Bachmann, Pawlenty urge supporters to defend ‘traditional marriage’

What is wrong with you Minnesota? How does crazy lady Bachman keep getting elected? Luckily no one takes her seriously. Tim Pawlenty is barely less insane. I’m looking forward to the Republican’ts digging themselves into historic irrelevancy.

Sometimes, the sign of a true leader is to make policy decisions that extend beyond the boundaries of their own personal beliefs. Closed minded bafoons like Pawlenty and Bachmann could learn from the president’s example. Don’t count on it though…

The American Taliban continue to foist their religious views on us all. When will reason and fact replace myth and mysticism? Never, if T-Paw and Bachmann have their way.

Praise Jebus, God hates monogamy, Amen.

Conservatives, it seems, are always in favor of “freedom” – as long as it’s the right KIND of freedom (freedom for themselves to do whatever they want).

When it’s the wrong kind of freedom – the freedom for others to hold them accountable to their words and actions, the freedom for others to practice a religion that is not “worshipping Jesus Christ in the way I do” (let alone those scary Pagan gods, or people who don’t believe in any god), the freedom of others to do things that conservatives might not want to do, the freedom of others to control their own bodies and lives – conservatives LOOOOOOOOOVE to ban it.

Obama should be impeached for his neglect to defend the current law.

This clearly shows that his numerous failed policies have brought him to a desperate position, in which he is willing to put aside his personal belief for the defense of marriage in exchange for the financial support of the wealthy gay lobby. He is a sick man, desperate for his presidency and his legacy to be remembered by something other than complete failure. Only a fool would sell their soul for success.

Everyone including Obama knows that the DOM will never be overturned, but this stunt puts the wealthy gay lobby clearly behind Obama’s campaign for re-election. Pretending to be in support of the creation of a gay theocracy (legalizing the moral perspective of the gay lobby over all other religious claims) is all it takes to get their energy, money and votes behind him.

What if other presidents’ neglect to defend current laws? Like defending states that refuse to perform abortions or refuse to implement Obamacare (which has already been rules unconstitutional by two federal judges)?

Obama has opened the door for all of the policies that are currently laws to be neglected by the next president. Because of this, everyone should be upset as he once again has shown his love for corruption and his failure to be a leader. How did such a coward get elected as president?

Welcome back, Tim.

No, equal rights are still not a theocracy.

No, nobody is forcing you to marry a guy if you don’t want to.

Yes, you are legally required to treat us as human beings.

Yes, you are legally required to not attack or murder us.

Yes, it would be preferred if you just went away.

Michele Bachmann already has her gay marriage – or at least a gay husband. Maybe that’s why she hates gays so much. Marcus Bachmann will make a lovely first lady.

Yes, a theocracy is when the law denies equal rights to LGBTI people “because my religion says they’re sinners”. Denying religious fanatics the ability to do so is the OPPOSITE of a theocracy.

Also, you clearly didn’t bother to read what the White House actually said in its tremendously detailed legal argument: it is an established principle that the administration is required to defend and uphold laws which are constitutional, but they /are not/ required to contest a court determination that a law is null and void due to unconstitutionality. In that case, it is a judgement call for the executive branch to contest that determination or let it stand based on whether or not *their* own legal analysis agrees with that of the courts. They are legally and morally required to defend the law if they believe that the court erred and the law in question is in fact constitutional, and to stand aside when they believe that the court was correct and the law in question is unconstitutional.

America. Where the European Enlightenment goes to die.

Praise Jebus, God hates rational men, Amen.

Tim P said: “abdicated this responsibility, all for the sake of partisan political gain.”

Give me a big frickin break Timmy!! Everything you do IS FOR partisan political gain! My Gawd, you would sell out your mother if you thought some nut job, conservative, Christian group would allow you to speak at their next garage sale.

Bachmann and Pawlenty are complaining that Obama is putting his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” ahead of republican extreme ideology and unconstitutional law. Anti-constitution whiners.

