Judge rejects Family Council bid in gay marriage lawsuit

Oh, if only all public officials were as rational as Judge DuFresne!

WELL SAID JUDGE!

“The Court certainly understands that the Council feels strongly about the social issue of same-sex marriage. Strong feelings, however, do not establish a legal interest in a lawsuit.”

I can’t believe these three couples don’t have more support from gay rights organizations. Maybe they should contact ACLU? There must be some organization willing to support and help raise money for this. These cases affect all of us throughout the United States.

I love Fran Lebowitz. If you get a chance, you really gotta see her new HBO documentary ‘Public Speaking’

In it she says she’s surprised that the two defining issues for gays today is for inclusion into the two most confining institutions in society … marriage and the military. “I would pay to get out of either one.” Think about it. The inability to get married was always one of the big advantages of being gay.” And joining the army? People used to pretend to be gay to get OUT of the army!”

See says that she always thought that revolutions were supposed to be about, you know, “freedom.”

Heh. Ya gotta see it. It’s a laugh a minute.

Do you know, what gay should do is….. DON”T PAY TAX !!!!!

Federal & State government discriminate Gay, No Equal right, Am i suppose to pay Tax then?

FREE GAY TAX! NO GAY RIGHT!!!! or

FREE GAY RIGHT, GAY PAY TAX!!!!!!

[...] via Judge rejects Family Council bid in gay marriage lawsuit « Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. M…. [...]

[...] MN: Judge Rejects Family Council Bid in Gay Marriage Lawsuit. Read more  [...]

I guess we’ll just have to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the Minnesota Constitution.

Nachman
Comment posted November 30, 2010 @ 6:50 am
I guess we’ll just have to get a constitutional amendment defining marriage in the Minnesota Constitution.

….awe you poor dear…you probably never get any sleep….worrying about 2 consenting adults making legal CIVIL contracts of Marriage…….10′s of 1000′s of Gay cpls have been married…and HOW has it affected YOU? Marriage Equality IS coming to America…..the question is…do you wanna be George Wallace or Alice Paul? …and IF you don’t know who either of those people are…you NEED a PROPER education!

In regard to Fran Lebowitz and equal rights, the issue is not whether you or I, or she, chooses to marry or serve our country in the armed forces. The issue is whether one factor of a person’s life – sexual identity – should dictate the choices that are available in a free society. Slowly but surely, our laws are catching up with our mores. A hundred years from now, Americans will look back on the issue of gay rights with the same feelings that we look back on Emancipation.

“A hundred years from now, Americans will look back on the issue of gay rights with the same feelings that we look back on Emancipation.”

Oh please. Being ostracised or even discriminated against is not akin to slavery. People who insist on making that comparison shouldn’t be surprised when black people don’t readily agree.

Dennis,

Nice to know that you consider discrimination a civil right you can stand behind.

Remember we squishy liberals will defend your right to speak your mind, however it doesn’t mean we’ll respect it or you for it.

It is a terrible mistake to even consider removing the ban on same-sex marriage.

It’s easy to get caught up in the story line that these people are being discriminated against, as it the ban on same-sex marriage diminishes there value as human beings – but that is not the case.

If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, at the consequences of removing the ban on same-sex marriage, or look at what has happen to other nations, the results are completely destructive. Everything changes – children, schools, governments, churches, and businesses will all be forced to accept immoral ideas, which will cause the entire moral foundation of the culture to crumble.

The legalization of same-sex marriage puts the government into the role of enforcing religious beliefs. It’s one thing to try and keep the government out of religion and but it’s much more damaging once our government is actively promoting and endorsing a set of religious values – legally discriminating against everyone that has different religious values.

Every nation that has abandoned the freedom of religion for the creation of a theocracy has declined. The freedom of religion is one of the pillars of our nation and the reason the U.S. has become so successful. Once a nation abandons the freedom of religion, it is extremely difficult to get it back without a war or a revolution as history shows.

The natural and universal definition of marriage is one-man and one-woman. Redefining marriage is the creation of a theocracy, which cannot lead to anything but the destruction of a nation.

Dear Tim

yawn………

Your comment is not worth anything more than that.

