Home | Ice Fishing Reports | HSOList Classifieds | HSOshow | Resorts,Guides,Boats | Ice Leaders | Business Services | Site Map | OutdoorProStore
@ the Leading Edge:
Search
Featured HSOList Classifieds
Own A Piece of History On The Bois Brule River
Brand new Fish House
Tri-Tronics Upland Special
2008 Gulf Breeze Gulf Stream
2008 Gulf Breeze Gulf Stream
Brand New CZ 912 12 ga. shotgun ? unfired
22-250 ammo
New Topics
End of the season outfitter Canoe sales
by eyesonly
Yesterday at 11:40 PM
Remember the Ice Gator? Anyone have/use one?
by Agronomist_at_IA
Yesterday at 10:35 PM
Great Labor Day Family Conversations
by deerminator
Yesterday at 10:25 PM
Events For You to Enjoy!
On The Forums ...
New Trailer Decal Requirement
by pikerliker
3 minutes 15 seconds ago
Great Labor Day Family Conversations
by ANYFISH2
5 minutes 46 seconds ago
End of the season outfitter Canoe sales
by eyesonly
20 minutes 53 seconds ago
Good Luck Teddy!!
by Search Function
22 minutes 56 seconds ago
Fun mixed bag today!
by Stick in Mud
54 minutes 3 seconds ago
Leech Lake knife.
by Agronomist_at_IA
Today at 01:14 AM
DNR walleye reproduction seminar
by Stick in Mud
Today at 01:03 AM
New Boat Trailer Permit
by Stick in Mud
Today at 12:58 AM
8-31 Storm
by Lunker
Today at 12:36 AM
Remember the Ice Gator? Anyone have/use one?
by Brad B
Today at 12:21 AM
Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare
by Shack
Today at 12:08 AM
MBRB Legit?
by Sir_Sumo
Yesterday at 11:59 PM
Id help Chantrelle or Jack?
by Stick in Mud
Yesterday at 11:48 PM
Poverty and MN elderly
by PurpleFloyd
Yesterday at 11:24 PM
just got home
by CaptJohnWis
Yesterday at 11:18 PM
FREE HSOList.com
Classifieds
Own A Piece of History On The Bois Brule River
Brand new Fish House
Tri-Tronics Upland Special
Forum Stats
61562 Members
233 Forums
302423 Topics
2609731 Posts
Share HotSpotOutdoors with family & your good friends.
Who's Online
25 registered Members, 655 Guests and YOU online now.

Become family and
share HSO.

"i'm having fun"
At the Leading Edge
"!!

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop to:
#2929330 - 10/23/12 10:40 AM
Marriage Amendment
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
I don't think I've seen anything on the forums regarding the Marriage Amendment that is on the ballot. Seems like a rather important issue and one that is getting a lot of talk around the state and country. Perhaps no one wants to touch it around here since it could be a sensetive issue.

Personally I have rather strong feelings on the issue. I just can't see how a country founded on seperation of church and state can use moral church teaching to try to block a segment of the population from having equal rights under the law. Plain and simple the amendment amounts to discrimination, there just isn't any way around that.

I'm a christian but I still can't vote in favor of something that takes away rights of other Americans.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929334 - 10/23/12 10:44 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
toughguy Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 2989
Loc: Lakeville, MN
This is going to get very interesting.......

That said I agree with you 100% on this one.
Top
#2929344 - 10/23/12 10:51 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: toughguy]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
I figured it could get interesting. Hopefully everyone can remain respectful.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929350 - 10/23/12 10:58 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
Leaky Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 2224
Loc: Wishing it was Ely
I'm voting no. A constitutional amendment isn't the way to deal with this.

I was going to sue her for defamation of character, but then realized I have no character." Charles Barkley


Top
#2929357 - 10/23/12 11:05 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
Duffman Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 10/17/01
Posts: 5564
Loc: Savage
Originally Posted By: Leaky
I'm voting no. A constitutional amendment isn't the way to deal with this.


My thoughts exactly.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." - Benjamin Franklin



HotSpot Outdoors Sponsors




Top
#2929368 - 10/23/12 11:17 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
skee0025 Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 10/31/07
Posts: 1128
Loc: Prescott, WI
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
Personally I have rather strong feelings on the issue. I just can't see how a country founded on seperation of church and state can use moral church teaching to try to block a segment of the population from having equal rights under the law.


Time to stir the pot a bit. Granted the founder were against having a state religion along the lines of the Church of England They didnt specifically outline a "seperation of church and state" In fact it appears no where in the constitution. The phrase originates in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 Letters to the Baptist Association of Danbury. To think that the founders would authorize or approve of gay marriage is laughable. Any gay couple attempting a "marriage" anywhere in the country would be run out of whatever state they tried it in at best and at worst would have faced mortal peril. The whole issue is political, right from the start. If there wasnt a push to redefine "marriage" the whole issue would have been settled years ago had it just been about rights...

Anybody who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian.
Top
#2929376 - 10/23/12 11:23 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
BobT Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 7850
Loc: Osakis, MN
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
I don't think I've seen anything on the forums regarding the Marriage Amendment that is on the ballot. Seems like a rather important issue and one that is getting a lot of talk around the state and country. Perhaps no one wants to touch it around here since it could be a sensetive issue.

Personally I have rather strong feelings on the issue. I just can't see how a country founded on seperation of church and state can use moral church teaching to try to block a segment of the population from having equal rights under the law. Plain and simple the amendment amounts to discrimination, there just isn't any way around that.

I'm a christian but I still can't vote in favor of something that takes away rights of other Americans.

First, the country was not founded on the ideal of separation of church and state. That ideal comes from a statement made by Thomas Jefferson and not written into the constitution. That aside, I agree with you that a state mandate of Religious doctrine would be illegal under the 1st amendment which forbids the state (US government in this case) from imposing any religious doctrine upon the people or restricting the peoples' right to worship whatever God or god they desire.

I would suggest that referring to the proposed amendment as a church teaching will undoubtedly turn it into a religious debate when in fact it doesn't necessarily have to be. But that is part of the goal of those on both sides of the argument. Make a social issue a religious one and it raises a few more eyebrows.

I'm a little confused however with your statement, "I'm a christian but I still can't vote in favor of something that takes away rights of other Americans." Please forgive me as I don't mean disrespect but rather as one Christian to another I would ask you to reflect on the claim you make, examine yourself, and answer for yourself the following questions.

You claim to be Christian. As a Christian how can you allow yourself to support what your God declares sinful? Are you truly a Christian or do you just like to associate yourself with the title. Please do not answer here on the open forums as I will not take this thread any further off course and debate or argue these questions.

Bob
Top
#2929396 - 10/23/12 11:50 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BobT]
Getanet Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 1773
Loc: Mpls, MN
I just don't see what those voting Yes think it will accomplish. It won't stop folks from being gay. It won't stop them from being in long term committed relationships. It won't stop them from being able to adopt or have children.

About the only outcome I can see is a long and costly court battle where it would be ruled unconstitutional, similar to NY and other states.
Top
#2929398 - 10/23/12 11:51 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: skee0025]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: skee0025

To think that the founders would authorize or approve of gay marriage is laughable. Any gay couple attempting a "marriage" anywhere in the country would be run out of whatever state they tried it in at best and at worst would have faced mortal peril.


The founders also would have had the same thoughts about inter-racial marriages or racial equality in general.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929405 - 10/23/12 12:07 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BobT]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: BobT


I'm a little confused however with your statement, "I'm a christian but I still can't vote in favor of something that takes away rights of other Americans." Please forgive me as I don't mean disrespect but rather as one Christian to another I would ask you to reflect on the claim you make, examine yourself, and answer for yourself the following questions.

You claim to be Christian. As a Christian how can you allow yourself to support what your God declares sinful? Are you truly a Christian or do you just like to associate yourself with the title. Please do not answer here on the open forums as I will not take this thread any further off course and debate or argue these questions.


I've asked myself those questions in the past and while not entirely easy I have answered them to myself. I won't go into my full thought process for sake of the thread but for others out there who might be asking the same questions of themselves here is the short version of my rationale. In God's eyes there is no one sin greater than another and the job of judgement is not up to me. I'm not going to condemn nor take away rights of someone who is just as sinful as I am. In the bible it says "Let he who hath not sinned cast the first stone", in our modern day version it should be "let he who hath not sinned cast the first vote."

I'm not going to get into defending my personal religious feelings on the topic but thought I should at least explain myself given my first post.

Beyond the religious implications this is a simple and fundamental rights issue. Do we vote to take away rights of Americans? If you do cast a vote to take away rights I feel like you should have a pretty darn good reason for it.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929410 - 10/23/12 12:10 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
Kyhl Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 01/13/09
Posts: 1437
Loc: Savage
Let me start out by saying that I'm undecided on this issue.

Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
I still can't vote in favor of something that takes away rights of other Americans.


What rights are being removed? I do not see the amendment removing any right. With or without the amendment people will still be able to be married. The amendment will not change the availability to be married.

The amendment would limit the definition of choice of a legally recognized spouse but it would not limit the right to be married. As a society we regulate definitions of choices all of the time.

So the argument that this would be a limit to someone's rights is bogus as I see it.

On the other hand, this is an abdication of responsibility on the part of our elected officials. We live in a representative democracy. Every tough decision should not put to a popular vote.

This second reason was what caused me to decide to vote no for the Outdoor Heritage Amendment. My point is, as was also already stated, this should not be an amendment issue in the first place.