“a federal statute passed overwhelmingly by Congress” is no proof of constitutionality. If it were, we would not need the Supreme Court.

If republicans really wanted to defend traditional marriage, they should ban divorce, revoke women’s suffrage and right to work, and outlaw birth control. Put women back in their traditional cage.

Gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with traditional marriage. They play in two different leagues. All the conservative talking points are just code for religious persecution.

“”John Shannon
Comment posted February 25, 2011 @ 9:42 am

Sometimes, the sign of a true leader is to make policy decisions that extend beyond the boundaries of their own personal beliefs. Closed minded bafoons like Pawlenty and Bachmann could learn from the president’s example. Don’t count on it though…”"

Thank you John, I couldn’t have said it better.

What is good for one, is not good for the whole. We are individuals in a vast community. It is purely ok for me to disagree with Obama on his personal stance of what is a marriage to him personally. For me that is. I really don’t care what he, or Tim supports as a marriage for them, for its not MY marriage, its not MY FAMILY. What makes me a family is going to be very different than the next.

That is what makes this a strong wonderful country. NOT indoctrination and oppression to be free and equal, no matter what the differences are.

Its time for true Straight alliance. It took whites to change race in-equalities (although the extreme religious right wanted those in-equalities) it took men to help get the women the right to vote (again, not due to religious extremes) and its going to take straight men and women to say what the? Its not for me, but as long as you don’t make me I don’t care, pay your taxes, don’t abuse your spouses and children and give back to the community, after that? who the hell cares!

Poor Tim, his world is crumbling around him. Liberty and justice for all just doesn’t compute in his never-never-land.

It is amusing to me to hear your guys use words that sound good like ‘equality’, while your ideas have nothing to do with equality and if established would only reduce equality and freedom.

If your ideas were written into law, the government would be responsible to enforce your religious and moral convictions about sexuality and everyone else’s religious ideas would become illegal. These radical ideas would not leave me alone as your supporters like to suggest, but they would shut down my business and my church and put anyone that disagrees in prison.

That is a far, far cry from ‘equality’ and justice and freedom that are protected by the US constitution. In fact, it is the constitution that is in your way as other nations that do not have a constitution have already given in to your twisted language and propaganda and now they have lost a great amount of equality and freedom.

The only way to force society to accept your moral convictions about sexuality is to create an unconstitutional law in direct violation of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religions. Canada has already acknowledged that they have given up these freedoms.

It would be a disaster, as businesses, churches, colleges, government branches would be shut down and everyone would be forced to believe in your religious convictions about your sexuality.

This is already happening in other nations like Canada and the UK as they have just begun to realize what they have done. Some of your supporters like Marie may not have figured it out yet, but the goal of the gay lobby is not to improve equality, but to reduce equality and convert America into a theocracy.

Tim – Are you Tim Pawlenty? You’re every bit as compassionate as he is if you’re not him.

Up is down, down is up in your world, Tim. We all will find out about equal rights in a few short years. I predict the sun will rise in the East and all will be well in the good old U.S. of A. Sleep well, Timmy, it’ll be alright.

Only in Social Conservative Bizarro Land does losing the ability to forcibly impose your religious beliefs on others constitute a “loss of freedom and equality”.

The ONLY people in America who actually want to have the government “enforce their religious and moral convictions about sexuality” are Christian fundamentalists. They are the ones who insist that the government needs to actively endorse and support the imposition of Christian rules on non-Christians and that a return to neutrality is somehow “violating their rights”.

Freedom of religion means that I have the right to be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or a Wiccan, or a follower of any other religion there is, or to make up my own religion, or adhere to no religion at all. I have the right to believe that *my* religion is right and *your* religion is wrong, and I have the right to try to convince other people that they should follow *my* religion no matter how much you disagree with me. And since you have exactly the same right to follow *your* religion and to try to convert people to it, we’re all exactly equal; we all have freedom of religion.