TIM: “The natural and universal definition of marriage is one-man and one-woman. Redefining marriage is the creation of a theocracy…”

*******
That is an astonishingly confused statement, Tim.

To begin, there is no “natural and universal” definition of marriage– even if you were limit it to only heterosexual marriage, there is still a widespread divergence between monogamy and polygamy, so “one-man and one-woman” is plainly not “universal”.

Second, the majority of Americans who oppose marriage equality usually claim they’re doing it because they think same-sex marriage violates religious taboos– so if anybody in this debate is trying to impose “theocracy”, Tim, it’s the people on YOUR side. (Perhaps you haven’t looked up the meaning of the term “theocracy”, and just don’t know its actual definition. You should consult a dictionary before you post again on this subject.)

Dear Tim…Please for the love of God…seek a REAL edumacation….ok? You don’t have to approve of Marriage Equality…and NO one will Force you to Marry someone of the same sex, BUT – that Option would be there IF you choose it………..tho I doubt you would……see Timmy, you don’t choose to be Gay/lesbian (you just ARE)…just like you didn’t choose to be hetero (you just were) ….No one is trying to Chnage YOUR definition of Marriage….it WILL ALways be what YOU want it to be……..the ONLY difference is……TAX PAYING Gay/Lesbian citizens/thier children/and families WILL HAVE the SAME (not different, NOT special) RIGHTS you HAVE, and that YOU TAKE for Granted with your Heterosexual Privilage…..that’s it Timmy…..see, was that hard?

I find it interesting that the radical Muslims are trying to impose Shariah law in Oklahoma – with many of the same arguments.

When a judge recently blocked an amendment to prohibit Shariah law (which basically means you can legally beat your wife or do whatever you want with her), the defendant argued that “the majority vote cannot be used to take away my constitutional rights.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/us/30oklahoma.html?_r=1

But there is no constitutional right to Shariah law just because their ideas are religious in nature. In the same way, there is no constitution right to same-sex marriage just because someone wants to do it or because their religious beliefs support it.

Constitutional law must be protected from radical Muslims.
Marriage much be protected from radical homosexuals.

Both are trying to impose their religion beliefs on the U.S. in an attempt to gain power and establish their religion as law. Both attacking the ‘freedom of religion’ that is at the heart of our national success.

@Disgusted American

You said – “the ONLY difference is……TAX PAYING Gay/Lesbian citizens/thier children/and families WILL HAVE the SAME (not different, NOT special) RIGHTS you HAVE”

Why would you want to get married and pay more taxes? This is not a financial benefit to getting married. Besides homosexuals are already the riches group in the population – primarily because they don’t have kids to pay for.

No one is stopping homosexuals from having a formal wedding ceremony or exchanging rings or signing a formal financial agreement or even their own marriage certificate.

When given the choice homosexually don’t even want to get married. For example, in the Netherlands, which had same-sex marriage since 2001, only 4% of homosexuals get married.

I sympathize with the family and friends of loved ones that are active homosexuals, but it is far more important to protect Marriage – the foundation of our society – then to redefine marriage and put the government in the position of enforcing and controlling religious ideas – which will surely lead to the decline of our nation.

Tim,

“Besides homosexuals are already the riches group in the population”

Lie.

“primarily because they don’t have kids to pay for. ”

Another lie.

“No one is stopping homosexuals from having a formal wedding ceremony or exchanging rings or signing a formal financial agreement or even their own marriage certificate.”

Lie, lie, lie, lie.

“When given the choice homosexually don’t even want to get married.”

Lie.

“For example, in the Netherlands, which had same-sex marriage since 2001, only 4% of homosexuals get married. ”

So?

“but it is far more important to protect Marriage – the foundation of our society”

Fear-mongering.

“then to redefine marriage and put the government in the position of enforcing and controlling religious ideas – which will surely lead to the decline of our nation.”

Lie. More fear-mongering.

Love,
~Me

Tim wrote:

“I sympathize with the family and friends of loved ones that are active homosexuals, but it is far more important to protect Marriage – the foundation of our society – then to redefine marriage and put the government in the position of enforcing and controlling religious ideas – which will surely lead to the decline of our nation.”

“If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture, at the consequences of removing the ban on same-sex marriage, or look at what has happen to other nations, the results are completely destructive.”

This is nothing less than childish fear mongering.

There’s no evidence that gay marriage will in any conceivable way lead to the alarming outcomes you describe.