Sadly, a no vote would be interpreted as a vote in favor of same sex marrage which is not necessarily true


Edited by Kyhl (10/23/12 12:14 PM)

-Kyhl
Top
#2929417 - 10/23/12 12:15 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: Leaky
I'm voting no. A constitutional amendment isn't the way to deal with this.


A constitutional amendment is only proposed because one side doesn't trust the courts. And, after what happened in Iowa and some other states, it is hard to blame them.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929427 - 10/23/12 12:21 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Kyhl]
TruthWalleyes Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 5418
Loc: Minnesota
What kind of legal, tax, other benefits, penalties, etc...differentiate a married couple from non married?

I could give a rats patoot who wants to marry who...I want to understand if this is more of a push to achieve the same legal benefits that married couples receive...(If that's the case, why do these differences exist?)

I'm going to pleed total ignorance in the legal implications of "Marriage".

If i had to vote on it today, i wouldn't as i feel uninformed.


Edited by TruthWalleyes (10/23/12 12:22 PM)
Top
#2929433 - 10/23/12 12:24 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Kyhl]
Scott K Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 01/18/07
Posts: 14985
Loc: Henderson, MN
Let me throw the wrench in it

I am not in favor of restricting anyones rights. I am in favor of freedom. I think the issue should be left to ones state/church/god/county, etc..

But then you have to look at it as, what is the definition of marriage? To me, it is "One man, one woman"

Could it be "One woman, another woman"? Or "Two men" ?

But then where do you draw the line? "One man, one dog" ?

To me it totally falls on the definition, and to me the definition of marriage is "One man, one woman"

I have nothing against gay people, or them wanting to spend their lives together. I just feel "marriage" should be "one man, one woman"

Now if the state, or fed want to have a different term for it, like "Life Unity", or whatever, I would back it, but I think marriage should be "one man, one woman"
Top
#2929434 - 10/23/12 12:25 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: TruthWalleyes]
PurpleFloyd Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 9363
Loc: In a fish bowl.
Hard to believe with the economy and the country having so many problems that the biggest push we are getting from the two parties is a social issue.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God
Top
#2929437 - 10/23/12 12:27 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: TruthWalleyes]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Currently there is a law in Minnesota defining marriage as 1 man 1 woman. The amendment doesn't change anything except prevent judicial activism.

Marriage mostly affects automatic provisions for some medical issues, property or inheritance, and child custody and visitation so far as I know. There are tax implications but mostly those are federal, which Minnesota law doesn't affect.

If there is anything else, please post.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929439 - 10/23/12 12:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: TruthWalleyes]
Slabasaurus Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 3264
Loc: Blaine, MN
Originally Posted By: TruthWalleyes
What kind of legal, tax, other benefits, penalties, etc...differentiate a married couple from non married?

I could give a rats patoot who wants to marry who...I want to understand if this is more of a push to achieve the same legal benefits that married couples receive...(If that's the case, why do these differences exist?)

I'm going to pleed total ignorance in the legal implications of "Marriage".

If i had to vote on it today, i wouldn't as i feel uninformed.


I know that 90% of this crowd will call the source socialist commie liberal slander... that said...

the NY Times published an article back in 2010 that actually broke out the differences in taxes, benefits/insurance, retirement packages, etc between straight couples, same sex couples (not married) and same sex couples (married).

It was interesting, as there are benefits and "penalties" to each of these.

Though, as same sex marriage is currently not legal in MN, this amendment seems a tad redundant. Kind of ironic giving the crowd pushing for this.... (smaller government crowd big freedom pushers)

It's not how you swim, it's how you hold your breath;
It's not about playin fair in this life, it's more about cheatin death...

TU Member
Federation of Fly Fishers Member
Top
#2929442 - 10/23/12 12:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Scott K]
toughguy Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 2989
Loc: Lakeville, MN
Originally Posted By: 4wanderingeyes

But then where do you draw the line? "One man, one dog" ?


Dogs don't get social security after their "owners" die. They don't buy pay taxes or share health benefits either.

There are several states where it's legal to marry your first cousin but not someone of the same sex.

This burrito is delicious, but it is filling
Top
#2929443 - 10/23/12 12:30 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Scott K]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: 4wanderingeyes
Let me throw the wrench in it

I am not in favor of restricting anyones rights. I am in favor of freedom. I think the issue should be left to ones state/church/god/county, etc..

But then you have to look at it as, what is the definition of marriage? To me, it is "One man, one woman"

Could it be "One woman, another woman"? Or "Two men" ?

But then where do you draw the line? "One man, one dog" ?

To me it totally falls on the definition, and to me the definition of marriage is "One man, one woman"

I have nothing against gay people, or them wanting to spend their lives together. I just feel "marriage" should be "one man, one woman"

Now if the state, or fed want to have a different term for it, like "Life Unity", or whatever, I would back it, but I think marriage should be "one man, one woman"



That is the way I view marriage too. No one is trying to take away someone's ability to live with someone else of their choice.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929449 - 10/23/12 12:35 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
But they are trying to eliminate any potential for certain people to enjoy the same rights and benefits that are obtained through marriage.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929453 - 10/23/12 12:37 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: PurpleFloyd]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: PurpleFloyd
Hard to believe with the economy and the country having so many problems that the biggest push we are getting from the two parties is a social issue.


Hardly the biggest push.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929455 - 10/23/12 12:39 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Scott K Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 01/18/07
Posts: 14985
Loc: Henderson, MN
Quote:
Dogs don't get social security after their "owners" die. They don't buy pay taxes or share health benefits either.

There are several states where it's legal to marry your first cousin but not someone of the same sex.


Then call it something else, and give them the same benefits.

I have no problem with it, just the fact, I think marriage, should be left as 1 man, 1 woman.
Top
#2929461 - 10/23/12 12:50 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Scott K]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
I think too many people are caught up in the language. Who cares if you call it marriage, civil union, or some other made up term?

What's at stake is the ability for certain people to ever obtain the same rights as most of us have. Those of you have said no rights are being taken away are 100% right. This amendment doesn't take away rights but by voiting yes you are saying that you NEVER want those people to ever obtain equal rights.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929463 - 10/23/12 12:51 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
Sonicrunch Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 01/20/05
Posts: 2001
Loc: Chaska, MN
no. this is NOT an important issue.
Top
#2929472 - 10/23/12 01:02 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
Eric Wettschreck Offline

HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 01/23/03
Posts: 10732
Loc: Avoca, MN. USA
Originally Posted By: Leaky
I'm voting no. A constitutional amendment isn't the way to deal with this.


We have a winner.

Dude, where's my bobber????



Support Our Sponsors - Just Click Here
Top
#2929479 - 10/23/12 01:07 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
BrdHunter01 Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 10/11/09
Posts: 1071
Loc: MN
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
I think too many people are caught up in the language. Who cares if you call it marriage, civil union, or some other made up term?

What's at stake is the ability for certain people to ever obtain the same rights as most of us have. Those of you have said no rights are being taken away are 100% right. This amendment doesn't take away rights but by voiting yes you are saying that you NEVER want those people to ever obtain equal rights.


+1 Well said!
Top
#2929481 - 10/23/12 01:09 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Eric Wettschreck]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Those NO votes will be interpreted as being a referendum on Gay Marriage, if amendment doesn't pass. I have a crystal ball. Too bad it doesn't work on the stock market or walleye location.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929483 - 10/23/12 01:13 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
What if it does turn into a referendum on gay marriage? Whats wrong with treating everyone as equals?

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929485 - 10/23/12 01:14 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BrdHunter01]
BRULEDRIFTER Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 10/19/04
Posts: 1744
Loc: Virginia, MN



Pretty much sums it up!
Top
#2929488 - 10/23/12 01:16 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: toughguy]
leech~~ Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 12/11/08
Posts: 8242
Loc: Northern state of mind
Originally Posted By: toughguy

But then where do you draw the line? "One man, one dog" ?


Dogs don't get social security after their "owners" die. They don't buy pay taxes or share health benefits either.
You wait. In a few years someone that loves and has sex with their dogs will want to get their vet bills paid for! Why not it's their partner right! We may laugh now but 100 years ago they would have laughed at us now! Nothing surprises me anymore just read whats in the paper now everyday! crazy

____________________________________________________________
Cooking over an open fire with a stick is all fun and games!
Until someone loses a Weiner!
Top
#2929499 - 10/23/12 01:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
TruthWalleyes Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 5418
Loc: Minnesota
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
But they are trying to eliminate any potential for certain people to enjoy the same rights and benefits that are obtained through marriage.


This is what i'd like to understand. What benefits? And...Why are there benefits?
Top
#2929502 - 10/23/12 01:38 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
What if it does turn into a referendum on gay marriage? Whats wrong with treating everyone as equals?


It is just something folks should think about when making their decision. Someone posted "it doesn't belong in the constitution". That may be true, but this vote is more than that.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929509 - 10/23/12 01:43 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: leech~~]
chasineyes Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 01/13/08
Posts: 2458
Loc: Shakopee, MN
All I can say is if you are FOR gay marriage you better be for polygamy. After all it's all about peoples love.
I'm voting yes.
Top
#2929526 - 10/23/12 02:05 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: TruthWalleyes]
nolte Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 02/28/01
Posts: 536
Loc: NW WI
Personally, I don't care one bit what people do. They can live and do whatever they please. It's none of my business. I think that the simple clear definition of "one man one woman" is the way to go. It leaves no gray area on the subject. We all know how convoluted situations get when you include all sort of different scenarios. Two people of the same sex can still have a civil union, live together, have their retirement dedicated to each other and get health benefits (if they work for an employer that offers it).

