If gay marriage is OK'd, definition of bigotry will expand

[Puglover]

Opinion polls in 2005 revealed that a majority of Minnesotans support the proposed marriage amendment to the state Constitution, which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That's why a few Senate DFLers are working overtime to make sure that the full Senate -- and you, the voters -- don't get to vote on it.
Katherine Kersten, Star Tribune

Opinion polls in 2005 revealed that a majority of Minnesotans support the proposed marriage amendment to the state Constitution, which would define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That's why a few Senate DFLers are working overtime to make sure that the full Senate -- and you, the voters -- don't get to vote on it.
Amendment supporters are ordinary Minnesotans: soccer moms, Twins fans, the folks next door. But some advocates of same-sex marriage apparently view them as a sinister and unsavory bunch, even comparing them to racial bigots.

During the 2004 presidential campaign, U.S. Sen. John Kerry likened the push for gay marriage to the civil rights movement. State Rep. Neva Walker agrees. "Discrimination isn't just about race anymore," she told Minnesota Public Radio. "I still am not sure that if I had to depend on this body to have my civil rights, that I would have them." Walker claims that the proposed amendment would put discrimination in the Minnesota Constitution.

OutFront Minnesota, a gay-lesbian advocacy organization, says that "

ublic opinion cannot be allowed to permanently enshrine discrimination into the Constitution."



http://www.startribune.com/191/story/317243.html

I hope my fellow Minnesotans will read this and take a moment to email this insufferable bigot about what we think of such hyperbolic intellectually dishonest garbage.

Her email

[e-mail]

[loveable liberal]

1. The answer is in the Federalist papers.

It was written in the Federalist papers (#51 I think) that representative government has a number of purposes, one of which is to protect minority populations (not just race) against the whim of the majority. This situation is exactly what the author of that paper was addressing. If we are going to have a true democracy, lets all vote to have a 51 percent income tax on individuals and company's that make over $500,000.00 per year! Kersten makes the argument that National law should be created to limit the freedom of 2 percent of the population of the country and that people who believe this are bigots. Of course they are bigots. Then again, all people are bigoted in some way. The argument should be framed in a way that mocks these types of bigots for constantly thinking about what other people do with their genitals.

[dflprincess]

2. Constitutional Question

As the U.S. Constitution is (or was) the supreme law of the land, and a state may find a law it has passed to be unconstitutional, is it possible that an amendment to a state constitution could be found unconstitutional under Federal law?

I would guess that a state constitution has to be in compliance with the Federal one so even if, God forbid, this goofy amendment gets passed, it might be possible that a Federal judge could someday decide Minnesota is in violation.

[CatholicEdHead]

4. That is a good legal argument

of course it would have to come before the US Supreme Court, and I have my doubts that they would do anything anymore :(

[CatholicEdHead]

3. If this passes Gay Adoption is clearly next to go

as is being struck down by many Catholic Charites on direct orders from Rome. The hate from this "issue" is beyond belief. This is really a sad chapter in our history. All to get GOP control of the state senate and to upend Dean Johnson. :puke:

[scottymortensen]

5. Ever since I wrote Dobson a scathing letter

I get their alerts: Got this today




Minnesota Marriage Amendment in Jeopardy

Senators Dean Johnson and Don Betzold are attempting to silence the majority of Minnesotans who want to vote on marriage by blocking a vote in the Senate.



The Minnesota House has passed a state marriage amendment bill two years in a row. But before the people of Minnesota can vote on marriage, the bill must be passed in the Senate.

Time is of the essence. To your north, Canada legalized same-sex marriage last year. To your south, a lawsuit was filed in Iowa challenging that state's marriage laws. Your neighbors to the east and west have either already passed a marriage amendment or will have the chance to do that on this November's ballot.

The threat to traditional marriage is immense. Even though a majority of Minnesotans oppose the idea of same-sex marriage, the state Senate has been denied the opportunity to vote on the marriage amendment by Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson, who along with Sen. Don Betzold, has consistently worked to prevent a vote on the marriage amendment.