What you’re really concerned about is this: Christian and other religious conservatives are losing cultural authority. They’re losing the power to use government to force people to obey fundamentalist moral dogmas about birth control, abortion, marriage and family, the content of education, the permissibility of using various words and themes in broadcast media, and more.

How easily we forget the “good old days” when conservative Christian prejudices ruled the land: you could be fired from your job for getting a divorce or being pregnant while not married; you could be forcibly confined to a psychiatric hospital if you were gay, or suffer violence at the hands of police or religious authorities and not be able to do anything about it; you couldn’t easily find condoms in any store–it was either illegal or seen as immoral; you could lose your job if you didn’t express the correct Christian beliefs. Etc., etc.

The changes away from these theocratic social practices have caused many Christian and other religious conservatives much concern, at times verging on moral panic. Christian conservatives no longer dominate the culture, and they hate that.

No Tim, the use of the telephone by young unmarried couples didn’t cause the downfall of society, nor did blacks and whites marrying, nor did the availability of birth control or abortion. Gender equality in the workplace and women working outside the home, feminism–these things didn’t lead to a “moral collapse.” The occasional naughty word on television doesn’t cause families to break down, nor does reading Harry Potter or learning the ideas of Charles Darwin.

When gays finally are allowed to marry–it’s just a matter of time, no matter whether you like it or not–nothing bad will result. Society is not perched on the rim of a moral abyss, with gay marriage being the shove that will doom us all. Such hyperbole is simply stupid, mindless blather.

If you have no other argument against gay marriage, you’d best be advised to find one since no one is taking you seriously.

Same sex “marriage” can never be equal to normal marriages since people of the same sex can never procreate, wher as normative male-female marriages can proceate.

No amount of postmodern drivel can ever change that.

I know straight married couples who are unable to have kids (they adopted). Are their marriages not “normal”?

Nachmam–you mean to tell me that two men can’t have sex with each other and produce children from that? Gosh, I learn something new everyday.

However, what this has to do with prohibiting gays and lesbians from getting married you don’t say.

I guess my grandparents’ marriages were considered null and void after my grandmothers’ hit menopause, huh, Nachman?

Throughout history childless marriages have been the exception, not the rule – that is why I included “normative” in my assertion. Same sex couples can *never* procreate, therefore, equality to normal marriage can never exist.

Why don’t the the GBLs use the Contract Clause in the Minnesota Constitution? It’s always been there. Go to a lawyer, draw up a contract between two consenting adults, and leave the rest of civil society alone.

Tim,

Speaking as someone who actually lives in OK, please get your facts correct. There aren’t any radical Muslims imposing Sharia Law in OK. The state question that was blocked was, by the admission of the people who wrote it, a preemptive strike against Sharia Law ever being used as a consideration for a judicial decision. This whole Sharia Law panic, made so famous by Sharon Angle in NV and her two overrun towns (one of which doesn’t exist), can be traced back to a case in NJ where a judge took into consideration a woman’s husband’s religious beliefs and denied her a protective order, and his decision was overturned on appeal.

Sharia law can’t be imposed without serious changes to state and the federal Constitutions. As hard as I know it is to believe, US courts can not use laws that don’t apply to their citizens to make decisions of law. As a citizen of OK I’m not going to be tried by the laws of WY should I end up in court, because those laws don’t apply to me as a citizen facing charges in an OK state court.

Sharia Law is not now, nor has it ever been, nor will it be, and excuse for disregarding the laws of the land. The old ‘Sharia Law made me do it’ defense won’t work to excuse criminal behavior. If it would I’ll bet a lot more people would flock to religious that would explain that joint the cops found them with. Exemptions for religion do not extend to protecting criminal behavior.

We do still have separation of church and state in his country and Sharia Law can’t be used against me, because it is primarily a religious code of law. Rather like the laws of the Old Testament, they aren’t the basis of law in this country.

You can sleep easy, the Constitution is not under attack from Radical Muslims, unless you consider them exercising their right to worship or erect houses of worship an attack….

As far as the right to marry and the Constitution, there is nothing in the Constitution about marriage. For straights or gays. It recognizes the rights of all citizens to be protected and privileged with the same rights, it doesn’t discriminate… People discriminate. The 14th Amendment is pretty clear about the whole equal rights protections thing.