A state/county should only give benefits to couples that is in the state/country's best interest. The benefit to the state in a standard marriage is to potentially procreate which replentishes(or grows) the population as it dies off. Last I checked procreation isn't possible with a same sex couple without outside intervention. Granted some traditional marriages don't have children either, but the possibility exists. This is the only reason the government should provide incentives (tax benefits, soc security).

A same sex marriage is a slippery slope. What will stop two bachelors or single ladies to get benefits. The next thing you know an employer will be mandated to provide insurance to their pets. Most consider them part of the family now. It will all end up costing everyone more. It sounds crazy but would bet that some would advocate for it.
Top
#2929527 - 10/23/12 02:05 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: leech~~]
RK Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 12/02/02
Posts: 3125
Loc: St. Paul MN USA
Several thoughts...

If this amendment does NOT pass...gay marriage will still not be legal. There is a state statute that already prevents it. What the amendment would do is make that much more difficult to change in the future. Societal attitudes about this issue are changing rapidly, and frankly, this is more or less a preemptive attempt to prevent it becoming legal when opposition to it becomes a monitory view - and some research shows it may be already.

Personally, I think this has no place in our constitution. Our constitution is supposed to lay out the framework for government, not be the ultimate arbiter on social and frankly religious issues that evolve over time.

The 'gays today, dogs tomorrow' argument is the biggest load of horse manure one could imagine. Reductio ad absurdum refined to a high art.

This issue is, to me, about fundamental rights we have as citizens. We have gays serving with honor in our military, being productive members of society in all walks of life, paying taxes, raising kids... Why should they, based on whom they love and that alone, be denied the very real legal protections any other straight couple enjoys. What is the difference? For a libertarian mindset, I'd think writing something into the state constitution that allows the government to restrict individual rights based on something as unremarkable as who they want to marry would be anathema. Talk about the government interfering with one's private life...

If it's a religious issue, it should be a non-starter. The constitution provides freedom of religion, but it also provides freedom FROM religion.

If your religious beliefs lead you to think gay marriage is unacceptable, join a church that doesn't perform them. But saying 'Christianity forbids it' is false. Christianity is not monolithic. Doctrine isn't universal. If the church I belong to supports gay marriage (which it does) why should your belief trump what happens in my church?

Are civil unions an alternative? If they give one the same rights as marriage, then what's the difference? Then it becomes a religious issue again, and that should be up to the church and the individual. Straight couples don't HAVE to get married in a church either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I take back what I said about the biggest load of horse manure. The biggest is that being against gay marriage somehow protects the 'sanctity of traditional marriage.' You want to protect traditional marriage, how about a constitutional amendment banning divorce? 'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'

This is a really personal issue for me. My sister in law, whom I love dearly, is a lesbian. She's been in a relationship with her partner for years. They have a house, raised 3 awesome kids, have careers, pay their taxes...they're just ordinary, garden variety citizens with a loving family and a dog that pees on the carpet and a front door that sticks when it's cold. They are like you and me. But because they can't get married, they are denied the legal benefits and protections her sister and I have. If my SIL's partner fell off a scaffolding at work and ended up in the ICU, she wouldn't be allowed in to see her. She isn't 'family.' That's wrong. Just plain and simple. Wrong.

Final thought - if you think society's attitudes about issues like this never change, listen to one of the commercials supporting the amendment, or read an op ed, or even some of the comments here. But every time they say 'gay marriage' replace it with 'interracial marriage' and see if it makes sense then. Not that long ago, passing an amendment banning mixed race marriages would have been a slam dunk.
Top
#2929528 - 10/23/12 02:06 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: chasineyes]
FM_Mike Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/21/04
Posts: 2217
Loc: Island on a Small Lake
Originally Posted By: chasineyes
All I can say is if you are FOR gay marriage you better be for polygamy. After all it's all about peoples love.
I'm voting yes.


+1

And then where does it stop. Is Pedophilia next. This is a can of worms, once opened, how do you deal with all the issue that come out.

Be very careful of unintended consequences.

Mike

--- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.---




Top
#2929533 - 10/23/12 02:19 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: FM_Mike]
Big Dave2 Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 7871
Loc: Belle Plaine, MN, USA
Originally Posted By: FM_Mike



And then where does it stop. Is Pedophilia next. This is a can of worms, once opened, how do you deal with all the issue that come out.

Be very careful of unintended consequences.

Mike



I don't believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don't believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can't get along
Top
#2929536 - 10/23/12 02:21 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
But they are trying to eliminate any potential for certain people to enjoy the same rights and benefits that are obtained through marriage.


I am saying in my opinion, my opinion...Marriage is a unity between a man and woman. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. It is just my belief.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929539 - 10/23/12 02:22 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: RK]
Big Dave2 Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 7871
Loc: Belle Plaine, MN, USA
Originally Posted By: RK
Several thoughts...

If this amendment does NOT pass...gay marriage will still not be legal. There is a state statute that already prevents it. What the amendment would do is make that much more difficult to change in the future. Societal attitudes about this issue are changing rapidly, and frankly, this is more or less a preemptive attempt to prevent it becoming legal when opposition to it becomes a monitory view - and some research shows it may be already.

Personally, I think this has no place in our constitution. Our constitution is supposed to lay out the framework for government, not be the ultimate arbiter on social and frankly religious issues that evolve over time.

The 'gays today, dogs tomorrow' argument is the biggest load of horse manure one could imagine. Reductio ad absurdum refined to a high art.

This issue is, to me, about fundamental rights we have as citizens. We have gays serving with honor in our military, being productive members of society in all walks of life, paying taxes, raising kids... Why should they, based on whom they love and that alone, be denied the very real legal protections any other straight couple enjoys. What is the difference? For a libertarian mindset, I'd think writing something into the state constitution that allows the government to restrict individual rights based on something as unremarkable as who they want to marry would be anathema. Talk about the government interfering with one's private life...

If it's a religious issue, it should be a non-starter. The constitution provides freedom of religion, but it also provides freedom FROM religion.

If your religious beliefs lead you to think gay marriage is unacceptable, join a church that doesn't perform them. But saying 'Christianity forbids it' is false. Christianity is not monolithic. Doctrine isn't universal. If the church I belong to supports gay marriage (which it does) why should your belief trump what happens in my church?

Are civil unions an alternative? If they give one the same rights as marriage, then what's the difference? Then it becomes a religious issue again, and that should be up to the church and the individual. Straight couples don't HAVE to get married in a church either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I take back what I said about the biggest load of horse manure. The biggest is that being against gay marriage somehow protects the 'sanctity of traditional marriage.' You want to protect traditional marriage, how about a constitutional amendment banning divorce? 'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'

This is a really personal issue for me. My sister in law, whom I love dearly, is a lesbian. She's been in a relationship with her partner for years. They have a house, raised 3 awesome kids, have careers, pay their taxes...they're just ordinary, garden variety citizens with a loving family and a dog that pees on the carpet and a front door that sticks when it's cold. They are like you and me. But because they can't get married, they are denied the legal benefits and protections her sister and I have. If my SIL's partner fell off a scaffolding at work and ended up in the ICU, she wouldn't be allowed in to see her. She isn't 'family.' That's wrong. Just plain and simple. Wrong.

Final thought - if you think society's attitudes about issues like this never change, listen to one of the commercials supporting the amendment, or read an op ed, or even some of the comments here. But every time they say 'gay marriage' replace it with 'interracial marriage' and see if it makes sense then. Not that long ago, passing an amendment banning mixed race marriages would have been a slam dunk.




This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time down here!

I don't believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don't believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can't get along
Top
#2929540 - 10/23/12 02:23 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Big Dave2 Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 7871
Loc: Belle Plaine, MN, USA
Originally Posted By: upnorth


I am saying in my opinion, my opinion...Marriage is a unity between a man and woman. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. It is just my belief.


But are you willing to write "YOUR" belief in stone into the state constitution?

I don't believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don't believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can't get along
Top
#2929543 - 10/23/12 02:26 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
ted4887 Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/15/08
Posts: 1844
Loc: On a river
Originally Posted By: Big Dave2


This is one of the best posts I've read in a long time down here!




x2.


Nicely said, RK.
Top
#2929547 - 10/23/12 02:28 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
toughguy Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 2989
Loc: Lakeville, MN
Yes, as soon as gay marriage is approved sex crimes on children will be made legal too. Seems rational to me. crazy

What happened to voting on the issue before us?
Top
#2929549 - 10/23/12 02:28 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nolte]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: nolte
Personally, I don't care one bit what people do. They can live and do whatever they please. It's none of my business. I think that the simple clear definition of "one man one woman" is the way to go. It leaves no gray area on the subject. We all know how convoluted situations get when you include all sort of different scenarios. Two people of the same sex can still have a civil union, live together, have their retirement dedicated to each other and get health benefits (if they work for an employer that offers it).

Civil unions are not recognized by most states. Also even if they are the federal government still does not recognize them for same sex couples so all federal benefits are not available. For instance if a gay man is killed in combat his same sex partner recieves no survior benefits regadless of their civil union.

Quote:
A state/county should only give benefits to couples that is in the state/country's best interest. The benefit to the state in a standard marriage is to potentially procreate which replentishes(or grows) the population as it dies off.


Last time i checked UNDER population wasn't a big issue. Really grasping at straws with this arguement.

Quote:
What will stop two bachelors or single ladies to get benefits.

What would stop two hetrosexual friends from getting a sham marriage just to get benefits?

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929552 - 10/23/12 02:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: Big Dave2


But are you willing to write "YOUR" belief in stone into the state constitution?


