Same-sex couples set to sue Minnesota over marriage rights

The destroyers of our civilization will be stopped. Minnesota will pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a man and a woman and end this crusade of nihilists and postmodernists, once and for all.

Right Nachman, we get so tired of the massive rallies postmodernists keep having. The Postmodernist Liberation Front is a danger. Sorry, they’re now the Postmodernist Liberation Organization after the last deconstruction of themselves.

How dare people destroy civilization through the nefarious means of participating in it.

Seriously, when conservatives stop whining about the taxes that pay for civilization, then I might believe they’re serious about preserving it.

The homosexualists (I’ll use the Weimar era designation) have the apparent will to overturn our civilization by completely redefining the core unit of society. Your attempt at ridicule – through sarcasm – is noted.

Once again, a social issue that should be left to the citizens of Minnesota to decide is being presented to the Judiciary in hopes of finding a court that agrees with plaintiffs’ socio-political ideology. Once again, the citizens of Minnesota will have to check any errant court edicts by passing a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

BTW, what makes you think I’m a Republican?

Marriage is a good thing. And same-sex marriage can be accepted is really a turning point for the life of LGBT. Actually, divorce may also happen to straight people. “As to love, we should cherish it and love the one you love..” it is what we all bisexual get after the discussion at the bisexual club of Bimingle.com . Anyway, making the law of marriage and divorce more complete is good thing for us LBGT. Thanks for giving us more right and making things easier for us.

Actually, I never said you were a Republican. You may correctly gather from my message that I think you’re a conservative.

Come on, you’re going to use a Weimar reference? Just for the record, I never called you a Nazi or compared you to Nazis. I never made any reference vaguely like that. If you want to use words because they were how people spoke as the Nazis gained power, and bring on Nazi comparisons, that’s your business. I hate Nazi references when not referring to literal Nazis. They were just so unique, I’m amazed you want to go there.

You never did respond to my point, just repeated yours. How does seeking to participate in marriage overturn it? Are you going to divorce if they win their suit?

This whole gay marriage issue reminds me of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you express any dissent from the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, you are labeled an “anti-Semite.” It’s all ad hominum all the time with these debates.

The notion that marriage, an ancient institution which has always been understood, if not expressly defined, to be between a man ( a husband) and a woman (a wife), is somehow discriminatory is patently ridiculous. Or if it somehow manages to “discriminate” against theoretical “marriages” between members of the same sex, it is a reasonable discrimination which has the basis in the ancient ways of the species homo sapiens. Legally, not all discrimination is unconstitutional or even wrong. One reason for discriminating, if you like to call it that, in favor of marriage as defined between a man and woman, is because of blood relationships between fathers, mothers and their children. There are good reasons under some circumstances for treating adoptive children like the “natural born” offspring but people fundamentally tend to want to know who their ‘”real parents”, grandparents, etc. are, i.e who is their biological relationship. We have paternity laws which creates whole structure around establishing the biological relationship between a child of an unwed mother and the “real father.” Implicit in this structure is the sense that children ideally ought to be identified, if not raised, by their biological parents and these parents ideally should be committed to one another through a contract sanctioned by the law. Marriage in the traditional sense, as flawed and weak as it is, has done pretty well in keeping things straight in that sense.

Minnesota law already has made it unlawful to discriminate in employment, in public accommodation and a number of other important areas against a person because of “sexual orientation.” Which I take to mean against someone who is even perceived to be homosexual. That’s appropriate. I’m not against legal recognition to same sex couples on some level. But please stop with the arguments about “discrimination” and “inequality.”

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” -U.S Constitution, 14th Amendment

In the case of Loving v. Verginia, the Supreme Court deemed race-based restrictions on marriage unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment (388 U.S 1; 87 S.Ct. 1817; 18 L.Ed. 2d 1010)

In the case of Romer v. Evans, the state of Colorado’s Amendment 2, titled “No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation” was considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by the U.S Supreme Court. (517 U.S. 620)

Nachman, how is your position not against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Women have redefined the core unit of society, and African-Americans redefined it again.

