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 07-31-2012, 02:40 PM
 
Location: East St. Paul 651 forever (or North St. Paul) .
2,860 posts, read 3,390,834 times
Reputation: 1446

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
His motive is irrelevant.
Not for me. It's these shenanigans I was referring to earlier which will motivate me to vote for the amendment.

 
Old 07-31-2012, 03:13 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,675,417 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Govie View Post
Not for me. It's these shenanigans I was referring to earlier which will motivate me to vote for the amendment.
"Shenanigans" implies something illegal or dishonest. That's not what's happening here.
 
Old 07-31-2012, 03:16 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,675,417 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
doesn't he have an obligation to act in good faith for the benefit of the people of Minnesota...?
I might ask the same question about the GOP members who wrote these amendments. You can make the case that the questions were not written in good faith. It's all 100% political. So you can't legitimately complain when a politician from the other party does something political in response.

Let's say the DFL came up with this amendment proposal: "Incomes over $250,000 shall be taxed at 25%." You can bet your life that a Republican SOS would title it something like "Communist wealth redistribution."

See what I mean?
 
Old 07-31-2012, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,722,635 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
I might ask the same question about the GOP members who wrote these amendments. You can make the case that the questions were not written in good faith. It's all 100% political. So you can't legitimately complain when a politician from the other party does something political in response.

Let's say the DFL came up with this amendment proposal: "Incomes over $250,000 shall be taxed at 25%." You can bet your life that a Republican SOS would title it something like "Communist wealth redistribution."

See what I mean?
So your argument in favor of what he's done is baseless speculation that someone else might do something equally bad? Hah!
 
Old 07-31-2012, 10:52 PM
 
4,176 posts, read 4,675,417 times
Reputation: 1672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenfield View Post
So your argument in favor of what he's done is baseless speculation that someone else might do something equally bad? Hah!
No, my argument is that it's the prerogative of the office holder to title the amendments. I already made that point in a previous message.
 
Old 08-28-2012, 09:26 AM
 
Location: Twin Cities
5,831 posts, read 7,722,635 times
Reputation: 8867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Globe199 View Post
No, my argument is that it's the prerogative of the office holder to title the amendments. I already made that point in a previous message.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled on this issue and disagrees with your position on this. The two ballot proposals will now appear with the titles assigned to them by the Legislature.

Supporters of proposed constitutional amendments win both Supreme Court cases | StarTribune.com
 
Old 08-28-2012, 09:28 PM
 
Location: On the edge of the universe
994 posts, read 1,593,738 times
Reputation: 1446
I'm not 100% sure of the rules in MN but I'd like to see full gay marriage legalized in the state. I will also add that it's going to be an uphill battle just to maintain the status quo in MN. It's sad but true.
 
Old 08-29-2012, 02:25 PM
 
Location: Duluth, Minnesota, USA
7,639 posts, read 18,140,672 times
Reputation: 6914
My thoughts on the matter are summed up by this song:


One Man, One Woman - YouTube
 
Old 08-29-2012, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
23,766 posts, read 29,099,283 times
Reputation: 37337
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
My thoughts on the matter are summed up by this song:


One Man, One Woman - YouTube
I didn't listen but it appears to be a really long song
 
Old 08-29-2012, 04:50 PM
 
Location: South Minneapolis
116 posts, read 343,891 times
Reputation: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer View Post
My thoughts on the matter are summed up by this song:


One Man, One Woman - YouTube
I read the all the lyrics, watched a bit of the vid, and even visited his website. I'm assuming this guy is serious, not satirical...although, he might be a bit....umm....well anyway, I take issue with the message of his song.

In the eyes of the state, what does marriage have to do with procreation, or biology?

This guy's lyrics aren't acknowledging that there is (and should be) a separation of Church and state. The only change, if equal marriage rights were ever granted to all consenting adults in the state of Minnesota, would be within the confines of government.

Nobody is asking any religious entity to accept anything. Thus, any proposal to grant equal marriage rights would respect that different people can believe differently on issues...yet, it seems the 'vote yes' people don't believe that people should make decisions on their own, and that who one chooses to marry should be legislated, and not granted as free will upon the People.

To vote yes is to vote oppression of the Church upon the people of Minnesota.

To be able to marry my partner hurts no one. It will make me feel accepted by my state's people and government. It will bestow many benefits I previously did not have. It will make my (and many other) lives a little less stressful. It would mean less government meddling in people's personal lives. It WON'T mean lessening the meaning of others' marriages. Where is the logic (actual sound arguments) in NOT granting this to people? I don't get it.

And shame on the guy who 'is gay' and could care less about this issue. SO SELFISH to throw away a good cause that 'doesn't affect' you. It very well could affect you in the future, if you happen to change your tune as you grow up! There are others around you who care so much.
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