This is being put up to popular vote for a reason. If enough people vote for it, it will pass, if enough vote against it won't pass. People say they want a democracy, well this is democracy, all will have their say in the way of a vote.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929554 - 10/23/12 02:30 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: RK]
Leaky Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 2224
Loc: Wishing it was Ely
Originally Posted By: RK
Several thoughts...

If this amendment does NOT pass...gay marriage will still not be legal. There is a state statute that already prevents it. What the amendment would do is make that much more difficult to change in the future. Societal attitudes about this issue are changing rapidly, and frankly, this is more or less a preemptive attempt to prevent it becoming legal when opposition to it becomes a monitory view - and some research shows it may be already.

Personally, I think this has no place in our constitution. Our constitution is supposed to lay out the framework for government, not be the ultimate arbiter on social and frankly religious issues that evolve over time.

The 'gays today, dogs tomorrow' argument is the biggest load of horse manure one could imagine. Reductio ad absurdum refined to a high art.

This issue is, to me, about fundamental rights we have as citizens. We have gays serving with honor in our military, being productive members of society in all walks of life, paying taxes, raising kids... Why should they, based on whom they love and that alone, be denied the very real legal protections any other straight couple enjoys. What is the difference? For a libertarian mindset, I'd think writing something into the state constitution that allows the government to restrict individual rights based on something as unremarkable as who they want to marry would be anathema. Talk about the government interfering with one's private life...

If it's a religious issue, it should be a non-starter. The constitution provides freedom of religion, but it also provides freedom FROM religion.

If your religious beliefs lead you to think gay marriage is unacceptable, join a church that doesn't perform them. But saying 'Christianity forbids it' is false. Christianity is not monolithic. Doctrine isn't universal. If the church I belong to supports gay marriage (which it does) why should your belief trump what happens in my church?

Are civil unions an alternative? If they give one the same rights as marriage, then what's the difference? Then it becomes a religious issue again, and that should be up to the church and the individual. Straight couples don't HAVE to get married in a church either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I take back what I said about the biggest load of horse manure. The biggest is that being against gay marriage somehow protects the 'sanctity of traditional marriage.' You want to protect traditional marriage, how about a constitutional amendment banning divorce? 'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'

This is a really personal issue for me. My sister in law, whom I love dearly, is a lesbian. She's been in a relationship with her partner for years. They have a house, raised 3 awesome kids, have careers, pay their taxes...they're just ordinary, garden variety citizens with a loving family and a dog that pees on the carpet and a front door that sticks when it's cold. They are like you and me. But because they can't get married, they are denied the legal benefits and protections her sister and I have. If my SIL's partner fell off a scaffolding at work and ended up in the ICU, she wouldn't be allowed in to see her. She isn't 'family.' That's wrong. Just plain and simple. Wrong.

Final thought - if you think society's attitudes about issues like this never change, listen to one of the commercials supporting the amendment, or read an op ed, or even some of the comments here. But every time they say 'gay marriage' replace it with 'interracial marriage' and see if it makes sense then. Not that long ago, passing an amendment banning mixed race marriages would have been a slam dunk.




Well Said!!

I was going to sue her for defamation of character, but then realized I have no character." Charles Barkley


Top
#2929557 - 10/23/12 02:31 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
toughguy Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 10/18/04
Posts: 2989
Loc: Lakeville, MN
The majority wanted the jews out of Germany and for slavery to exist in the south too. Didn't make that right either.
Top
#2929558 - 10/23/12 02:32 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
I can't believe some of you are saying same sex marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs and legalizing sex crimes aginst children. What line of thinking drives you to such an outlandish conclusion?

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929560 - 10/23/12 02:33 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Even if the gay couple is married in a state which recognizes gay marriage, the partner will still not get survivor benefits from the feds. This applies to Social Security and Military.

Also the federal law says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

If we are going to argue, let's try to keep things factual.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929561 - 10/23/12 02:34 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: toughguy]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: toughguy
The majority wanted the jews out of Germany and for slavery to exist in the south too. Didn't make that right either.


So vote against it. Voice your opinion in a way that matters.

Again it is a situation where the majority will rule. Or does that only count on certain items?

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929563 - 10/23/12 02:35 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: toughguy]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: toughguy
The majority wanted the jews out of Germany and for slavery to exist in the south too. Didn't make that right either.


Did they vote on that?

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929567 - 10/23/12 02:36 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Getanet Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 1773
Loc: Mpls, MN
Surely you can understand the folly of majority vote on a minority issue.
Top
#2929569 - 10/23/12 02:37 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Getanet]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: Getanet
Surely you can understand the folly of majority vote on a minority issue.


So we only get to vote on things that meet certain criteria now? Really?

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929572 - 10/23/12 02:39 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Quote:

I am saying in my opinion, my opinion...Marriage is a unity between a man and woman. You don't have to agree with me and I don't have to agree with you. It is just my belief.


Quote:

But are you willing to write "YOUR" belief in stone into the state constitution?


And are you willing to force "YOUR" belief on others? You seem to want me to respect your belief and not infringe upon it. I just hope you have the decency to do the same and not infringe upon others.


Edited by nofishfisherman (10/23/12 02:40 PM)

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929573 - 10/23/12 02:40 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: chasineyes]
Getanet Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/30/08
Posts: 1773
Loc: Mpls, MN
Originally Posted By: chasineyes
All I can say is if you are FOR gay marriage you better be for polygamy. After all it's all about peoples love.
I'm voting yes.


With that line of thinking if you're for heterosexual marriage you better be for for polygamy too.



Edited by Getanet (10/23/12 02:40 PM)
Top
#2929578 - 10/23/12 02:44 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: TruthWalleyes]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: TruthWalleyes

This is what i'd like to understand. What benefits? And...Why are there benefits?


Here is a quick list of some basic benefits of marriage that are not currently available to same sex couples.

Tax Benefits
•Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
•Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits
•Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
•Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
•Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
•Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits
•Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
•Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
•Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits
•Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
•Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
•Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
•Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits
•Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
•Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
•Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
•Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits
•Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
•Applying for joint foster care rights.
•Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
•Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits
•Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
•Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits
•Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
•Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
•Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929581 - 10/23/12 02:45 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: RK]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: RK
Several thoughts...

If this amendment does NOT pass...gay marriage will still not be legal. There is a state statute that already prevents it. What the amendment would do is make that much more difficult to change in the future. Societal attitudes about this issue are changing rapidly, and frankly, this is more or less a preemptive attempt to prevent it becoming legal when opposition to it becomes a monitory view - and some research shows it may be already.

Personally, I think this has no place in our constitution. Our constitution is supposed to lay out the framework for government, not be the ultimate arbiter on social and frankly religious issues that evolve over time.

The 'gays today, dogs tomorrow' argument is the biggest load of horse manure one could imagine. Reductio ad absurdum refined to a high art.

This issue is, to me, about fundamental rights we have as citizens. We have gays serving with honor in our military, being productive members of society in all walks of life, paying taxes, raising kids... Why should they, based on whom they love and that alone, be denied the very real legal protections any other straight couple enjoys. What is the difference? For a libertarian mindset, I'd think writing something into the state constitution that allows the government to restrict individual rights based on something as unremarkable as who they want to marry would be anathema. Talk about the government interfering with one's private life...

If it's a religious issue, it should be a non-starter. The constitution provides freedom of religion, but it also provides freedom FROM religion.

If your religious beliefs lead you to think gay marriage is unacceptable, join a church that doesn't perform them. But saying 'Christianity forbids it' is false. Christianity is not monolithic. Doctrine isn't universal. If the church I belong to supports gay marriage (which it does) why should your belief trump what happens in my church?

Are civil unions an alternative? If they give one the same rights as marriage, then what's the difference? Then it becomes a religious issue again, and that should be up to the church and the individual. Straight couples don't HAVE to get married in a church either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I take back what I said about the biggest load of horse manure. The biggest is that being against gay marriage somehow protects the 'sanctity of traditional marriage.' You want to protect traditional marriage, how about a constitutional amendment banning divorce? 'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'

This is a really personal issue for me. My sister in law, whom I love dearly, is a lesbian. She's been in a relationship with her partner for years. They have a house, raised 3 awesome kids, have careers, pay their taxes...they're just ordinary, garden variety citizens with a loving family and a dog that pees on the carpet and a front door that sticks when it's cold. They are like you and me. But because they can't get married, they are denied the legal benefits and protections her sister and I have. If my SIL's partner fell off a scaffolding at work and ended up in the ICU, she wouldn't be allowed in to see her. She isn't 'family.' That's wrong. Just plain and simple. Wrong.

Final thought - if you think society's attitudes about issues like this never change, listen to one of the commercials supporting the amendment, or read an op ed, or even some of the comments here. But every time they say 'gay marriage' replace it with 'interracial marriage' and see if it makes sense then. Not that long ago, passing an amendment banning mixed race marriages would have been a slam dunk.




From now on when someone asks me about this issue I'm just going to hand them a printed copy of this post. Very well said RK.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929585 - 10/23/12 02:48 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman

And are you willing to force "YOUR" belief on others? You seem to want me to respect your belief and not infringe upon it. I just hope you have the decency to do the same and not infringe upon others.


Not exactly the truth, if you vote against it and I am for it you are stepping on my beliefs. If it doesn't pass I can and will accept that is what the people want.

As it stands today is gay marriage a listed civil right? I googled it and the top reply was no. Of course you can read down and find a few sights that say yes, again differing opinions.

