Same sex marriage (Minneapolis, St. Paul, Tower: 2013, crimes, felons)

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Astron1000

Tell that to King Solomon and his 700 wives and 300 concubines

I thought he was s'pose to be so smart

[Drewcifer]

Within a few years people are going to wonder what the big deal was.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I covered the money angle in an earlier post, but it's just an excuse. It may be valid or invalid, but it did enable the state to impose its rules on the church. Of course beliefs are being trumped. How could you think not? That always happens when there are two opposing and irreconcilable views and a matter is decided one way, or the other. It's definitional. One view becomes the rule and the other does not.

One more thing. Drop the snotty tone. It's beneath your usual standards of dialogue, xandrex.

How is money not an excuse? The use of government funds was how ACORN was eventually shut down (there was no conservative whining about that one). Was that just an excuse? If the government cannot control the money it is disbursing to organizations to perform services in accordance with the law (presumably that all adoption agencies accepting public funds must adopt to the public with discrimination), then what exactly is our model of doling out funds? If "Muslim Charities" was given money and then decided to adopt only to families that strictly follow Sharia Law, would it be okay for the government to intervene?

I still don't see how anything you do have been infringed upon. This simply allows gay and lesbian couples to enter into a government contract. It doesn't change your marriage, it doesn't change who a business can serve (the Minnesota civil rights laws that are in place today will continue to be enforced, but nothing has been added to them). There is no infringement. The only possible infringement were if churches were forced to perform marriages. They are not.

While I don't need to be lectured on my tone, I was not intending to be "snotty", so I apologize.

[Globe199]

Senate is debating it now. Sen Torrey Westrom is an exceedingly insufferable man.

[Lunar Delta]

That speech by the older gentleman (forgive me, I don't know his name, but he was going on and on about god and "the children") was absolutely abhorrent. I literally (not figuratively; literally) felt revolted and sick to my stomach listening to him talk.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by Lunar Delta

That speech by the older gentleman (forgive me, I don't know his name, but he was going on and on about god and "the children") was absolutely abhorrent. I literally (not figuratively; literally) felt revolted and sick to my stomach listening to him talk.

I can only assume you're talking about Senator Hall. Some of what he said we truly abhorrent.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Uh huh. And was the Catholic Church allowed to refuse to place adopted children with same sex couples in Massachussets? No, they were not. They were forced to stop all adoption placements to avoid charges of discrimination. This is exactly the same legal mechanism that will lead to churches being forced to stop performing all marriages. Even this DU commentary-- clearly a source that is not biased in favor of Catholics-- shows that the church had no choice but to stop placing children for adoption, though I would entirely disagree with their conjecture as to whether the Church's had ulterior motives. Still, I thought it would be good for you to hear this from the donkey's mouth, so to speak.

Why did Catholic Charities get out of the child adoption services in MA? - Democratic Underground


We are entering a time when the state decides what rights you do and don't have. So far, you have been successful in imposing your morality on others. Enjoy it while the pendulum swings your way. At some point, the government could just as easily decide to curtail your rights.

This would be a good thing. I've always been confounded as to why members of the clergy are allowed to enter people into the legally-binding contract of marriage. Marriage, as a legal process, should be the domain of the state. Couples interested in attaching religious significance to their union, could always arrange for a non-legally-binding ceremony with a church of their choice.

As to gay marriage, it's about time we recognized that all people should be free to love, and to express their commitment to one another. My heterosexuality isn't endangered in any way by living in a state in which gay people are allowed to marry. It's a simple civil rights issue, and Minnesota's progressive tradition in that regard should have brought this about long ago.

[iNviNciBL3]

Senate passes bill 37-30

[Globe199]

It's all over but the crying

Senator Dan Hall and the other troglodytes in the legislature can now proceed to have their own marriages be completely and tragically unaffected.

[doctorjef]

Congrats, Minnesota! Now the battle for equality moves on to Illinois. Wonderful news!