I’m not going to stop referring to discrimination and inequality. If marriage were strictl ya religious ceremony, then fine, make whatever rules you want, go join a religious organization you agree with and which will sanction your marriage. But it isn’t just religious. There is a strong civil aspect, including being able to sign medical consent forms of even being able to visit a partner in a hospital. There are laws about inheritance, medical benefits, etc. that apply different rules to married and unmarried couples. Homosexuals in permanent relationships always come under the unmarried provisions, which can mean no medical insurance. It can mean buying a house with a partner, and your partner’s half belongs to some stranger.

As it happens, the definition of marriage has changed a lot since ancient times. It’s time for another change, by which I mean we should make “marriage” strictly a religious ceremony, and come up with another name for the legal aspects. Call it civil unions, or domestic partnerships, doesn’t really matter, as long as the law is the same for everybody.

You are absolutely right on, Eric. As long as marriage provides civil benefits, it discriminates against same-sex couples. When the feds gave out tax-based stimulus checks last spring, my family and I received $900 more than our close friends, a lesbian couple with children. That’s wrong.

“Whatever happens, it will advance the cause of marriage equality in Minnesota…”

Actually, a loss will set the cause of marriage equality back in Minnesota. You’ve only got one shot at this strategy, or at least only one shot every few decades. If the current MN Supreme Court rules against marriage equality then future courts, even those that might have supported same-sex marriage rights, will be bound by that decision. So a bad decision will be much worse than no decision at all.

I hope you’re right and this works. ‘Cause it’s the only chance Minnesotans will get for a long time. Probably why the “establishment organizations” want to save this strategy until they’re relatively sure they can win.

This kind of bigotry will get quashed just like it is in California. If not now, then when all you haters have retired and passed on… either way, the same gender folks who want to be married in their own home, will do so… with or without your petty, self-centered, nihilistic need to control others.

You will die and the only thing celebrated about your life will be that it is over and can no longer tyranize your fellow human beings.

Are you still with us? That’s ok, I can wait.

Eric Ferguson wrote:
“Come on, you’re going to use a Weimar reference”?

Yes I am. From now on.

“Just for the record, I never called you a Nazi or compared you to Nazis. I never made any reference vaguely like that”.

Didn’t say you did. The Weimer Republic predates the Nazi era, not by much, though.

“If you want to use words because they were how people spoke as the Nazis gained power, and bring on Nazi comparisons, that’s your business. I hate Nazi references when not referring to literal Nazis. They were just so unique, I’m amazed you want to go there”.

It is an established, objective truth the Nazi Party were founded upon pagan beliefs and that homosexuals were at its highest ranks, especially in the Sturmabteilung – Ernst Roehm, Edmund Heines, et. al. The pagan and homosexualist movement in Germany didn’t quite work out for the best. Just ask the Jews. It resulted in the worst ethnic slaughter in the 20th Century outside of Communism – which slaughtered without regard. The Homosexualist movement is prima facie in direct opposition to Judaism and Christianity.

As it is today.

“You never did respond to my point, just repeated yours. How does seeking to participate in marriage overturn it”?

Marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman in matrimony. The proposed redefinition will destroy the definition of the family that has been understood for thousands – and thousands – of years. Overnight, with the stroke of a lawyer’s pen.

jonerik wrote:

“This whole gay marriage issue reminds me of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you express any dissent from the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, you are labeled an “anti-Semite.” It’s all ad hominum all the time with these debates”.

Criticism of Israel morphs into anti-Semitism when it is an obsessive and disproportionate condemnation of Israel. The same with the claim to “anti-Zionism”. Zionism is the movement of the Jews to return to Zion, their homeland, and Israel was established as a safe haven for the Jews. That is the accepted, non-deconstructionist definition.

