Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support same-sex marriage in Minnesota?
Yes 115 63.89%
No 65 36.11%
Voters: 180. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-30-2012, 08:05 AM
 
88 posts, read 139,201 times
Reputation: 65

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Missourian11 View Post
Although I am a strong Catholic, I am still open-minded so I am for gay marriage not only in MN but nationwide. I am a proud sister of a gay brother and he should have the same privledges as I do!
fyp

 
Old 07-30-2012, 11:20 AM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,390,479 times
Reputation: 1446
Not sure how I'm voting on it yet. I might just leave it blank. If people like Mark Ritchie and militant homosexuals continue to p--- me off with their shenanigans though, I'm going to vote for defining it as man+woman only.
 
Old 07-30-2012, 02:22 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,674,992 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
Not sure how I'm voting on it yet. I might just leave it blank. If people like Mark Ritchie and militant homosexuals continue to p--- me off with their shenanigans though, I'm going to vote for defining it as man+woman only.
Precisely what shenanigans are you talking about?
 
Old 07-30-2012, 04:34 PM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,390,479 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
Precisely what shenanigans are you talking about?
Joe Soucheray: Ritchie meddles to help own agenda on marriage, voter ID - TwinCities.com
 
Old 07-30-2012, 04:56 PM
 
Location: West Egg
2,160 posts, read 1,957,662 times
Reputation: 1297
Unfortunately, you cite an article that contains a falsehood -- Soucheray states that the Secretary of State may only title an amendment if the legislature fails to do so. That is not so. The Secretary of State can change the title if he determines that they are not appropriately descriptive.

And we will see what the State Supreme Court rules. You know, that legislative body of seven, containing a majority of members appointed by Tim Pawlenty (Republican), and not a single member appointed by a Democrat? Surely, if Ritchie has run afoul of the law, a majority from those seven members (four Pawlenty appointees, one Carlson appointee, one Ventura appointee, and one general electee) can easily be mustered to overturn Ritchie's decision. But I'll bet you they do no such thing.
 
Old 07-30-2012, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,721,463 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
Unfortunately, you cite an article that contains a falsehood -- Soucheray states that the Secretary of State may only title an amendment if the legislature fails to do so. That is not so. The Secretary of State can change the title if he determines that they are not appropriately descriptive.

And we will see what the State Supreme Court rules. You know, that legislative body of seven, containing a majority of members appointed by Tim Pawlenty (Republican), and not a single member appointed by a Democrat? Surely, if Ritchie has run afoul of the law, a majority from those seven members (four Pawlenty appointees, one Carlson appointee, one Ventura appointee, and one general electee) can easily be mustered to overturn Ritchie's decision. But I'll bet you they do no such thing.
Understanding that you're an expert in the workings of government and all, may I suggest that the Supreme Court is not a "legislative body" but the head of the judicial branch of government, and that the legislative body is comprised of the house and the senate? I might not have said anything had you not prefaced that astute observation with a smarmy "you know."

And whether or not it is legal is irrelevant. Ritchie clearly renamed the proposal to aid its opponents. You might view that as a good thing or a bad thing, but it would be silly to deny that as his motive.
 
Old 07-30-2012, 08:41 PM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,390,479 times
Reputation: 1446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Onions View Post
Unfortunately, you cite an article that contains a falsehood -- Soucheray states that the Secretary of State may only title an amendment if the legislature fails to do so. That is not so. The Secretary of State can change the title if he determines that they are not appropriately descriptive.

And we will see what the State Supreme Court rules. You know, that legislative body of seven, containing a majority of members appointed by Tim Pawlenty (Republican), and not a single member appointed by a Democrat? Surely, if Ritchie has run afoul of the law, a majority from those seven members (four Pawlenty appointees, one Carlson appointee, one Ventura appointee, and one general electee) can easily be mustered to overturn Ritchie's decision. But I'll bet you they do no such thing.
I minored in political science - I'm well aware of the checks and balances of the three branches. As far as your point, Glenfield pointed out exactly the grievance I have with Ritchie in his push to blur the words for the average Joe voter regarding the issue.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 09:45 AM
 
22 posts, read 48,951 times
Reputation: 23
New York has implemented this "feature" and that is one of the clear reason why I want to move out of here.

The recent story with NY city Council who states that "if you are not with us, you are again us" show that very soon it would be obligatory to become a gay in order to even enter the NYC Christine Quinn Is Totally Fine With Banning Chik-fil-A in New York City -- Daily Intel

Before it becomes obligatory, I would like to settle among normal people with traditional views and believes. I am saying "NO" and will defend this position for the best of my children.

Last edited by NY2MN; 07-31-2012 at 09:54 AM..
 
Old 07-31-2012, 01:38 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,674,992 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
Understanding that you're an expert in the workings of government and all, may I suggest that the Supreme Court is not a "legislative body" but the head of the judicial branch of government, and that the legislative body is comprised of the house and the senate? I might not have said anything had you not prefaced that astute observation with a smarmy "you know."

And whether or not it is legal is irrelevant. Ritchie clearly renamed the proposal to aid its opponents. You might view that as a good thing or a bad thing, but it would be silly to deny that as his motive.
His motive is irrelevant. It is completely within the purview and responsibility of the SOS to title the amendments as he sees fit. If Republicans don't like what he did, they are free to (try to) elect a conservative SOS. The SOS is a politician.

Now, I expect the conservative supreme court to overrule him. Those people are supposed to NOT be politicians, yet they are. Unfortunately, we can't unelect them.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,721,463 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
His motive is irrelevant. It is completely within the purview and responsibility of the SOS to title the amendments as he sees fit. If Republicans don't like what he did, they are free to (try to) elect a conservative SOS. The SOS is a politician.

Now, I expect the conservative supreme court to overrule him. Those people are supposed to NOT be politicians, yet they are. Unfortunately, we can't unelect them.
Why is his motive irrelevant? As a public servant, doesn't he have an obligation to act in good faith for the benefit of the people of Minnesota, or can any or all of his decisions made in office be solely for the purpose of furthering his political objectives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2022 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top