Pawlenty vetoes ‘death rights’ bill for same-sex couples

What kind of ugliness do they preach at that megachurch Pawlenty attends?

Let’s just get beyond the false gesturing here… this has nothing to do with marriage and everything anti-gay. This depth of bigotry is astounding.

What a dirtbag. Yes, let’s continue to discriminate against people right up to the most painful and wrenching moment in their lives – the death of their partner. Nice brand of Christianity you practice there, Timmy.

Good luck with the presidential bid.

this is pandering at it’s worst.

T-paw is still a prick.

Yeah, he’s a great “christian” alright. I hope to piss on his grave – which his wife will be allowed to choose for him – unlike the spouses of GLBT people.

Mean-spirited much, T-Paw?

We would have to sell both our cars to afford all the “appropriate paperwork,” and even then we still wouldn’t have close to the protections straight couples get through marriage. And I am not just talking about wrongful death lawsuits … no matter what paperwork is obtained, stories pop up like clockwork of gay couples (even after being together for 30+ years) loosing property and visitation of or control/decision over their partner (and children, if there) because some ‘legal’ relative, even ones that had refused to even speak with them for decades, intentionally circumvented their wishes.

It can be frightening when the government doesn’t allow you to define your own family to them.

we have been getting fucked apawlenty by this bastard! Can’t wait till the fuck is gone.

The bill was about basic human decency. The veto was about looking good on Fox News.

Oh well, like we all weren’t expecting it from the Governor who decided that LGBT students weren’t in any need of protection in public schools where harrassment from other students and sometimes teachers is experienced.

Too bad there isn’t a way to fuck him in the ass on his way out of the governor’s mansion…

Progressively Queer said:
“Too bad there isn’t a way to fuck him in the ass on his way out of the governor’s mansion…”

Interesting take on sodomy. So buggery is not a form of expression of love but rather a punishing, hateful act of violence?

Don, your comment is in violation of our comment policy. Please resubmit without the cussin’. Thanks.

[...] — should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been,” said Pawlenty in his veto message. “I oppose efforts to treat domestic relationships as the equivalent of traditional [...]

Pandering to the right wing isn’t easy … it requires some cruelty. Nothing new to good christians.

This sounds like big government interfering in the freedoms and personal responsibilities of individuals. I thought Pawlenty was supposed to be against that sort of thing? Are there any Republicans out there who aren’t hypocrites?

Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve

He was correct to veto the bill

//Interesting take on sodomy. So buggery is not a form of expression of love but rather a punishing, hateful act of violence?//

Your inability to recognize figurative language is humorous, Jimmy.

