Prop 8 case, provides constitutional context in this Fox video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EJwSprkiInE
And here, in The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage, Olson articulates why it must be marriage, not civil partnerships or some other separate arrangement. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html
If you want something more emotional, based not on rights but on a sense of rightousness, here’s a May 2011 video of Representative John Kriesel, Republican of Cottage Grove, Minnesota, one of only four MN Republicans to vote against the proposed Minnesota Constitutional amendment codifying the existing statutory ban on same-sex marriage. http://blip.tv/the-uptake/rep-kriesel-s-full-speech-on-gay-marriage-bucking-the-gop-5193110