We all lose our freedom of religion when any religion gets the government to say that *their* beliefs are right and that *everyone* must follow those beliefs whether or not they agree with them. So when the government grants opposite-sex couples special marriage rights which are not available to same-sex couples, it is violating freedom of religion; it is using the power of government to force every American to accept that *this* religion is right and *that* religion is wrong.

Wow really Tim? I live in Canada and gay marriage increases equality and freedom not reduce it. You obviously dont even know what a thocracy is you just seem to throw that around. idiot >.>

And the Minnesota “log cabin republicans” think they can somehow persuade their fellow IR’s (Ignorant Reactionaries) to support gay marriage..dream on.

Those in opposition to same sex marriage should concentrate on their own marriages, rather than spend time and energy worrying about Tom amd Bill, or Jane and Sally spending the rest of their lives together LEGALLY; thus the sability to enjoy the benifits and rights of their unions..

Same Sex Marriage DOES NOT affect marriage between a man and a woman. Given the horrible track record of heterosexual marriage, one in two marriages end in Divorce within the first 2 years.

Michele Bahmann and Tim Pawlenty are far too busy iimposing their religious views onto others. They are barking up the wrong tree. Society has moved forward despite their objections to change.

I know, let’s put it on the ballot! Since society has, you know, moved forward and all, that’ll be the perfect way to record this so-called “progress.”

You mean the ballot initiative to outlaw divorce and re-marriage? That would definitely protect “traditional marriage” more than anything!

YES!!!

There should be State Laws that states that when a man and woman marry, they are stuck with each other for eternity. Divorce is a punishable offense with a $10,000 fine per person and 2 year Jail sentence. All properties owned by the couiple revert to the state. The children, if any, are left with nothing, become wards of the state.

That ought to be plenty to protect “Traditional Marriage” by crackey!!!

Dennis,

So if we put gay marriage for a vote, what other civil rights should we put up for a vote? Which version of Christianity is the preferred one, or should we vote for English as the official language? Which of your rights would you want voted on?

Remember that up to 1967 states still could prevent couples of different skin colors from marrying.

Civil rights, the rights to assemble, to associate are NOT something that should be voted on.

Accept the fact that our constitution was written to protect minority rights. And GBLT citizens are no longer accepting second class status.

Keep it simple, Lady K. Have the divorcing individuals pay alimony to the state, cumulative with each divorce. If they cannot afford the alimony, they don’t get the divorce.

The Republican form of government promised to each state by the Constitution does not allow for the revocation of individual rights and liberties by a simple majority. A much higher standard is required.

prop8 was ruled unconstitutional, and it would be no less unconstitutional in any other state.

i want to hear the points and counter points of a gay marriage
is it for legal purposes, insured party,s for family’s

can some one take the time to explain it or a web site ,
i never hear why it is so important to people ,is it just for legal and tax purposes
and please keep it simple i am very interested in it
because i believe in equal protection under the law 14th amendment

i am a heterol sexual married for 25 years and we got married for tax and legal purposes would this be considered the same ideology

i do believe gay or straight couples have about the same break up rate equally [divorce]
all of the points above really didn’t mean anything to me maybe bullet point it
both pro and con
my own opion it is a waste of tax payer dollar to discuss it
but that is because i don’t understand it

Dating is not that simple nowdays. People of today does not base their relationship on trust. Without trust there js nothing.

@ray — Here ya go:

http://www.project515.org/

http://stop8.org/ monitors 494 news sources throughout the nation to bring you the latest headlines in the fight for marriage equality.