And you have committed the logical fallacy of false alternative. “If S is not A, then it certainly must be B,” you suggest. The act of anal sex is neither inherently loving or punitive, except the intentions of the penetrator and the expectations of the penetrated make it so.

~~~

//Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve//

Adam and Eve were chimpanzees, what the heck are you talking about, Bruce?

[...] Gobernador de Minnesota, el republicano Tim Pawlenty, ha vetado una ley cuya finalidad era permitir al superviviente de una pareja del mismo sexo tras el fallecimiento de [...]

So what exactly are your intentions, as the penetrator, in the act of sodomizing the governor?

Apparently Jimmy also doesn’t believe rape exists, since sex between a man and a woman is an expression of love, sanctioned by the Bible.

Envision a post-election state with the DFL Party in solid control of both legislative chambers and the governor’s office, all working harmoniously to fix MN’s broken finances and finally moving on progressive issues that benefit all Minnesotans. Imagine a MN Supreme Court swiftly purged of those who supported Pawlessly’s illegal unallotments. Imagine a state that no longer pays too much attention to the likes of MFC and the MN Taxpayers League.

Such a repudiation of Pawlessly’s legacy would more than answer Jimmy/Rudy/Raymond’s anally-fixated question.

Ja, you BETCHA!

Very nice prayer Lane.

@Chayanov: Rape clearly exists, notably in the fantasies of some of Pawlenty’s political opponents.

““Marriage — as defined as between a man and a woman — should remain elevated in our society at a special level, as it traditionally has been.”

i.e. we straight people are better than you homos and we would like to keep it that way. “remain elevated”!? wtf!? too bad it’s not open to everyone. this is so disgusting and so blatant pandering to the crazy-right base he hopes to woo for his own political gain.

GadZooks! What a pile of debased humanity and unbridled hatred we have in here….I must need avert mine eyes from such ugliness!

[...] to make burial arrangements.  According to Pawlenty, the bill would have addressed “a nonexistent problem.”  Of course, what Pawlenty didn’t mention was that there are many cases in which [...]

Apalling veto.

[...] I sincerely hope that there is special place reserved in hell for Minnesota Republican governor Tim Pawlenty. [...]

THIS GUY IS SO FUC-ING HEARTLESS ITS REALLY QUITE SICKENING GOD I CANT AND THE REST OF THIS STATE CANT WAIT TIL HE’S GONE.WHY DO WHAT THE PEOPLE WHAT WHEN THIS LOSER SITS ON HIS THRONE AND DOES NOT LISTEN,ARE YOU THAT ARROGANT THAT YOU JUST DONT GIVE A SHI- ABOUT WHO VOTED,YOURE AS- ACTUALLY SHOULD BE RECALLED

Let’s all take a breath and sit back here.. Governor T- Bag’s is posturing himself as an “Ultra- Conservative” He has less interest in doing what is right and more interest in his false delusion that he might actually get to lick Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh’s boot straps. The Republican party as it exist today is on it’s suicide march and Gov. T-Bag’s is leading the pack >> CPAC >> Whatever???(lol)…
Governor T- Actually thinks that the Republicans need to move further to the right in order to win the hearts and minds of a few misguided Ted Nugent fans. He will be unpleasantly surprised when not only does the great state of Minnesota reject him but the UNITED STATES rejects him.. I’m a Saint Paul guy and I find it appalling that an Neo-Christio freak like him represents my city.. Sorry Minnesota>> Farmers, Miners, Small Business Owners, Trades People, and Citizen’s ..

Peace!

[...] Pawlenty, repubblicano, Governatore del Minnesota, ha vietato una legge che permetteva al partner che rimane in vita di una coppia dello stesso sesso di poter organizzare [...]

Well, at least T-Paw has forfeited his option to ever use the phrase “basic human decency” in any speech or proclamation for the rest of his (short, one hopes) political career. That’s something.

Pawlenty did the right thing.
I’m afraid all of those who think gay/les marriage should be recognized as legitimate will have to wait until the last of the baby-boomers are dead to defile America.
That is provided AIDS, or the next corrective measure from nature, doesn’t take you all first.

Longhorn, you are mistaken if you think HIV/AIDS affects only gays. The epidemic is a serious public health issue that affects everyone, discriminating against none. And no, it is not a form of punishment from a mythical god or some such nonsense.

Lane, I realize that HIV/AIDS has affected a large portion of the world’s population. However, I don’t think that you can dispute that those at highest risk are those who partake in deviant behavior (Homosexual “lifestyle”, intervenous drug users, etc) and that those at lowest risk are non-drug using, monogamous, heterosexual people. I don’t think this is a coincidence. That is why, even today, one of the disqualifying criteria for giving blood at the Red Cross is a man having EVER had relations with another man.

I did not say that AIDS is a punishment from God, though I don’t believe God to be mythical, but rather nature weeding out the deviant in our world. People who partake in deviant behaviors tend to have shorter life spans than the rest of the population. HIV/AIDS, Hepatitus and others are the means by which nature keeps the population in line.

Back to the subject at hand, with 5% to 10% of the population claiming to be gay/lesbian, it is not prevalent enough to consider gay/lesbian as a legitimate alternative lifestyle to get special consideration. I think we have already given too much weight to the “rights” of homosexual people.

Though I do not hate homosexuals nor do I condone any violence toward them, I would still classify the behavior as deviant and do not understand why they are given special rights.

Imagine – just imagine – if the population of pedifiles or other currently unacceptable “lifestyle” populations reached 10%, and several were to be elected to high office, would it be incumbent upon us to offer the same rights to them? I think there would be world-wide outrage if suddenly the USA was to pass laws allowing adult men to marry 5 year old gils, or whatever.

