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!

Period. Never. Ever.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.