” I sympathize with the family and friends of loved ones that are active homosexuals, but it is far more important to protect Marriage – the foundation of our society – then to redefine marriage and put the government in the position of enforcing and controlling religious ideas – which will surely lead to the decline of our nation.”

For the record I am what you would call an active homosexual, if you define that to mean one who isn’t active in trying to not be homosexual… Quick aside, do you call yourself an active heterosexual? What makes you active verses inactive?… Never mind, I was a little distracted for a minute….

Marriage as we define it today is not a natural universal concept, unless you only use the Judea-Christian concept of morality and exclude the reality that throughout history cultures have accepted homosexual relationships as a normal variation of sexuality. Your use of the word immoral to describe the idea of gay marriage is very telling.

There are other cultures that actually didn’t have a problem with the existence of homosexuals, at least until they were ‘converted’ to Christianity and told how sinful and evil it was.

Those folks don’t matter now though, because they’ve now been taught how sinful and evil this thing that they naturally didn’t have a problem with actually should be thought about.

If you truly want to protect marriage, it’s not gays you have to protect it from. We can’t marry in most states now, and marriage is a joke. Heterosexuals have managed to totally mess up the foundation of our society without any help from gays…. That’s what the real problem is isn’t it? Heterosexuals are afraid we’ll actually be better at marriage than you are and you can’t deal with that.

Don’t worry Tim, I’m sure you heterosexuals can figure it out… It just seems like maybe you need better role models.

Dear Nachman,

You will use any argument you can to prevent equality from happening. Once upon a time it wasn’t so normative for interracial couples to get married, and you know what arguments the racists used then? “Interracial marriage is an abomination!” “It will destroy society!” “It just ain’t natural.”

Love makes a marriage, Nachman. And don’t give me any of that “I love my ham sandwich can I marry it?” bullspit. You know what love I’m talking about, and I’m sorry if you haven’t found it yet but that doesn’t mean you should oppose equality.

The sad thing is that no matter what I say, you aren’t going to listen.

Nachman,

The norm of childbearing capability still doesn’t address why gays and lesbians should be prohibited from marrying.

1. You ignored Paul Schmelzer’s point about some straight couples being incapable of bearing children. This places those couples into the same childbearing category as gays and lesbians. Are you suggesting that heterosexual couples who can’t have children shouldn’t be allowed to marry?

2. You know of course that straight couples who can’t bear children have recourse to adoption or surrogate mothers, for example. So do gay and lesbian couples.

3. You write, “Go to a lawyer, draw up a contract between two consenting adults, and leave the rest of civil society alone.”

This statement suggests a confusion on your part. Gay marriage is not your business–it doesn’t affect you in any way. Ironically, YOU seem to be the one going out of your way to concern yourself about it. Why is this?

Eric:

1. I did not ignore his argument. A male and female couple who cannot procreate is an exception to the objective biological fact that a man and a woman is required for procreation. If no procreation is possible, the adoptive child still needs a mother and father.

2. See number 1.

3. The GBLTs drew first blood on this issue. Your side appears to be going out of their way to repudiate the core beliefs of American civil society, and to repudiate normative Judaism and Christianity as well. Your side started it and seeks to impose their will and morality on the rest of us without our consent.

JLMoody:

1 .Throughout history and across cultures, marriage is the recognition of the biological imperative of a man and a woman to procreate and raise the next generation.

2. Before you quote the worn cliche of “separation of church and state”, you must realize that it is a reference to Jefferson’s Letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he assured the recipients the government wouldn’t interfere in church affairs. It is stating exactly the opposite of what you, JLMoody, assert. Both the Minnesota and United States Constitutions provide that an state religion cannot be established. Having a culture based upon a Judeo-Christian ethical and moral hybrid is not the establishment of a state religion.

PQ: Loving v. Virginia concerned a marriage between a man and a woman. It has no relevance to your argument.

In general – repeating the fallacy that normal marriage and same sex “marriage” are equal cannot make it so and never will.

Yawn.

Who cares that Nachman repeatedly asserts that same-sex marriage will never be equal to “normal marriage” (whatever that means) especially since the capacity of same-gender couples to enter into committed relationships is the same as that of opposite-gender couples?

