A Little Clarity For Everyone
I got a comment to the last post, and I wanted everyone to get more informed.
If it matters, I do not care about sexual orientation. I am straight, so what does that matter? I don’t really care what other people do in the bedroom. I don’t think this legislation has anything to do with the kind of sex people have, and with who.
This bill is about marriage. It is not banning gay marriage. The bill is being misrepresented by folks all the time. The words gay or homosexual aren’t in the bill. here it is if you don’t believe me
S.F. No. 1691, as introduced – 84th Legislative Session (2005-2006) Posted on Mar 11, 2005
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 proposing an amendment to the Minnesota Constitution
1.3 by adding a section to article XIII; recognizing as
1.4 marriage only a union between one man and one woman.
1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.6 Section 1. [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROPOSED.]
1.7 An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to
1.8 the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be
1.9 added to article XIII, to read:
1.10 Sec. 13. Only the union of one man and one woman shall be
1.11 valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other
1.12 relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal
1.13 equivalent.
1.14 Sec. 2. [QUESTION.]
1.15 The proposed amendment shall be submitted to the people at
1.16 the 2006 general election. The question submitted shall be:
1.17 “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide
1.18 that marriage or its legal equivalent is limited to only the
1.19 union of one man and one woman?
1.20 Yes …….
1.21 No ……..”
The people against this bill and the public at-large’s will added those words themselves. The people dowant this bill, I am sorry to be the one to tell you that. There are some people in support of this bill that do want to “enter the bedroom” but very few. And it can be said about so many things, it is not a valid argument to use here. This bill will not take away some one’s “right to be gay”. It is inteneded to pretect the “right to be straight” for the rest of us.
Sexual orientation happens outside the bedroom too. And this Amendment has everything to do with homosexuals and being gay, or it’s sponsor wouldn’t be talking about homosexuals, and preventing gay marriage by introducing it.
If you don’t know that by know, maybe you’re not the best person to be commenting on this issue. It’s common knowledge to virtually the entire planet that this amendment is about gay marriage.
The wording of the amendment: Only the union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota. Any other
relationship shall not be recognized as a marriage or its legal equivalent.
‘its legal equivalent’ is about the same as the Ohio and Michigan Amendments passed this fall. Those Amendments have been used to take away domestic partnership benefits and forbid civil unions, currently the only options same-sex couples have. And it’s not about sex. Straight people don’t have sex while doing their taxes or shopping at target for toilet paper, and neither do gay people. It’s about relationships.
So is it that you don’t like Bachman? Or that you don’t give a hoot about the fact that, as you said it, “the Ohio and Michigan Amendments passed this fall”?
An overwhelming number of people, like me, want this amendment. We have hundreds of laws that restrict certain people from something. I cannot be President for a few more years. I can’t be Mayor of Duluth, when I live in the Twin Cities. I can’t go rob the gas station. I have to give more of my paycheck to the Government than some one who makes less than me.
BTW, a relationship does not a marriage make. To be honest with you, I wish that the government had nothing to do with marriage. If it must, since traditional marriage was intended to sustain the family, I wish the government would make it harder to get married. It is one of the most important thing you can do and it is too easy. Too many people get married for the wrong reasons and then divorce and ruin a family. And if they have kids, that is even worse.
BTW, I have the right to comment on this. This is still America. And just because you disagree with me doesn’t mean I can’t speak. Too many people today think like you, you think that if you don’t like what some one says, they shouldn’t say it. I’m trying to explain how most of us who support this bill feel. You don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be heard.
Triple A- You are right… you have every right to voice your opinion on this issue. But don’t act so naive as to pretend this has nothing to do with homosexuals. In other states where similar amendments have passed… gay partnerships have lost many protections that most anyone would find reasonable. Such as same-sex partner benefits, hospital visitation rights, etc.
“An overwhelming number of people, like me, want this amendment.” Do you want an amendment that bans gay marriage or do you want an amendment that bans gay marriage and any legal equivalants. Because when the legal equivalants would also be banned… the majority of people in this country disagree.
Most people in this country would like to see gay couples have same-sex benefits (something most major companies in this country offer employees). But when amendments are passed with the legal equivalent language… we lose such freedoms.
“since traditional marriage was intended to sustain the family”- Marriage as a governmental institution has never designed to sustain the family. It was made to give couples added protections, in case they decide to have a family. Child rearing was never required. And since when have gay couples been excluded from raising families? Should a gay couple that has adopted and is raising children not have the same protections as any other family… needing to be sustained?
“I’m trying to explain how most of us who support this bill feel. You don’t like it. But that doesn’t mean we can’t be heard.”- We all get it. This bill isn’t about gay marriage at all. Nope. It is about protecting marriage, right? And to do that… you are willing to sacrifice the only legal protections that gay couples currently have. Those pesky protections like partner insurance benefits and hospital visitation rights.