I am not telling you what you should and or shouldn't do nor I am trying to guilt you into seeing things my way.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929591 - 10/23/12 02:58 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Getanet]
Leaky Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 2224
Loc: Wishing it was Ely
Flashback to 1961:

"The people of MN have passed a constitutional amendment declaring the defination of marriage to mean the union of one man and one woman of the same race."

Dang, our adopted daughter is bi-racial. I wonder what that makes her?

People will look back at this 50 years from now and wonder what the h@ll we were thinking here.

I was going to sue her for defamation of character, but then realized I have no character." Charles Barkley


Top
#2929594 - 10/23/12 03:04 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Well when they revisit this in 50 yrs they can look back and say we have come a long way in the last fifty years.

This may not pass and even if it does pass it means that society at this time is just not ready for this. If it does pass in 50 years it might be an entirely different story.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929600 - 10/23/12 03:11 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
Originally Posted By: upnorth

Not exactly the truth, if you vote against it and I am for it you are stepping on my beliefs. If it doesn't pass I can and will accept that is what the people want.

As it stands today is gay marriage a listed civil right? I googled it and the top reply was no. Of course you can read down and find a few sights that say yes, again differing opinions.

I am not telling you what you should and or shouldn't do nor I am trying to guilt you into seeing things my way.


You are always entitled to your beliefs and should always be free to believe and practice your beliefs as you see fit. Thats why I don't think we should pass a law that makes other peoples beliefs/lifestyle illegal.

All men (and women) are created equal, since when has that changed?

I'm not trying to guilt you into seeing things my way, these are just the facts. If they are guilt inducing then maybe that tells you something.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929603 - 10/23/12 03:14 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
If your adopted daughter is half minority and half white it makes her minority. I think that is codified in federal law. Elizabeth Warren says she is native american because one of her relatives long ago was said to be native american. Obama is african american even though he is mixed race.

Remember the amendment doesn't change any laws, and especially let's not get federal and state laws confused.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929607 - 10/23/12 03:16 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: RK]
varmithtr Offline
HSOShow.com Family

Registered: 02/05/08
Posts: 107
Loc: Otter Tail County
Originally Posted By: RK
Several thoughts...

If this amendment does NOT pass...gay marriage will still not be legal. There is a state statute that already prevents it. What the amendment would do is make that much more difficult to change in the future. Societal attitudes about this issue are changing rapidly, and frankly, this is more or less a preemptive attempt to prevent it becoming legal when opposition to it becomes a monitory view - and some research shows it may be already.

Personally, I think this has no place in our constitution. Our constitution is supposed to lay out the framework for government, not be the ultimate arbiter on social and frankly religious issues that evolve over time.

The 'gays today, dogs tomorrow' argument is the biggest load of horse manure one could imagine. Reductio ad absurdum refined to a high art.

This issue is, to me, about fundamental rights we have as citizens. We have gays serving with honor in our military, being productive members of society in all walks of life, paying taxes, raising kids... Why should they, based on whom they love and that alone, be denied the very real legal protections any other straight couple enjoys. What is the difference? For a libertarian mindset, I'd think writing something into the state constitution that allows the government to restrict individual rights based on something as unremarkable as who they want to marry would be anathema. Talk about the government interfering with one's private life...

If it's a religious issue, it should be a non-starter. The constitution provides freedom of religion, but it also provides freedom FROM religion.

If your religious beliefs lead you to think gay marriage is unacceptable, join a church that doesn't perform them. But saying 'Christianity forbids it' is false. Christianity is not monolithic. Doctrine isn't universal. If the church I belong to supports gay marriage (which it does) why should your belief trump what happens in my church?

Are civil unions an alternative? If they give one the same rights as marriage, then what's the difference? Then it becomes a religious issue again, and that should be up to the church and the individual. Straight couples don't HAVE to get married in a church either. It's a distinction without a difference.

I take back what I said about the biggest load of horse manure. The biggest is that being against gay marriage somehow protects the 'sanctity of traditional marriage.' You want to protect traditional marriage, how about a constitutional amendment banning divorce? 'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'

This is a really personal issue for me. My sister in law, whom I love dearly, is a lesbian. She's been in a relationship with her partner for years. They have a house, raised 3 awesome kids, have careers, pay their taxes...they're just ordinary, garden variety citizens with a loving family and a dog that pees on the carpet and a front door that sticks when it's cold. They are like you and me. But because they can't get married, they are denied the legal benefits and protections her sister and I have. If my SIL's partner fell off a scaffolding at work and ended up in the ICU, she wouldn't be allowed in to see her. She isn't 'family.' That's wrong. Just plain and simple. Wrong.

Final thought - if you think society's attitudes about issues like this never change, listen to one of the commercials supporting the amendment, or read an op ed, or even some of the comments here. But every time they say 'gay marriage' replace it with 'interracial marriage' and see if it makes sense then. Not that long ago, passing an amendment banning mixed race marriages would have been a slam dunk.




I agree with several others above, possibly the best post I have read on this forum. I typically vote very conservative, but not on this one. I have had several clients who are in sam sex relationships. They have the same issues, wants, needs and desires as my family.

To vote to put an article in our state constitution that "they", as a group of people, will never have the rights that marriage grants, as listed above, is nothing short of discrimination. The argument that "marriage" should be one man and one woman, but you don't care what others do, contridicts itself completely. It restricts things that are at the core of what family is about, in good times, and especially in times of crisis.

It scares me very much that people who think that this could lead to some type of protection for pedofiles or animals actually have a vote that counts. Worried about pedofiles? Check the religions organizations that are putting the biggest push to pass this ammendment, most of them seem to be a part of such organizations.
Top
#2929613 - 10/23/12 03:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
Stick in Mud Online   cheerful
HotSpotOutdoors Specialist

Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 4053
Loc: Saint Cloud area
Pretty interesting discussion so far. Guess I'm a bit surprised where most people are falling on it, actually, though the way the debate has gone, there may be a bit of a selection bias at play.

Either way, some unimportant observations:

1) Apparently the majority of Americans support legalization of same-sex marriage (according to some recent polls, anyways), yet it's failed in every single vote so far. This year might very well change that trend, of course, but I'm not holding my breath (of course, it doesn't matter as much for me because I've already got my civil rights in this regard).

2) Young people are strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, so much so that I've wondered if current constitutional amendments to make something already illegal REALLY illegal are just the result of older folks/lawmakers not liking where social trends are headed and preemptively making it more difficult for future generations to make laws in accordance with their own values.

3) The definition of a judicial activist is a judge who disagrees with one's opinion on an issue. Reasonable judges agree with one's position. Completely irrelevant is the actual legal issue at stake, or the quality of the arguments on each side. Thus, if a judge were to invalidate the amendment because it violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, he/she would be an activist, even though lots of judges take reasonable stances on both sides of the issue. Also irrelevant is my knowledge of the complexity of the legal issues involved.

4) I suspect this issue will go federal one of these years, and then we'll really see the sparks fly.

5) Christians generally have to put up with lots and lots of things that we find "immoral." There are lots of things that violate religious moral codes--think of adultery, for example, or divorce, or "lust" or "gluttony" or Dancing with the Stars--yet we don't make any noise whatsoever about making any of these other things illegal. Why we choose homosexuality as our bete noire is something we might want to reflect on for a while.

Ah, well, I am a great and sublime fool. But then I am God's fool, and all His work must be contemplated with respect.
Top
#2929615 - 10/23/12 03:38 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Slabasaurus Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 3264
Loc: Blaine, MN
Originally Posted By: upnorth
Well when they revisit this in 50 yrs they can look back and say we have come a long way in the last fifty years.

This may not pass and even if it does pass it means that society at this time is just not ready for this. If it does pass in 50 years it might be an entirely different story.


This isn't accurate.

If this does pass it's not the same as saying "society is not ready for gay marriage"

Society already has a statute saying we're not ready for gay marriage to be legal.

This amendment makes it very, very, very difficult to change the way we view legally married couples if/when the statute banning gay marriage is lifted.

The constitution isn't the right place for this.

As redundant as this post is... it's less redundant than the amendment... and far less intrusive.

It's not how you swim, it's how you hold your breath;
It's not about playin fair in this life, it's more about cheatin death...

TU Member
Federation of Fly Fishers Member
Top
#2929621 - 10/23/12 03:54 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Slabasaurus]
Leaky Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 02/25/03
Posts: 2224
Loc: Wishing it was Ely
Quote:
If your adopted daughter is half minority and half white it makes her minority. I think that is codified in federal law. Elizabeth Warren says she is native american because one of her relatives long ago was said to be native american. Obama is african american even though he is mixed race.


Del - So she will be a female minority raised in a white middle class family. Who the heck do I vote for now?

grin

I was going to sue her for defamation of character, but then realized I have no character." Charles Barkley


Top
#2929630 - 10/23/12 04:09 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
PurpleFloyd Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 07/04/10
Posts: 9363
Loc: In a fish bowl.
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
I can't believe some of you are saying same sex marriage will lead to people marrying their dogs and legalizing sex crimes aginst children. What line of thinking drives you to such an outlandish conclusion?


The same line of thinking that gets people to believe that a Christian is a Muslim, That a birth certificate is not a birth certificate, The the Christian thing to do is throw the poor out in the street and defend for themselves(just like Jesus did).

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God
Top
#2929640 - 10/23/12 04:26 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: PurpleFloyd]
leech~~ Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 12/11/08
Posts: 8242
Loc: Northern state of mind
Originally Posted By: PurpleFloyd
The the Christian thing to do is throw the poor out in the street and defend for themselves(just like Jesus did).

Didn't read the whole book, but don't remember that part? Are you sure you didn't have that backwards?