Matter of fact, expanding civil marriage to same-gender couples (who may or may not be raising children) will result in a more normalized society with those couples realizing the same economic security, protections and peace of mind that is enjoyed by opposite-gender married couples (again who may or may not be raising children).

Full equality under the law constitutes “the core beliefs of American civil society” – NOT “normative Judaism and Christianity.”

Nachman, please take your strident obsession with the complementary fit of the penis and vagina elsewhere.

Nachman,

I stand corrected. Technically you did answer his question, but you ignored his obvious implication: if straight couples cannot bear children, are they then not normal? Or, more to the point, if they can’t bear children, then why should they be entitled to marriage?

You then wrote, “If no procreation is possible, the adoptive child still needs a mother and father.” Where does this “need” come from? Certainly the sociological evidence doesn’t bear this out in terms of children’s outcomes.

You also wrote, “Your side appears to be going out of their way to repudiate the core beliefs of American civil society, and to repudiate normative Judaism and Christianity as well.”

What is a “core belief[s]“? Is it what was valid 50 years ago? Is it when 51% of the religious public believes something? And why do only Judaism and Christianity count? This country is composed of many other faiths and many how lack faith altogether. Atheists, agnostics and those who profess no religious beliefs outnumber Jews, Muslims, and all other non-Christian religious affiliations by a wide margin.

“Normative Judaism and Christianity” seems to presuppose that these faith traditions have been 1) univocal in their worldviews (which is false), and 2) have within their various subdivisions not changed over time (also false).

You may have noticed that several Christian denominations now recognize the full humanity and equality of GLBT people. Are we then to take as an implication from your views that these Christian denominations are in error? And would this implication not take you to one further step–namely, to the view that some of these faith traditions are true and others heretical and false? It seems–correct me if I’m wrong–that you’re elevating yourself to gatekeeper of truth within Christianity and Judaism.

You also write, “Your side started it and seeks to impose their will and morality on the rest of us without our consent.”

Please explain this imposition of you refer to. It very much appears to be empty of content. Your statement also begs the question of why majority consent is needed for equality under the law.

Nachman –

Good morning to you, hope you are having a great day.

Actually regarding Jefferson’s letter in response to the Danbury Baptists, please read the first letter they sent to him. His reply was not assuring them that they would be free from government intrusion into their church affairs, it was actually explaining that he could not, as President address the issue they first wrote to him in Oct. 1801 to request assistance with. Their letter to Jefferson spoke about the fact that in Conn. their right to worship was not considered an inalienable right to freedom of worship within their state. Conn. had not yet written their state Constitution, and it still recognized the Congregational Church as the established and state supported religion. The concern the Danbury Baptists were raising with Jefferson was the fact that their right to worship outside the ‘official’ Conn state church were only ‘favors granted’ to them by the legislature, and as such might be revoked.

The answer Jefferson gave them explained that as President of the United States he had no power to prevent the state of Conn from establishing a religion, but that the legislature of the ‘whole American people’ could not establish a religion, and expressing his hope that the eventually the state legislatures would share that view.

So, to sum up, Jefferson was not insuring them they would be free from government intrusion, he was apologizing to them because he couldn’t intrude in what he saw as a matter for the state to decide. They asked him to intrude, and he said he couldn’t.

As far as my original use of the phase ‘separation of church and state’ regarding the use of Sharia law to decide cases in US Courts… I think it’s accurate. Sharia Law is religious law, and therefore to enforce it in a US Court would do exactly what Jefferson was assuring the Danbury Baptists would not happen, the federal government acting to respect an establishment of religion over all the other choices.

With regards to marriage through history… I think you might have missed my point. The definition of marriage you are presenting is one that is traditionally closely associated with Judeo-Christian values. That’s why when I was arguing the point that other cultures outside that one did not view homosexuality as unnatural, I used the phrase homosexual relationships, I didn’t say those cultures recognized gay marriage, because their concept of committed relationships would not, even between heterosexuals, meet the Judeo-Christian meaning of marriage. My point was that in those cultures they lived in, their relationships were accepted as another form of commitment.

Your final argument about a culture based on a Judeo-Christian ethical and moral hybrid not constituting the establishment of a state religion is correct, however when you refuse to acknowledge the existence of other ethics and morals outside that one hybrid you are establishing a state religion. If not in name, in practice because you are limiting the people to only ethics and morals of a single viewpoint to the exclusion of all others. You might not be forcing them to worship in a specific church, but you are forcing the code of that church on people who aren’t part of the church.