Stout wrote:

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…” -U.S Constitution, 14th Amendment

The purpose of this Amendment was to ensure that black people were guaranteed the same rights as white people.

“In the case of Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court deemed race-based restrictions on marriage unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment (388 U.S 1; 87 S.Ct. 1817; 18 L.Ed. 2d 1010)”

The plaintiffs were an interracial couple of a man and a woman.

“In the case of Romer v. Evans, the state of Colorado’s Amendment 2, titled “No Protected Status Based on Homosexual, Lesbian or Bisexual Orientation” was considered a violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment by the U.S Supreme Court. (517 U.S. 620)”

That was a hilarious decision. Animus against homosexuals, it was said. Interesting concept – animus. All criminal law indicates animus against behaviors prohibited by statute. The U.S. Supreme Court abrogated the prerogative of the Legislative branch and the People of Colorado. Quite un-democratic.

“Nachman, how is your position not against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? Women have redefined the core unit of society, and African-Americans redefined it again”.

You make an assertion, with no examples. The core unit of society is the family, which begins with a man and a woman. The man and the woman procreate as part of the biological imperative. They raise their children in the family unit.

Eric Ferguson wrote:

“As it happens, the definition of marriage has changed a lot since ancient times. It’s time for another change, by which I mean we should make “marriage” strictly a religious ceremony, and come up with another name for the legal aspects. Call it civil unions, or domestic partnerships, doesn’t really matter, as long as the law is the same for everybody”.

Homosexuals have the option of exercising their rights pursuant to the Contract Clause in the Minnesota Constitution. The Contact Clause has always been available. I suspect that the HRC, Outfront Minnesota and their minions have not followed this remedy because of their unrestrained bigotry against Judaism, and Christianity, and the traditional family unit.

AkashicBadger wrote:

“This kind of bigotry will get quashed just like it is in California. If not now, then when all you haters have retired “and passed on… either way, the same gender folks who want to be married in their own home, will do so… with or without your petty, self-centered, nihilistic need to control others”.

That’s an interesting accusation. The Homosexualists who insist on asserting their beliefs by judicial edict have a problem when asked to debate this fundamental shift in our civilization and culture, and to prove their assertions in an open, public referendum.

“Nihilistic need to control others” – this from AkashicBadger, who would obviously wish to impose same sex “marriage” upon society by judicial edict – as if same sex “marriage” has any basis in the entirety of Anglo-American jurisprudence or the Judeo-Christian moral hybrid upon which our society is based.

“You will die and the only thing celebrated about your life will be that it is over and can no longer tyranize your fellow human beings”.

Stop projecting. It was the homosexualist thugs that – after the defeat of Proposition 8 in California – resorted to violence against Christians.

What goes around, comes around.

“Are you still with us? That’s ok, I can wait”.

So can the Jews. Longer than you.

Once the state issued paper (a license) for marriage, it became a matter of civil rights. THe state should not be in the business of denying the right of marriage to 2 consenting adults of legal age.

Period. Never. Ever.

Woo Hoo! We were in dire need of some proof to counter the gay rights crowd’s claim that we don’t need a constitutional amendment because there is already a law on the books that has passed judicial vetting.

Now it becomes a matter of simple economics, as well as common sense.

We have the law, but are still being forced to spend money to defend it. In these times of financial struggle, we simply cannot afford to continue fighting these frivilous cases. We cannot forget that the California homosexuals have proved that these people do not respect the will of the people, or the rule of law.

Let’s put a lid on this sillyness right now.

Time to amend the constitution. End of story.

Thanks!

Why not let a gay couple marry??? I’m going to marry me significant other soon, I don’t understand why it is such a big deal? Oh wait, are the conservatives angry again??? All they have is hate. Forget our past history, we are better than that. I think we are capable of moving forward.

As a Minnesotan, I am glad that the issue of marriage equality is being brought up. In these economic times same-gender couples need the rights and benefits that marriage offers more than any other time.