Comments on: Final Wishes: Proposed bill aims to help grieving same-sex couples

By: Bjork

Bjork — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:27:21 +0000

“vast normal majority” hah! Maybe get out of Forest Lake sometime.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 20:13:04 +0000

It is time for the state to get out of the marriage business. Let outside organizations define marriage however they want….did you know that the Catholic church won’t recognize a Protestant marriage? Let the religions define whatever they want, that way they can fight with each other over what is a “real” marriage. I’m not even sure that there needs to be a civil union of any sort. If there are compelling reasons to have a “partner agreement” I suppose that would be ok, but most of what passes for marriage law is a holdover from English common law (as in, determining parentage, inheriting land, etc.), all things that can be done more effectively through some other vehicle. Finally, can we get rid of the requirement to have a “solemnizer” perform a “ceremony”? If I want to get married in MN I have to pay some internet minister or government official to mumble some words, I can’t just sign the agreement. How does that serve any public interest?

By: BettyT

BettyT — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:23:58 +0000

Andy, and MNIndy, thanks much for covering this.

By: Andy Birkey

Andy Birkey — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:43:04 +0000

Icecycle. Interesting. So you’re telling us that you plan to commit fraud. I don’t think it will work. Few happily partnered gay men are as homophobic as you.

RD: “The radical homosexuals will never rest until they have shoved their perversion down the throats (pun intended) of the vast normal majority.”

You do not speak for the vast normal majority. Most Minnesotans support equality for same-sex couples, even if they oppose gay marriage.

You do speak for a bigoted minority, however. A minority that is thankfully fading quickly.

By: icecycle

icecycle — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 22:20:00 +0000

If this thing passes, I’m going on a “death watch” for every wealthy guy in the state.

When one dies, I’ll just head on over to the bank and declare myself that guys “partner” and empty the account.

By: RD

RD — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:43:57 +0000

The radical homosexuals will never rest until they have shoved their perversion down the throats (pun intended) of the vast normal majority. As long as churches would be allowed to say NO to sanctifying their sham state “weddings”, they will scream discrimination and drag churches into court. Freedom of conscience will be dead.

By: Alec

Alec — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:44:51 +0000

Eric,
I think you have a great idea, but you would have to to apply it across the board. The state could do unions, and a persons church could do marriages. We would have to separate the two activities for all unions, which seems like a god separation of church and state anyway. So, the state could license and sanction civil unions, and your church, if you so choose, could sanctify marriages. Tht does seem like too common sense of a solution though.
Alec

By: Eric Payne

Eric Payne — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:11:13 +0000

You know, there’s a real simple way to fix this inequity; a way that would not tie up the Legislature for weeks on end, writing a bill, then debating the bill, then re-writing the bill to appease the debaters, submitting the bill to subcommittees, yadda, yadda, yadda.

The simple way? Permit same gender couples to enter into the civil contract of marriage.

Marriage rites are performed by churches, who may place any restrictions on those rites the deem appropriate.

Marriage rights are granted by the government to two persons who agree to be seen by the government as a single unit for taxation, debt, and other contractual obligations entered into during the marriage. There is no requirement, in any state, that the couple produce offspring.

If a couple only have the rite… the don’t get the rights.