Freedom of religion and freedom of speech are very good goals for a people to strive for, unfortunately because we are people we often fall short of reaching them. Believe it or not I honestly respect your right to hold your views, I happen to hold views other than yours. In my opinion that doesn’t make either of us more right or wrong than the other, but it does require us to respect each other as people.

I respect your view that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I’m actually an advocate for the state to be removed from the process of marriage totally. Marriage is a sacrament performed by a religious authority, the civil process is separate from that sacrament. I do not ever want to see a religious authority forced to perform a sacrament that is not in keeping with their religious beliefs, I do believe that the State has a responsibility to provide equal civil processes to all citizens. So I propose this… States should remove the word marriage from the civil contract license they issue and they should all be viewed as civil unions. People can then seek the sacrament of marriage from a religious authority should they so wish. This way marriage is protected as a religious process, and the state can meet its burden to all citizens.

Sorry to ramble on so long, but it happens sometimes. Have a great afternoon.

As to the “sincerely held beliefs” of the MN “Family” Council, the only thing the “Family” Council believes in is motivating angry, scared, and hateful people to get to the polls to vote for Republicans. The MN Family Council is not a social or religious organization. It is a political organization funded, oddly enough, by the same folks who fund all the other Republican organizations. There is one other small thing the Family Council believes in. That’s raising enough money to pay Tom Prichard (head of the MN Family Council) an excellent salary so he doesn’t have to do any heavy lifting. He is a parasite on society and a scourge to the welfare of all Minnesotans.

Tim

Why can you not stop lying? Almost everything you post is a lie, misquote, or a twisted truth? Do you lie to your parents? If you have children or a spouse do you lie to them? Do you lie to your employers? Do you lie to your friends and neighbors?

Your posts are beginning to become somewhat of a joke here on MNINDY.

Hmmmmm lie is a 3 letter word and Tim is a 3 letter word……coincidence? I don’t think so!

@John – I’m sorry you have been so deeply deceived by your fellow supporters. But there is always hope and I refuse to write you off, even if you do me. I am not perfect and subject to fail in explaining the goodness of God and the love He has for you. But I tell you the truth, He has a plan for your life to bless you and prosper you and to show you a better way to live, in which you can be at peace with Him (Romans 5:1) and get to know Him.

The reason you cannot understand why I say what I say and why I am so sincere about it, is because Jesus Christ has transformed me (Romans 2:2) and because it is hidden from you (1 Cor 2:14-16) If you talked to me a few years ago, I may seem like a completely difference person. But JC has opened my eyes and now I get it, I see that the battle is really between His kingdom and his enemies.

Your thirst for truth will never be quenched until you drink of His living water. As you get to know Him, you will be “in awe of Him..” (Ecclesiastes 5:7). JC is simply the most fascinating and intriguing person I have ever known.

I tell you that knowing JC is worth more than anything you can imagine and once you get just a taste of Him, you will realize what I’m talking about.

Even if you had to give up every relationship, every possession and every pleasure you can think of – in exchange for knowing Him – it would be worth it. (Philippians 1:20-23)

@JLMoody – I’m glad you agree with me that same-sex marriage is the establishment of a theocracy.

You say, “I do not ever want to see a religious authority forced to perform a sacrament that is not in keeping with their religious beliefs … ”

This is exactly what would happen, and it would also happen in government programs, education, business, etc. All of society would be forced by law to accept the religious beliefs’ of homosexuality if same-sex marriage is allowed.

You than said; “I do believe that the State has a responsibility to provide equal civil processes to all citizens. So I propose this… States should remove the word marriage from the civil contract license they issue and they should all be viewed as civil unions”

This sounds like a good idea, but the State has so many programs that are based on Marriage, including welfare, tax laws, death laws, etc. that the State would need to completely change. To try to become ‘neutral’ to every religion is impossible, as we have already seen the failure of the public school system try to become ‘neutral’ that resulted in the humanist religion that is now the dominant religion being taught.

Therefore, the State should remain the issuer of Marriage Licenses and the definition of Marriage should remain as defined by nature (science), which also provides the greatest benefit to children – which are most successful when given a family that contains both a father and a mother.