____________________________________________________________
Cooking over an open fire with a stick is all fun and games!
Until someone loses a Weiner!
Top
#2929641 - 10/23/12 04:27 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: PurpleFloyd]
Duffman Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 10/17/01
Posts: 5564
Loc: Savage
This is the only thing that is actually getting me to the polls this time around, I'm tired of watching freedoms disappear in "The Land of the Free" over the last ten years.

Just an observation, you can almost tell the age of Silly Town residents by how they have responded to this issue.
Almost.

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." - Benjamin Franklin



HotSpot Outdoors Sponsors




Top
#2929657 - 10/23/12 04:42 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Duffman]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
I am not against gays, I am not against them being happy, I am not against them spending their lives together in some sort of a union along with a ceremony. I just believe marriage is a man and a woman. It is just that simple.

It may be a better pursuit to create a definition of same sex unity and name it something else. Heck even get the appropriate benefits etc to be granted to this unity. We have different definitions for many things in life. Viva la difference!


Edited by upnorth (10/23/12 05:50 PM)
Edit Reason: re read my post and I miss a word that totally made the sentence something I had meant it to say.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929664 - 10/23/12 04:56 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: PurpleFloyd]
CigarGuy Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 08/07/10
Posts: 628
Loc: Burnsville/Cook
I just voted-will be out of town on election day. I voted "YES". I was at my nieces wedding this past summer and my first cousin, who is a homosexual, was slow dancing with his partner of several years. Made me want to puke! I think the world of my cousin, but, I totally disagree with his life style. Before you tear into me for my beliefs, I did't take any shots at any of you for where you stand on the issue. Yep-I'm old!


Edited by CigarGuy (10/23/12 04:58 PM)

Past member since 2002. Back and ready to participate!
Top
#2929669 - 10/23/12 05:01 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
goblueM Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 03/14/08
Posts: 4308
Loc: St. Paul/Blacksburg VA
Originally Posted By: upnorth
I am not against gays, I am not against them being happy


Originally Posted By: upnorth
I am against them spending their lives together in some sort of a union along with a ceremony.


I wasn't going to chime in on this heated topic, but that just about says it all for me

"The sweetest hunts are stolen. To steal a hunt, either go far into the wilderness where no one has been, or else find some undiscovered place under everybody's nose" - Aldo Leopold
Top
#2929670 - 10/23/12 05:03 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Big Dave2 Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 7871
Loc: Belle Plaine, MN, USA
Originally Posted By: upnorth
I am not against gays, I am not against them being happy, I am against them spending their lives together in some sort of a union along with a ceremony.


That's like me saying, "I'm not against fishermen, I'm not against them being happy, I am against them hooking fish in the mouth while sitting in a boat or on shore."

I don't believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don't believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can't get along
Top
#2929671 - 10/23/12 05:06 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Leaky]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: Leaky


Del - So she will be a female minority raised in a white middle class family. Who the heck do I vote for now?

grin


Whoever you want to. I could make a suggestion, but will refrain.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929673 - 10/23/12 05:09 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: leech~~]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Actually Jesus told others to help the poor, as was the Jewish tradition. I don't believe it is recorded what he did personally in the way of helping the poor.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929675 - 10/23/12 05:11 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Duffman]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: Duffman
This is the only thing that is actually getting me to the polls this time around, I'm tired of watching freedoms disappear in "The Land of the Free" over the last ten years.

Just an observation, you can almost tell the age of Silly Town residents by how they have responded to this issue.
Almost.


Freedoms disappear? Gay marriage is a freedom that is disappearing? Actually in most places Homosexual sex was a crime until relatively recently. Nothing is disappearing. Try to stick to the truth.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929676 - 10/23/12 05:12 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
FM_Mike Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/21/04
Posts: 2217
Loc: Island on a Small Lake
Originally Posted By: Big Dave2

That's like me saying, "I'm not against fishermen, I'm not against them being happy, I am against them hooking fish in the mouth while sitting in a boat or on shore."


No, not so much. crazy

Mike

--- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.---




Top
#2929677 - 10/23/12 05:13 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Big Dave2 Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/03/02
Posts: 7871
Loc: Belle Plaine, MN, USA
Originally Posted By: upnorth

So we only get to vote on things that meet certain criteria now? Really?


Actually Yes. This is a republic not a democracy.

I don't believe in superstars
Organic food and foreign cars
I don't believe the price of gold
The certainty of growing old
That right is right and left is wrong
That north and south can't get along
Top
#2929681 - 10/23/12 05:17 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Getanet]
BobT Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 7850
Loc: Osakis, MN
Originally Posted By: Getanet
I just don't see what those voting Yes think it will accomplish. It won't stop folks from being gay. It won't stop them from being in long term committed relationships. It won't stop them from being able to adopt or have children.

About the only outcome I can see is a long and costly court battle where it would be ruled unconstitutional, similar to NY and other states.

I think you're correct here. What this whole issue really comes down to is tax benefits. The only thing anyone gains by having the government adopt a particular marriage platform is the tax advantages and protection of personal property under the law. Otherwise it is a co-habitation issue. For those of us in the Christian category remember, a government declaring two people married does not necessarily a marriage make as it is our belief that a marriage is from God and not man.

Bob
Top
#2929685 - 10/23/12 05:26 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
FM_Mike Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/21/04
Posts: 2217
Loc: Island on a Small Lake
Originally Posted By: Big Dave2


So we only get to vote on things that meet certain criteria now? Really?


Actually Yes. This is a republic not a democracy.


No Dave, We can vote on anything we want as long as the public wants to bring it up for a vote and has the necessary signatures to do so.


Unless it's different where you live??

Mike

--- What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.---




Top
#2929687 - 10/23/12 05:30 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
DTro Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 08/19/00
Posts: 18699
Loc: South of the River
I really agree with everything RK said (good post by the way).

However...

You cannot address this without lumping in polygamy and other types of non traditional relationships.

I think we have turned the corner on acceptance of homosexuality and the number of people offended by it is getting smaller and smaller and personally I think that is a good thing.

Should marriage be one man one woman? I kind of lean towards yes but instead I sure would like to see some sort of common law marriage in which an obvious "spouse" could receive benefits and or any other type of things limited to marriages.

On a side note, should we also define marriage as one presided over by a priest, minister, rabbi, etc of only certain religions?

Whats better? The Lutheran girls Lisa and Sally getting married, or the Satanists Bob and Linda getting married?
Top
#2929690 - 10/23/12 05:33 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
BobT Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 03/20/06
Posts: 7850
Loc: Osakis, MN
Originally Posted By: delcecchi
Even if the gay couple is married in a state which recognizes gay marriage, the partner will still not get survivor benefits from the feds. This applies to Social Security and Military.

Also the federal law says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

If we are going to argue, let's try to keep things factual.


It has been my understanding that a law passed at the federal level supersedes state laws. In other words if a federal law prohibits something, a state cannot trump it and allow it. If that were not true, I suspect slavery would still exist in the south. That would seem to suggest that if we pass an amendment at the federal level that recognizes gay marriage then the laws that apply to married couples will apply to all married couples regardless of gender.

There are benefits that go along with being married. Tax benefits is a huge one. The federal and state tax rates for married filing joint are considerably better than for single persons. There are other legal benefits as well especially when one becomes deceased. Other legal benefits include home ownership. I'll share an example. In 1982 my ex-wife and I bought a home. In 1987 when we divorced I retained ownership of the home as she transferred her ownership to me per our agreement. Four years later I rented the house and moved to my current location. Two years after that I remarried. Now I owned the home for eleven years and had paid off about half the mortgage by this time. In 2000, seven years after I remarried, I sold the home. My second wife had legal right to the home even though her name was never on the deed and I required her approval in order to sell the house I owned for eleven years prior to our marriage.

Bob
Top
#2929695 - 10/23/12 05:40 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BobT]
swamptiger Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/04/02
Posts: 8682
Loc: Up north, MN USA


Quote:
a government declaring two people married does not necessarily a marriage make as it is our belief that a marriage is from God and not man.



+1.

If they would change the wording to "between two persons", instead of "between a man and a woman", that should also take care of the dogs, cats, horses, polygamy, and tax issues at the same time... grin

Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once.
Top
#2929708 - 10/23/12 05:53 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Originally Posted By: Big Dave2
I am not against gays, I am not against them being happy, I am not against them spending their lives together in some sort of a union along with a ceremony.


That's like me saying, "I'm not against fishermen, I'm not against them being happy, I am against them hooking fish in the mouth while sitting in a boat or on shore."


I hadn't proof read that post and didn't mean it to say what it said. The "not" was missing. It totally was off base of what I wanted to say.

I am sorry if the way it was worded was offensive it didn't say what I was trying to say.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929710 - 10/23/12 05:54 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Big Dave2]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Make up your own rules as you go Dave nothing out of the norm there!

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929711 - 10/23/12 05:56 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: upnorth]
Slabasaurus Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 07/20/10
Posts: 3264
Loc: Blaine, MN
Originally Posted By: upnorth


I hadn't proof read that post and didn't mean it to say what it said. The "not" was missing. It totally was off base of what I wanted to say.

I am sorry if the way it was worded was offensive it didn't say what I was trying to say.


laugh

That makes a lot more sense... I read the first post and thought... "Huh. That came out a bit aggressive...."

It's not how you swim, it's how you hold your breath;
It's not about playin fair in this life, it's more about cheatin death...