I feel the institution of marriage was, is and always should be reserved for the traditional scenario of one man and one woman. I also believe it should be dang near impossible to get a divorce unless there is an abusive situation. I think this is one of the reasons marriage has become so twisted, it is too easy to get in and out of today.

Sorry for the wordy response, just wanted to make myself slear.

Longhorn, exactly what “special rights” do you believe gays are asking for? Specifically, what rights do they want that YOU don’t have? (And let’s not go for the lazy “Why, the right to marry someone of the same sex, of course” because that’s right up there with saying “You DO have religious freedom, so long as you’re Catholic.”) Seriously.

“Pawlenty vetoes ‘death rights’ bill for same-sex couples.”

Gadzooks!

T-Paw has refused gays the right to die if they are playing house?

That seems pretty harsh.

Steve,
One special right that gays have that others don’t have:

Descrimination in employment – You can be descriminated against, or fired for; being overweight, being unattractive, having a beard, parting your hair on the wrong side, but not for being Gay. All are “lifestyle choices”

As I said previously, marriage of same sex couples is not natural. Can you tell me how many countries in the world allow same sex marriage? Thus far 5. And all of those countries are among the most liberal in all areas of politics, with some of the smallest populations.

I do not disagree that people should be able to live with whomever they choose, and do – well – whatever it is that they do just like many, many straight couples do. But marriage should be be for a man-woman relationship. why?, because it is arguably the natural design of the universe.

Don’t believe me? Then I have a challenge for you. There are many species of animals which mate for life such as swans, etc. Go out and find one paired couple that are of the same sex. Better make it two just in case the first is mentally handicapped.

Good luck.

Down with sodomy.

Up with Teabagging!

>>All are “lifestyle choices”

Hey Longhorn you seem like a pretty cerebral guy.. A few of the other righties here could take note of your demeanor.

You and I are (politically speaking) diametrically opposite.. If you were to think back when you were young and when you started thinking about girls I would be willing to bet that you were 5 or 6 years old.. Personally I new I was attracted to girls when I was about 6.. I didn’t know why I was attracted to girls back then until I stared to understand my own biology.. Gays that I have talked to say the same thing.. It’s not just a lifestyle it’s who they are.. Homosexuality also exits in the natural world.. Deer, cats, dogs, elephants, donkeys ect.. There is are also some scientific studies that suggest that homosexuality is a biological response to overpopulation..

Recycling long-discredited MFC talking points, eh, Longhorn?

Natural order? Lifestyle choices? Fired for being straight? Deviant behaviors? Homosexuality = pedophilia? Homosexuality = promiscuity? Just because gays are 5-10% of the population means it is okay to discriminate against them? The usual slippery slope arguments associated with equal marriage – marry five-year olds, marry Mom or Dad or Grandma, marry animals, blah blah blah

The world has changed, and is changing rapidly. More and more countries around the world are legally recognizing same-sex relationships in varying ways with the overall trend towards full equality in all areas including marriage. Just do a quick wiki on same-sex marriage …

There is now a push underway to allow men who have or have had sex with other men to donate blood due to all donated blood undergoing “two different, highly accurate tests that make the risk of tainted blood entering the blood supply virtually zero.”

Finally, HIV respects no one. I would amend that sentence to read “those at lowest risk are non-drug using, monogamous people whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.”

I’ve never understood why so many people scorn the promiscuity within the gay community while at the same time fight tooth-and-nail to give legal recognition to committed, monogamous same-sex relationships. BTW, there are plenty of heterosexuals who are promiscuous.

And yes, longhorn, there exists many committed, monogamous same-sex couples who have been together for years and years and years … and they are all probably more rational than you are.

Correction.

One sentence should read “… while at the same time fight to DENY legal recognition …”

Steve,
One special right that gays have that others don’t have:

- “Descrimination in employment – You can be descriminated against, or fired for; being overweight, being unattractive, having a beard, parting your hair on the wrong side, but not for being Gay. All are “lifestyle choices””

Discrimination based on sexual orientation goes both ways, which means it’s illegal to fire someone because they are straight. Now that is something that applies to you Mr.Dickhead.

-”As I said previously, marriage of same sex couples is not natural. Can you tell me how many countries in the world allow same sex marriage? Thus far 5. And all of those countries are among the most liberal in all areas of politics, with some of the smallest populations.”

There are EIGHT countries now. You should know that a LOT of the countries that have same sex marriage rank top of the world in peace index with least amount of corruption, very high degree of transparency, egalitarianism, gender equity. Scandinavia and Canada are known to have much lower violent crime rates and homicide incidents on top of that (ironically they are much less religious). That’s not all. Finland, Denmark, The Netherlands, and Sweden come up in the top 5 for best child well being in the United Nations UNICEF Report. All of these countries allow same sex couples to adopt jointly and manage very comprehensive and tightly run social programs aimed at helping disadvantaged children.

Natural? Is artificial insemination for infertile couples natural? Are plastic surgeries natural? Are glasses natural? Are baby pacifiers natural? Are heart transplants and organ donations natural? Is democracy a naturally occurring phenomenon happening in the wild? Since when do we base our laws, legislation, and our choices in life, our social advancements based on “nature”?