Tim —

I believe you misunderstand… I don’t believe that marriage equality will lead to a theocracy, I believe that preventing marriage equality is the act of a theocracy. I hope that clears up the confusion.

Your argument about religious authorities being forced to perform the sacrament of marriage for a couple just because they show up and ask for it. Churches and church run entities are not required to follow laws against discrimination. A church can, for any reason, refuse to perform a religious sacrament. Some Catholic churches refuse to marry divorced people, some churches may refuse to marry interracial couples and they can’t be penalized for that. As long as a church doesn’t receive federal money they are exempt from following those laws…. Where churches have had issues with this is because of refusal to allow access to church assets that are otherwise available for general public use. That’s where the line is… A clergy member can not be compelled by an act of law to perform any aspect of their religious duties against their beliefs, a church (the legal entity) can be compelled by an act of law to allow use of their assets by others if those same assets are otherwise available for the use of non-members for a fee.

As far as society being forced to accept the religious beliefs of homosexuals because of this, no society would not be forced to accept a religious belief about homosexuals. Equality is not based on a religious belief about homosexuality, the argument against equality rests mostly on a religious belief… You can still have whatever religious views you choose to have about being gay.

What it seems like to me is that the religious belief you think equality will force on people is that they will have to be aware that gay people exist at all. Preventing gays from the rights we are entitled to will not make us throw up our hands in defeat and go home to wake up straight tomorrow. The fact that I am gay is not based on a religious belief, it is only a fact.

The removal of the word marriage from a civil contract license that is issued by the state actually requires nothing more than the reprinting of some documents and a good word processor so you can do a find and replace of marriage with civil union.

Right now two people can get a state issued marriage license and get married in front of a civil authority, and they never involve any religious authority. This is a legal marriage, even though some church would consider it invalid because it wasn’t performed in a church in front of a priest, pastor, rabbi, whatever…. Two people can be married by a religious authority with out a license issued by the state and that marriage would be valid in the eyes of the church but not by the state…

I spent a long time looking for a scientific definition of marriage, and I was not able to find one. What I found were legal definitions and religious definitions. Please provide a reference for the scientific definition you refer to.

My girlfriend, who I hope to marry some day, don’t want to have children, so no worries there.

Tim, I don’t expect you to change your opinion and suddenly agree with me, I only hope that maybe by expressing my views you might get to see another side of the issue.

Tim

Throwing out scripture passages does not make you a christian. Love and acceptance is what will make you a christian.

We live in a secular country. That is why we have the rights that we have. We need to allow this country to remain secular to ensure peoples religious freedom. We can not discriminate against LGBT marriages and still hope to hold onto hetero marriage rights. You may not understand this and I may not be able to explain it properly but if at any time you do not allow civil rights to all you eventualy may be the one that looses your rights.

As the sermon by Pastor Martin Niemöller goes…..

“First they came for the Jews–and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists–and I did not speak out — because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists–and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me —and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.”

To be the voice of the weak and the downtrodden is to be CHRISTIAN. “As you have done to the least of men, you have done unto me.”

JL Moody: Thank you for your response. I still assert that Jefferson’s letter attested to the belief the state cannot interfere with the religious beliefs of citizens.

To the rest of you: I find you to be obscurantists and no more than an angry anti-Jewish and anti-Christian mob that intends to impose your nihilist and homosexualist values on the people of Minnesota and the United States, by edict and without our consent. You will go to any lengths for your end, including violence, threats, and the invasion of churches.

I, as a Jew, saw the invasion of churches and threats against private citizens as an ominous sign and an impending existential threat. This is war – a cultural war – and the GBLTs, the left, the cultural anarchists, and the nihilists drew first blood.

This was never about tolerance, as we were told. You lied to us. This was about acceptance all along, and I refuse. I will not assent. I refuse to throw away what has taken thousands of years to build, and I refuse to throw away my beliefs and watch our civil society and common culture forced to degrade itself.

If there is anything you remember, it is this: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Always remember that.

This “homosexualist obscurantist” yawns once again at this latest angry braying by a jackass.