TU Member
Federation of Fly Fishers Member
Top
#2929714 - 10/23/12 05:57 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: FM_Mike]
James_R Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 04/16/12
Posts: 901
Loc: Northern, MN
Why not propose a constitutional amendment that bans the state from sanctioning any type of marriage since it is really just a religious union. Why does the state need to bless the unions between people who freely decide to co-habitate with one another? I can legally give anyone power of attorney, designate who receives what assets upon my death all without a state sanctioned marriage certificate. This is clearly in issue where the state is acting essentially as the broker or facilitator for organized religion.
Top
#2929716 - 10/23/12 05:58 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Slabasaurus]
upnorth Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 03/21/02
Posts: 15581
Loc: Chisholm, MN USA
Thanks Slab that just ain't my style at all.

If the world were a logical place, men would be the ones who ride horses sidesaddle.




Support our Sponsors
Top
#2929721 - 10/23/12 06:04 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BobT]
swamptiger Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/04/02
Posts: 8682
Loc: Up north, MN USA


Quote:
It has been my understanding that a law passed at the federal level supersedes state laws. In other words if a federal law prohibits something, a state cannot trump it and allow it. If that were not true, I suspect slavery would still exist in the south.


Only in certain specific areas. As to the slavery issue, that was one of the areas disputed by the south, hence part of the basis for the civil war.




Here's what Dick Motta of Montana has to say about it:

Quote:
Federal Law Does NOT Trump State Law


Dear Mr Motta,
My name is Brian Thompson. I am a resident of Deer Lodge, but not inside the district 43 lines.After reading your campaign pamphlet that you have been handing out all over senate district 43, I have found a factual mistake in it's body.On the back side of the pamphlet under the section labeled "Judicial" you have stated that "Federal law does NOT trump state law".I am writing this to inform you that this is grotesquely incorrect.

The following is from article VI of the U.S. constitution.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

As you can see, the constitution states that the supreme law of the land is the U.S. constitution, federal laws, treaties, and finally state laws; in that order.I just thought you should be aware of this in case one of your possible constituents questions you about this statement.

Response:

Brian,
Thank you for your comments on "Federal law does NOT trump state law". Unfortunately, the Constitution is being redefined by the courts and administrative agencies to nationalize the interpretation of law. The redefinition totally obscures the line of jurisdiction which reserves to the states those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government. Initially, the interstate commerce clause was used as the basis for the courts' holding the "federal law trumps state law". That intrusion has been extended to practically every aspect of law and, consequently, the perception that the federal government is supreme. The revenue sharing act of 1986 assigned a dollar figure to compliance with federal law. Under the assumption that the federal government was a more effective tax collector, the states agreed to allow expansion of federal power with the expectations that the states would receive federal funding for programs they wished to initiate. What they failed to give significant weight to were the compliance rules, regulations and guidelines which were mandatory in order to receive revenue sharing funds. In effect, states rights have been destroyed by the greed of both levels of government. The supremacy of the federal government has been extended into all levels of state and local government through the issuance of grants and earmarks. There is hardly any level of government or nongovernment organizations seeking to fund a given program, that doesn't immediately ask the question, "Where can we get a grant?". The environment, drugs, ID's, guns and nearly every aspect of our lives is now presumed to be within federal jurisdiction. The secularization of morality, which was once the purview of churches, has been surrendered to a non-profit tax classification. The government now dictates which vices are crimes and the penalties for not complying with their version of morality.

The courts have no authority to revise or redefine the Constitution. The method of changing the Constitution is to amend it. By issuing their opinions and asserting that their political or social view is infallible and henceforth, the rule of the land, they violate their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Montana's Constitution was amended by initiative to specify term limits for elected officials. In a case concerning an Arkansas amendment the Supreme Court held that additional qualifications for federal elected officials could not be expanded by the states. The federal Constitution specifies citizenship, residence and age as qualification for federal office and defines the limit of federal jurisdiction. States should only have to comply with those provisions and the state legislatures are authorized to add additional qualifications. If the states do not have the authority to add additional qualifications, then laws pertaining to parties, campaign contributions, filing fees and other election laws should also be declared unconstitutional consistent with the federal Supreme Court's interpretation.The Montana Secretary of State presumed that the decision applied to federally elected officials and has not enforced the Montana constitutional provision concerning term limits. He has chosen to selectively exclude federal representatives from the term limits provision without seeking repeal or amendment of the Montana Constitution. The SOS takes an oath to uphold the federal and state constitutions. Rather than complying with the will of the people of Montana, the SOS is selectively enforcing the opinion of five judges in Washington. This selective enforcement is in contravention of Montanan's public trust, a violation of his public duty and a breech of his oath of office. Extending their argument for federal control, you have to ask why we need state constitutions, statutes, legislators, administrators and/or courts.

If states continue to allow the imposition of federal control and the perception that "federal law trumps state law", we have destroyed the principles of the Federal Constitution which defines the limits of federal jurisdiction and specifically reserves to the states' those rights not delegated to the federal government. We are redefining and enforcing the Constitution to a communitarian rule of law which subjects individual rights to the majority rule of the community. The federal government and courts are persistently accumulating power by holding that the federal and states' Constitutions are unconstitutional. I believe that we have to defend the Constitution, limited government, states' and individual rights. Therefore, "Federal Law does NOT Trump State Law".
Thanks again.

Dick Motta

Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once.
Top
#2929785 - 10/23/12 07:40 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: BobT]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
She was given some rights to the house in the divorce settlement.

Yes, Federal law trumps state law, regardless of what an accountant who once ran for office in Montana says. That was my point. Military and Social Security survivor benefits are federal matters. The feds do not recognize gay marriage. See Defense of Marriage Act. So bringing that up is just a red herring.

Inheritance and medical stuff can be taken care of with a visit to a lawyer. That leaves child custody as about the only thing.

And Minnesota is not a community property state so what is yours is yours until a judge says otherwise, which they often do.

This whole flap seems to be sort of trivial and I find it bewildering. There must be some sort of hidden agenda by both sides.

In Minnesota, there is very little practical reason that I can think of for a same sex couple to need to get married, with children maybe being an exception. A durable POA and a Health Care Directive and a will covers most of it. If the feds change their mind, then it's a whole new ball game.

So I don't feel strongly one way or another.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929831 - 10/23/12 08:24 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
It seems like there are a fair number of people here who are either undecided or at least ambivalent toward the issue. I think it is important to keep in mind that voting NO doesn't change any current laws or remove the ban on same sex marriage. All a NO vote does is allow the conversation to continue. If the amendment is passed it becomes VERY difficult for equal rights to be obtain in the future. If the amendment is voted down that at least leaves the discussion open for down the road. If we are able to leave the door open perhaps the wording can be changed to make a distinction between a church marriage and a state approved civil union. Perhaps that preserves the definition of marriage but still gives same sex couples the recognition needed for benefits.

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929848 - 10/23/12 08:50 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
mainbutter Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 3137
Loc: Minneapolis, MN
The bible is more clear on divorce than it is on same-sex marriage.

If you're in favor of allowing divorce, I don't see how you could use the bible as a reason to prevent the US federal government or any state government from recognizing same-sex marriage.
Top
#2929849 - 10/23/12 08:51 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
mainbutter Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 3137
Loc: Minneapolis, MN
Originally Posted By: delcecchi
See Defense of Marriage Act.


Recently struck down as unconstitutional.

Of course, the appeals are on the way.
Top
#2929856 - 10/23/12 09:06 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
swamptiger Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 02/04/02
Posts: 8682
Loc: Up north, MN USA


Quote:
This whole flap seems to be sort of trivial and I find it bewildering. There must be some sort of hidden agenda by both sides.



Does this help clarify the situation?... whistle


Quote:
Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage.”


Some mistakes are too much fun to only make once.
Top
#2929861 - 10/23/12 09:29 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
Red Cabin Offline
Sr IceLeaders.com Family

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 261
Loc: Mn
The Founders? I think marriage existed way before them. Im not going to speculate what they thought, while were at it lets change the deffinition of black to white, red to blue, or mountain to ocean?? Im voting YES

Malwart "Your source for cheap plastic carp"
Top
#2929869 - 10/23/12 09:37 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: mainbutter]
delcecchi Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 11433
Loc: Rochester, MN/Wakemup Village
Originally Posted By: mainbutter

Recently struck down as unconstitutional.

Of course, the appeals are on the way.


Yep. Not unconstitutional till the Supremes sing. No not Diana Ross, the other Supremes.

Del

And it's all over now, Baby Blue.
Donate blood and save lives.




Top
#2929877 - 10/23/12 09:54 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Duffman]
bobbymalone Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 09/25/07
Posts: 6790
Loc: Burnsville, MN
came in late to this one and see a lot of dumb floating around as expected.

i bet people debated segregated schools and drinking fountains on the internet in the 50s and it sounds just like it does here today.

sad, really.

Originally Posted By: Duffman
This is the only thing that is actually getting me to the polls this time around


Yep.

Originally Posted By: RK
'Traditional marriage' is a smoke screen for 'gays scare me.'


Wanna know why they're scared?

I'm totally comfortable where I'm at.
Top
#2929882 - 10/23/12 10:16 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: James_R]
Jameson Offline
Sr HSO Family

Registered: 01/29/07
Posts: 2629
Loc: Earth
Originally Posted By: James_R
Why not propose a constitutional amendment that bans the state from sanctioning any type of marriage since it is really just a religious union. Why does the state need to bless the unions between people who freely decide to co-habitate with one another? I can legally give anyone power of attorney, designate who receives what assets upon my death all without a state sanctioned marriage certificate. This is clearly in issue where the state is acting essentially as the broker or facilitator for organized religion.


This.