-”I do not disagree that people should be able to live with whomever they choose, and do – well – whatever it is that they do just like many, many straight couples do. But marriage should be be for a man-woman relationship. why?, because it is arguably the natural design of the universe.”

“Marriage”, when it was first created, was an institution meant to enslave women. Husbands had the right to take over and look after women’s property and estate when they got married. Marriage was also arranged by parents and was not of free volition by the spouses. Marriage was also forbidden among interfaith couples, interracial couples, divorced couples, and (now is being used to discriminate a monogamous same sex couple). Husbands had the right to denounce their female spouses if they found her to be unchaste. As I see you value “tradition” so much, maybe we should go back to the old times and stick to the unvarnished definition of it.

-”Don’t believe me? Then I have a challenge for you. There are many species of animals which mate for life such as swans, etc. Go out and find one paired couple that are of the same sex. Better make it two just in case the first is mentally handicapped.”

Studies conducted on swans have indicated that 10 to 15% of all couples are homosexual (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/07/MNG3N4RAV41.DTL). Male homosexual swan couples have been known to assist female single parents in raising up the chicks. Gay male penguin couples have also been observed both in the wild and in captivity to take over fertilized eggs abandoned by HETEROSEXUAL parents, then hatch, feed, and help grow the chicks. Peacocks, mallards, gulls, pigeons, and many other species of birds are known to form monogamous life same sex relationships. Has this led to the destruction of these species? Do all of these birds practice incest? Have all other straight birds, upon seeing homosexual behavior, either gone gay or shunned and attacked the gay birds? NO, NO, and NO.

Longhorn you’re nothing more than a bigot with some deep prejudices stemming from a lack of education and serious critical thinking skills.

Hi Lane and marcus_w71,
This will be my final post on this subject, as this issue will never be resolved on this blog. How is that for rational?

I don’t know what MFC is, so if these are long standing points of whomever that is, it is coincidental. All of the points I made are from my own opinion.

It is good that the Red Cross is working on perfecting testing of the blood supply. And I would like nothing better than for everyone to be able to donate safely. We need the blood to help others.

I will stand by the premise that same-sex marriage should be placed on some (this year or 2012)fall ballot as a national refferendum. I believe that will never happen because those who favor allowing same sex marriage fear it would fail by a wide margin. Then the courts would have no option but to rule as the people have voted. What is wrong is for these issues to be decided in the courts. NO JUDGE, SERIES OF JUDGES OR A NINE PERSON SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE SUCH CONTOVERSIAL

Sorry- My comment decided to post itself before I finished. Computers suck sometimes.

Regarding my comments having been long discredited. As I said I did not pull these ideas from any platform, they are , as far as I know, original thoughts. However, the fact is nearly any point can be discredited when it comes to matters of opinion, belief, or other intangible concepts.

Last, quite frankly, IF and WHEN there is federal or state legislation, which has passed through all of the courts and is finally instituted allowing same-sex marriage, then those of us who disagree with that right will have to accept it. Today that is not the case. Being middle-aged, I find it doubtful this will be resolved in my lifetime.

Prichard is the current president of MFC.

As for the ban on blood donations by men who have or have had sex with other men, the American Red Cross, the international blood association AABB and America’s Blood Centers have been advocating for its replacement/removal since March 2006!

Read the article at http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957 where Theodore B. Olson argues that same-sex marriage is an American value, that conservatives should celebrate this.

“There is are also some scientific studies that suggest that homosexuality is a biological response to overpopulation.”

I don’t know about that. If that was the case, densely populated areas all over the world would be overrun by homosexuals by now.

I know I said I would not post again on this subject, but since Tri had to close with a personal attack, I feel I must respond.

“Longhorn you’re nothing more than a bigot with some deep prejudices stemming from a lack of education and serious critical thinking skills”

Tri,
Only the desperate resort to mud-slinging in the presence of a serious discussion. I would say that makes you the bigot in this regard.
As far as lack of education and serious critical thinking skills; the doctorate diploma hanging on my wall says otherwise.
If you truely believe in human rights as you indicate in the issue of gay rights, you would recognize my right to express my opinion, right or wrong, with impunity.

Longhorn, I don’t know about that “doctorate diploma” you claim to have … but surely from your experiences defending your thesis papers for both the master’s and doctor’s degrees, you’d agree that challenges are an integral part of any serious discussion.

You do have the right to express your opinions right or wrong with impunity; however by doing so, you also set yourself up to be challenged. Embrace this as an opportunity to question what you think you know, what you think you really believe in.

“The more you know, the more you know, the less you really do know.”

“NO JUDGE, SERIES OF JUDGES OR A NINE PERSON SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE SUCH CONTOVERSIAL”

But they are supposed to, wonder bunny, it’s their job.

Putting any minority rights up for a vote is not a move someone who loves their freedom would do.

If the freakin swans do it, how is it deviant?

I was going to say that you forgot to mention the pedophiles like a good conservative propaganda victim, but it turns out i just missed it because you mispelled it. So, good job, way to represent!