Earlier this year at a pastor's rally, Sen. Johnson claimed that Minnesota Supreme Court justices gave him assurances that they would refuse to hear a challenge to existing marriage law -- assurances he cited as proof to block the amendment as unnecessary.

When news of Sen. Johnson's statements reached the Supreme Court, they immediately denied making such promises. Any commitment by a judge to vote a certain way on an issue is considered a serious ethical breach. Judges can not discuss their position on cases, even with leaders in the legislature.

Under pressure from the Minnesota Supreme Court justices, Sen. Johnson has now admitted that he did not receive assurances from the Minnesota Supreme Court justices and that his comments at the rally were "poorly worded".

Will Sen. Johnson will do or say anything to deny Minnesotans the right to vote on this important issue? The definition of traditional marriage in Minnesota remains extremely vulnerable. Only an amendment to the state constitution can save traditional marriage.

Minnesotans deserve the chance to protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman – just as the voters of 19 other states have done -- before judges have the opportunity to impose a radical agenda by judicial fiat. If the Senate fails to pass the marriage amendment this session, you will not be allowed to vote on this important issue in November and you will not have that chance again until 2008.

Please call Senators Dean Johnson and Don Betzold today with a simple message: Stop stalling ... and let the people vote!

To call Sen. Johnson in the Metro Area: ( 651) 296-3826
To call Sen. Betzold in the Metro Area: [phone]
For both outside the Metro Area: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Sincerely,

Peter Brandt
Senior Director, Government and Public Policy
Focus on the Family


Prepared and paid for by Minnesota For Marriage, 2855 Anthony Lane South, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55418, in support of the Minnesota Marriage Amendment.

[indigo32]

6. I gotta say

I'm a little disappointed with Johnson, despite the underhanded and likely illegal method used to trap him on this. It's hard to criticize him, given how strongly he's been able to hold the line on this issue, but damn... this is a mess.

As far as Dobson goes, if he gave a crap about families, he'd 'focus' on issues that really tear them apart. Like poverty for one. What an asshole.

Anyway there is a rally of religious people against the amendment on the capital grounds this Thurs evening for those interested, in counter to the rally in favor going on today (I think). I will probably attend, even if I'm not religious LOL.

[CatholicEdHead]

7. Yes, the GOP is being more sanctimious than usual over this

This is a really a non-issue yet the GOP whining has hit record levels over this. :puke:

[HopeFor2006]

12. "Minnesota for Marriage"

As long as it's their idea of marriage, I suppose.

[Minnesota Raindog]

8. Gay Republican Sen. Koering voted in FAVOR of same-sex marriage vote

Paul Koering is a whore of the worst kind. Sold out his own human rights to advance his personal political fortunes in the gay-hating GOP. What does he hope to accomplish by letting people vote on whether the state can officially discriminate against him? How many blacks opposed the Voting Rights Act? And he wants support from the GLBT community? Good luck, sucker.

[Viking12]

9. Kersten has yet to answer the question she posed in her previous column...

How the fuck will gay marriage affect YOUR marriage???


Now we can add to her list of lies this quote "If you believe that children need a mother and a father..."" What the fuck does the gay marriage amendment have to do with this line of BULLSHIT? Does it outlaw single parents? Require termination of unwed pregnancies???

[CatholicEdHead]

10. I would assume it is a "honor" thing

that the mere existence of the "practice" "dishonors" everyone's marriage. :puke:

[Odin2005]

11. The MN GOP is why I ain't a populist.

The way they push referendums to exclude themselves from responibility is sickening. Everytime the crap from the Pukes in the House is killed by the Dems in the Senate they scream "WE NEED A REFERENDUM, THE PEOPLE DON'T LIKE LIBRUL OBSTRUCTIONISTS!!!". It's getting old.

[Gavinicus]

13. Kersten is a moral reprobate

Look, Ms. Kersten is on record saying she cannot find a principled reason to make polygamy and incest illegal if gays are allowed to marry. Is that not enough to establish her depravity? The woman is not just a bigot--she's morally bankrupt.