Them that don't know him won't like him, and them that do know him sometimes won't know how to take him - W.N.
Top
#2929890 - 10/23/12 10:43 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Jameson]
bobbymalone Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 09/25/07
Posts: 6790
Loc: Burnsville, MN
Originally Posted By: Jameson
This is clearly in issue where the state is acting essentially as the broker or facilitator for organized religion.



that would make more sense if I couldn't legally officiate marriages in this state (I can by the way, thanks to an online "church" of believe whatever you want) and do so with no spiritual stuff or as much Jedi talk about the Force as I want. Or I can just basically just sign my name on the document.

The state is acting as a facilitator of (maybe closer to rewarding) love and devotion by providing legal benefits to people. Everything else is whatever you want to make of it.

And sure, it's based entirely on tradition which is based entirely on religion.

I'm not married for any sort of religious reason. Nor am I married because I believe in some connection to my wife that magically becomes validated by the state. I don't need it. My connection with my wife transcends all arbitrary made up bull carp of this physical universe and I don't need anything to validate it. I'm married for the legal rights in provides. Sure I can fill out all sorts of paperwork for power of attorney and whatever else... or I could have cut the red tape and got married. So that's what happened.

I see the mortgage deduction going away long before I see govt recognized marriage going away.
Top
#2929891 - 10/23/12 10:46 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
mabr Offline

Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 05/13/02
Posts: 1268
Loc: DouglasCounty
To me this is what has and is causing the decline in our once great country. Which was founded on a belief in GOD.

Throw whatever you want at me i honestly don't care or fret over it at night, but our country was founded on our belief in GOD. Say what you want but GOD has blessed the us because of it IMO

Yes, there is no difference in sin, I totally agree. BUT when we as a society say that it is ok for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman we have crossed a line than cannot be taken back.I may be wrong but in my mind it is pretty black and white. If i condone such actions im as guilty as the sinner performing those actions.

If i let one of my 3 sons whore around in my house without telling them ( while knowing they are doing it)they cannot do it i am IMO just as guilty as them doing the act.

But based on latest polls im now a minority in the good ole USA labeling myself as a christian, so im not surprised by the posts and responses that are on here.

RK, I'm actually shocked you came down here to open your self up to our or I should say MY judgmental universe and subjected yourself to scrutiny from me or others. PS I'm sure I have made a TON of grammar errors but im ok with that so please don't go there ok?

I have but a few words to say in regards to all this. IMO, ITS A SAD DAY WE HAVE COME TOO. What was once the worlds greatest nation is falling into point of no return. we have turned our backs on the one power who made us the greatest nation known to man. We now condone acts that the bible clearly says we should not do all because we feel we cannot be politically correct by doing so. Even so called Christians say it is ok based on society saying its ok to go with the flow.

Im done. MABR, a proud (but not perfect) follower of Christ
Top
#2929896 - 10/23/12 10:57 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: mabr]
bobbymalone Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 09/25/07
Posts: 6790
Loc: Burnsville, MN
Originally Posted By: mabr
MABR, a proud (but not perfect) follower of Christ


obviously not perfect since I'm guessing you skip most the other stuff in Leviticus.
Top
#2929901 - 10/23/12 11:15 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: bobbymalone]
nofishfisherman Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 01/31/05
Posts: 5957
Loc: Twin Cities
MABR, would you also like to know where I work so you can boycott my company since I completely agree with RK?

"I want to share something with you: The three little sentences that will get you through life. Number 1: Cover for me. Number 2: Oh, good idea, Boss! Number 3: It was like that when I got here."
Top
#2929908 - 10/23/12 11:47 PM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: mabr]
ted4887 Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 12/15/08
Posts: 1844
Loc: On a river
Originally Posted By: mabr
Throw whatever you want at me i honestly don't care or fret over it at night, but our country was founded on our belief in GOD



Wrong.


Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Samuel, 15:23 "For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft."





Surely you can agree that revolting against the British was anything but Christian, right? I always thought our country was founded on a belief of freedom.
Top
#2929944 - 10/24/12 05:39 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: ted4887]
DTro Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 08/19/00
Posts: 18699
Loc: South of the River
Everyone is surely entitled to their own opinion (and on a side note I believe THAT is what the good ol USofA was founded on and not religion), but I’m just curious what folks like MABR would suggest we do with those that are born homosexual? Shunthem? Pretend they don’t exist? Counsel them for their “sickness”? Maybe make them feel so bad about themselves so they just take their own lives?

I guess in the interim we can at least stop doing business with people who love and support their family members right?

Wow
Top
#2929945 - 10/24/12 05:47 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: mabr]
Duffman Offline
HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 10/17/01
Posts: 5564
Loc: Savage
Originally Posted By: mabr

But based on latest polls im now a minority in the good ole USA labeling myself as a christian, so im not surprised by the posts and responses that are on here.


Wrong again...


"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do." - Benjamin Franklin



HotSpot Outdoors Sponsors




Top
#2929949 - 10/24/12 05:57 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Duffman]
Eric Wettschreck Offline

HotSpotOutdoors Pro Staff

Registered: 01/23/03
Posts: 10732
Loc: Avoca, MN. USA
I just did a real quick Google search for ammendments to the Minnesota constitution. I stopped counting them after 75. Most of which should have been handled at the level of the legislature. Instead, like this proposed ammendment, the legislature is taking the easy way out so, come next election time they can say, " Don't hate me, I didn't vote for/against it."

These issues and about 27 gabillion others do not need to be ammended in the constitution. That's not what the constituion is about. This is all about members of our House and Senate trying to keep their jobs instead of actually doing their jobs. It's pretty darn pathetic.

For comparison purposes, the US Constituion has 27 ammendments and was ratified long before the Minnesota constitution was.

Dude, where's my bobber????



Support Our Sponsors - Just Click Here
Top
#2929975 - 10/24/12 06:40 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: mabr]
creepworm Offline
Sr HotSpotOutdoors.com Family

Registered: 10/29/08
Posts: 1181
Loc: Brookings SD
Originally Posted By: mabr
To me this is what has and is causing the decline in our once great country. Which was founded on a belief in GOD.

Throw whatever you want at me i honestly don't care or fret over it at night, but our country was founded on our belief in GOD. Say what you want but GOD has blessed the us because of it IMO

Yes, there is no difference in sin, I totally agree. BUT when we as a society say that it is ok for a man to lay with a man or a woman to lay with a woman we have crossed a line than cannot be taken back.I may be wrong but in my mind it is pretty black and white. If i condone such actions im as guilty as the sinner performing those actions.

If i let one of my 3 sons whore around in my house without telling them ( while knowing they are doing it)they cannot do it i am IMO just as guilty as them doing the act.

But based on latest polls im now a minority in the good ole USA labeling myself as a christian, so im not surprised by the posts and responses that are on here.

RK, I'm actually shocked you came down here to open your self up to our or I should say MY judgmental universe and subjected yourself to scrutiny from me or others. PS I'm sure I have made a TON of grammar errors but im ok with that so please don't go there ok?

I have but a few words to say in regards to all this. IMO, ITS A SAD DAY WE HAVE COME TOO. What was once the worlds greatest nation is falling into point of no return. we have turned our backs on the one power who made us the greatest nation known to man. We now condone acts that the bible clearly says we should not do all because we feel we cannot be politically correct by doing so. Even so called Christians say it is ok based on society saying its ok to go with the flow.

Im done. MABR, a proud (but not perfect) follower of Christ


It indeed is a sad day we have come too. People discriminating against others and doing it the name of God. Almost laughable the hypocrisy. I guess it has been that way forever, people thinking they are better than others because they are part of some organized religion.
Top
#2929979 - 10/24/12 06:44 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: delcecchi]
leech~~ Offline
HSO Legacy Member

Registered: 12/11/08
Posts: 8242
Loc: Northern state of mind
Originally Posted By: delcecchi
Actually Jesus told others to help the poor, as was the Jewish tradition. I don't believe it is recorded what he did personally in the way of helping the poor.
Since he is not a Politician, he may actually "Practise what he Preaches" wink

____________________________________________________________
Cooking over an open fire with a stick is all fun and games!
Until someone loses a Weiner!
Top
#2929981 - 10/24/12 06:51 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: nofishfisherman]
Kyhl Offline
Sr HSOList.com Family

Registered: 01/13/09
Posts: 1437
Loc: Savage
Originally Posted By: nofishfisherman
Here is a quick list of some basic benefits of marriage that are not currently available to same sex couples.

I just want to point out that the language here benefits.

There are a lot of people throwing around the word 'right' and they are confusing the issue by using terms incorrectly. Benefits are not the same as rights.

-Kyhl
Top
#2930012 - 10/24/12 07:23 AM
Re: Marriage Amendment [Re: Kyhl]
Shack Offline
HotSpotOutdoors ITechnology Info Administrator

Registered: 02/15/07
Posts: 12112
Loc: 37 minutes from Mille Lacs
Remember HSO's number one policy is to have more fun.


HSO also wants to provide a venue where anyone can freely express their views and opinions without fear of personal attracts or extremely negative responses. Although this has not happened as far as I am concerned but the thread is being locked before it does.

Please keep this in mind that everyone, no matter who, is entitled to share their thoughts as long as they are within forum policy.

Thank you!

smile
Top
Use the Share Buttons below, If You Like this topic.
FishingMinnesota
HSO Business
Discover how HSO delivers outdoor marketing.
Guerrilla Tactics Unveiled - Pound this link to see for yourself.


Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 >

Moderator:  Dave, Scott K 

We Thank the
Quality Business that
Help Us Have Fun