Why can’t the people who support this, once again the majority, protect their own rights. I don’t want to take away the things that the private businesses offer and this bill won’t. But you are trying to have the government force all people and businesses recognize those benefits. That is the dirty little secret of your side, once the government recognizes the benefits, the legal flood gates open. My side wants this bill so that the people at large can decide what happens, not a few legislators or even worse judges. It is the people’s government isn’t it? If people don’t support the “any legal equivalants” part, why not let the bill get to the people to prove that? If you are so sure that they do not support that portion of the bill, it won’t pass.
My biggest beef, and why I first posted, was that my Senator has blocked this bill from being heard in committee for two years now. He, and he alone is standing in the way. if this bill is so terrible, how did it pass the House, there is only a 2 vote difference there now, but it still passed. (I just checked, it was 77 to 56) So that means it wasn’t a party line vote. It will pass the Senate, and it will be passed by the voters.
One man, my Senator is standing in the way of the will of the people.
For me personally, it isn’t about gay marriage, it is about protecting “marrriage”.
“I don’t want to take away the things that the private businesses offer and this bill won’t.” Private businesses don’t control hospital visitation rights, taxation laws, property laws, etc.
This bill makes any governmental document concerning same-sex couples non-existant.
“My side wants this bill so that the people at large can decide what happens, not a few legislators or even worse judges.” My side would argue that if you wanted this legislation so bad… why don’t you have enough elected officials to pass it? Why have you elected officials who have appointed judges who would be making such decisions? The reason this hasn’t passed is because my side still has enough power to stop it. And if I remember correctly… it is not just your Senator that voted against bringing it to the floor. 36 Senators voted against it.
Re: visitation and such,
Sounds like you might agree with me, we should get the government out of the way of health care, taxation laws, property laws, etc. Wouldn’t it be grand if the government didn’t control our lives?
My side, got help from your side in it passing in the House. There are 68 GOP and 66 DFL in the House, as I said the bill passed the House with 77 votes. That is more than the 68 GOP. We don’t need to have more officials on our side, your some on your side seem to agree with mine.
I just want my Senator to stop obstructing the the course of this bill. Again, if it is so bad a bill, why not let the Senate vote on it? Why? They haven’t yet. Betzold is holding it up in Committee. the Senate is 35 DFL and 31 GOP. What is Betzold afraid of if you have the votes?
Triple_a-
Your side did get help passing it in the house. My side got help from one of yours keeping it in committee in the Senate. This is how the process works with controversial bills.
You ask, why if this is such a bad bill are they not letting the Senate vote on it? My answer would be that because sometimes democracy becomes tyranny of the majority. And to prevent such… our governmental system was designed to provide checks and balances that makes passing legislation difficult.
The house author of this bill was NOT able to answer questions about how this would affect businesses who are offering domestic partnership benefits. He could not say whether it would overturn the domestic partnership benefits offered by the University of Minnesota. This amendment if passed will pass this issue to the courts for judges to interpret the meaning of “legal equivalent” of marriage.
If you are seriously interested in doing something to support the institution of marriage, why not make divorces harder to get in this amendment?
If this isn’t about gays, then why were there signs like “Death Penalty for Homosexuals” and “No Homos as Leaders” at the rally last year?
[...] with this post. A guy named “Andy” (not me) took offense in the comments. So I posted this for a little clarity. That seemed to upset “Carson”. And now “Eva” is o [...]
[...] e of the Love That They Have So I’m Not Alone I have taken some hits the last few days from a few folks on the untraditional side of the marriage debate. I th [...]
Once again the irrationality of people is staggering. “It’s common knowledge to virtually the entire planet..” “If this isn’t about gays, then why were there signs …” Etc. etc. I think, not feel, think, the issue here is twofold. Does the state, and I’m using that word in general terms, State governments, the Federal government, do they have the authority to decide the definition of an institution over which they have some regulatory and statutory influence, but which they did not create? It is a yes or no question. I think they do not, anymore than they can redefine water into H3O, or decide that popsicles are cheese. The opposition leads with its moral outrage, insisting by the superiority of their tolerance and inclusiveness that everyone who loves should be invited to the party. It is purely a feel good about themselves proposition. The incendiary invective spat at their opponents make this self evident. Otherwise we should see genuine arguements. And we would see a chance for the people to decide. Which is the second issue, who decides? When the opposition to the people voting on this are certain that all those oppossed are motivated only by hate, contempt, bigotry, religious conviction (read, predjudice), and their favorite catch-all, (drum roll please) homophobia, they must, to preserve their own self-certain piety, deny the ignorant masses a vote.
The gist of arguements I’ve read so far in the comments make little reference to thecommittments of marriage, and have leaned heavily on tropes about rights, and hospital visitation, and insurance benefits. If this is so, then I’d suggest working for those things, and quit heaping inflammatory bile on those who just want to maintain a several thousands year old status quo.
Amen
For those of you who are subscribing to the comments only, You may want to check out the rest of the blog, I’ve got something for you.