Judge Walker’s August 2010 138-page ruling invalidating California’s Proposition 8 can be found at http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374462/California-Prop-8-Ruling-August-2010.

thanks lane i will read these i always value your insight and views,
chapter and verse i will read that to thank you

isn’t prop 8 origination with Harvey milk,
i have watched the movie several times including the documentary
also internet stuff
Anita Bryant was a nut case she must be bachmans role model

my motto is LIVE AND LET LIVE
i have an uncle who has a partner and they are the two greatest people in the world
and are so happy together , they enjoy life better than 99 percent of most people
and that’s what God wants us to do ENJOY LIFE

“So if we put gay marriage for a vote, what other civil rights should we put up for a vote? ”

The ignorant rulings of liberal judges notwithstanding, putting gay marriage on the ballot is not putting anyone’s “civil rights” on the ballot.

Gay people have the same right to marry as straight people. To marry someone who is of legal age and of the opposite sex. What gay people want is DIFFERENT than what everyone else has. Being able to marry “the one you love” is ambiguous because it could include all manner of humanity, flora and fauna.

That’s not a constitutionally protected right and therefore is fair game for the people to decide via the ballot. But if you’re all convinced that society has, you know, “progressed” to where everyone accepts it now, you should have nothing to worry about.

ray, Harvey Milk didn’t have anything to do with Proposition 8. Matter of fact, if he weren’t assassinated, he would have swung out against this initiative to limit marriage to one man and one woman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)

The Mormon Church provided a lot of Prop 8 funding. For shocking details, watch this DVD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition

Contrary to Walking Eagle’s discredited talking points, a constitutional right to marry does exist, having been established by the courts in many cases over time. Again, I refer the reader to Judge Walker’s ruling at the link above. Additional links touching on this subject are:

http://www.hrc.org/issues/5517.htm
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Arguments-Against-Gay-Marriage.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

Dennis: So in other words, you’re saying, “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”

Ray,

There are two major problems with gay marriage.

The first problem is that without defending the definition of marriage, we will no longer be able to defend the freedoms that are critical to our national success – namely the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech – as other nations like Canada have already admitted they have lost.

The idea of gay marriage is not the problem. But the implications of gay marriage would become a major problem. Because once gay marriage is instituted by the state, the state will be forced to defend the law against anyone that wants to live out a different religious or moral belief in their daily work. That means that businesses, governments, hospitals, schools, churches, etc. will be forced to accept the moral and very much religious idea of gay marriage as protected by law – regardless of their religious convictions.

Therefore gay marriage is unconstitutional because it is the institution of religious ideas by the government – a theocracy. The law would lead to the criminalization of anyone that disagrees, regardless of religious convictions and therefore our nation would no longer be a nation of freedom of religion or of speech.

It’s easy to join the group be part of a movement in the name of ‘equality’ as it is being sold, but it would not results in ‘equality’ but religious discrimination and persecution and the loss of our nations freedoms that are vital to the success and prosperity of our nation.

The second problem is that if the definition of marriage is redefined to include any relationship of people that love each other, then there are no legal grounds to prohibit incest, polygamy or pedophilia. There is a case in Canada right now making this argument about polygamy, which is based on the ruling for gay marriage.

Two of my friends have been gay, so I thought about joining the support for gay marriage, but after further research I discovered that the nation will be better off defending the traditional definition of marriage.

Recycling the same ol’ discredited slippery slope arguments, eh? *yawn*

hey thanks for all the links , i put them on my desktop just in case this chat goes away
i hope it doesn’t for a while ,as i am trying to create legitimate debate and not slanderous comments that we see all to often .
i got some reading to do

but incest polygamy and pedophilia thats where you draw the line

even tho we are suppose to be living in a civilized society with acceptance
i think that crosses the line and in an ever changing world we live in .
i would hope everyone would agree that crosses the line

lane and Marie you kinda know my story by now i thank you for your support and understanding

Ray –

Here is an entire book of reasons not to support gay marriage.

“Correct, Not Politically Correct: How Same-Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone”

http://www.amazon.com/Correct-Politically-Same-Sex-Marriage-Everyone/dp/1607081628

Doing the appropriate research, we find that Turek quotes the same lies being spread by hate groups like Focus On the Family and Family Research Council.