Nachman –

I have a follow-up question if you don’t mind. If the state doesn’t have the right to infringe on the religious beliefs of the people, do the people have the right to impose their religious beliefs on the state? And if so, how does their imposition on beliefs not cause the state to infringe on the religious beliefs of people who don’t share that specific belief system?

I would be glad to hear your thoughts, if you feel like sharing them.

“The reason you cannot understand why I say what I say and why I am so sincere about it, is because Jesus Christ has transformed me (Romans 2:2) and because it is hidden from you (1 Cor 2:14-16) If you talked to me a few years ago, I may seem like a completely difference person. But JC has opened my eyes and now I get it, I see that the battle is really between His kingdom and his enemies.”

Yawn…so you found Jesus. Go tell someone who cares. In case you haven’t noticed, MNIndy isn’t your personal religious testimony blog. Frankly, I’m tired of your religious non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with the topic of the article.

Nachman is all full of bluster, fury and verbal violence. “Man the barricades,” you can hear him saying, “civilization is at stake!”

You write of an “existential threat”? That’s sheer nonsense. Do you even know what that phrase means? In order to work yourself into a moralistic lather you apparently need to use the most outrageous hyperbole *even to yourself.* The idea that the “homosexual agenda” now also includes mass murder is nothing less than a sign of paranoia.

You also wrote, “To the rest of you: I find you to be obscurantists and no more than an angry anti-Jewish and anti-Christian mob that intends to impose your nihilist and homosexualist values on the people of Minnesota and the United States, by edict and without our consent.”

How do you explain all the Jews and Christians who support gay marriage? They’re numbers are increasing. Are they “anti-Jewish” and “anti-Christian”? I know of some Christian ministers who would find puzzling your labeling them as a “mob” and “anti-Christian.”

Note to self: do not have a debate with postmodernists, nihilists, and deconstructionists.

Jews and Christians who support same sex “marriage” do so because of their distorted view of Torah and scripture.

My advice to the rest of you who are the enemy: stay on your side of the battlefield.

Beyond that, there is nothing more to say.

nachman – you need to write notes to yourself – you are the only one listening

My advice to you is to buy flashlights and mirrors so you can see the gays sneaking up behind you.

there is nothing more to say

@Alie -

If you attended my church I could talk to you in person, but I’m very glad to hear you are reading along.

Which church, Tim? I’ll stop by.

Tim?

Nice try, Tim, but my religious background is neither none of your business, nor does it pertain to the article.

Tim, et al….

I’ve heard it said here and elsewhere that allowing gays to marry somehow infringes on the freedom of religion for those who disagree with it. You are obviously not clear on the concept.

The First Amendment cuts both ways. You suggest that to allow something in society that you find offensive violates your faith. Perhaps it does, but that is how the system works. Nobody has the right to freedom from being offended. In fact, in a free republic, we have to accept that some will disagree with us. Any other path leads down roads nobody sane would consider.

You say nobody has a right to impose Shariah law, and under our Constitution, that’s correct. For exactly the same reasons, the same applies to every other religious law.

Tim,

While I am not a Christian, I firmly hold the belief that one’s afterlife reflects one’s beliefs and actions in life.

Therefore, I believe that Matt. 25:41-46 shows what will happen to you after death.

41“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45“He will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Your god calls you to act with justice, to love tenderly, and to walk humbly. You have no call, spiritual or otherwise, to arrogantly enforce your prejudices on everyone else.

Tim knows he is trying to create a theocracy based “on biblical law” ie, a christian sharia. Thats why he is trying so hard to spin the Sharia concept and blame it on the very people that are currently oppressed and villified by his christianist- extremist views first and sell it. How very MFC/FRC/FRI of you Tim. Every respectable and legitimate medical and psychological association refute and discredit your claims. Every one.

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/12/religious-right-admits-to-using-bad.html

Typical behavior of hate groups to cry “victim” and try to make their victims look like the perpetrators of hate and slander, or fabricate the association to and formation of, a whole new religion like our Tim is doing here…

http://www.bilerico.com/2010/12/cognitive_dissonance_the_splc_effect.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BilericoProject+%28The+Bilerico+Project%29&utm_content=FaceBook

The nutcase religious right loses again..bwahahaha!

Here is a better description of what these fundamentalists are up to, and who their friends are http://rprivitera.newsvine.com/_news/2010/11/07/5423665-christan-right-the-war-on-secular-society