Turek has carefully kept his book out of the view of critical publications, it seems – I cannot find a single review of it coming from an editor of a widely-recognized publication such as Kirkus or Library Review. I can conclude only that he has no confidence in his work’s viability in the wider market.

Not surprised, however, that Tim is quoting a work that is kept meticulously fact-free.

ray, re: incest, polygamy and pedophilia, I refer you to http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm – go to #9:

9. Same-sex marriage would start us down a “slippery slope” towards legalized incest, bestial marriage, polygamy and all manner of other horrible consequences. A classic example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy, it is calculated to instill fear in the mind of anyone hearing the argument. It is, of course, absolutely without any merit based on experience. If the argument were true, wouldn’t that have already happened in countries where forms of legalized gay marriage already exist? Wouldn’t they have ‘slid’ towards legalized incest and bestial marriage? The reality is that a form of gay marriage has been legal in Scandinavian countries for many years, and no such legalization has happened, nor has there been a clamor for it. It’s a classic scare tactic – making the end scenario so scary and so horrible that the first step should never be taken. Such are the tactics of the fear and hatemongers.

The current state of affairs is that the government grants *de facto* endorsement of Christian moral beliefs by granting numerous special legal rights to straight couples which are not available to gay couples. Gay couples would like to have equal access to those special rights, whereas Christians oppose equal rights for gays because they believe that gays are “sinners” who deserve to be punished.

The government should not be punishing gays on behalf of Christians. The government should be strictly neutral.

What this really comes down to is men who are afraid of their masculinity being threatened.

In fact, that’d be a pretty strong grand unified theory of conservatism in general, that it’s basically all about a fear of appearing unmanly, given the knee-jerk use of anti-woman, anti-feminine language in virtually every discussion.

The government should not be punishing gays on behalf of Christians. The government should be strictly neutral….

I love that comment. The mere idea that a religion is belittled by governments neutrality, is absurd. Just cause one thinks Jazz music is the best on the planet, it doesn’t mean that all other music is to be eliminated. By all means listen to nothing else, make that choice, make the choice to not listen to science, and to facts that can be physically proven. One can even parade down the street and say that all gay people are evil and should die a terrible death. as long as they don’t act on it.

To support the equality of all men and women in all stages of life, with all religion, financial status, age, sexual orientation, and race, is not to take away from anyone.

No traditional marriage will be weakened by equality for Gays to marry. It will be strengthened.

The government is not punishing gays on behalf of Christians. That is a complete lie.
Gay marriage is not a neutral position, but a very moral and religious position.

The defense of marriage does not say that gay people are evil or that they are not born that way. The defense of marriage is not the defense of Christianity. The defense of marriage is the defense of nature and society in order to bring the greatest benefit to civilization – giving children the best change to have a father and a mother. Why do you want to punish children by giving them less than they need?

Gay marriage would tremendously weakened traditional marriage; drastically reduce the rights of everyone, including parents and pastors to teach their children their own moral convictions. It would devastate the nation by destroying the motivation and willingness to work hard and raise a family, which would lead to a financial collapse as our prosperity would be gone.

The only way to overlook this is if you severely under-estimate the value of freedom and ignore the fact that freedom is the cornerstone of America’s success.

Cut out the hysterics, Tim.

Tim, you can not state that the government is not punishing gays one moment and then say Marriage is all about religion. It is not and who’s religion. certainly not mine, and I am a straight american woman married.

Marriage is not legal and binding unless it is signed by the state. so no church is a binding legal matter in marriage, its only ceremonial at best.

Keep your ceremony and keep within YOUR church, and not my home.

Marie –

That is correct. Marriage is not based on religion, but on nature and the clear evidence that it brings the greatest benefit to civilization – giving children the best chance to have a father and a mother. Anything less punishes children.

On the other hand, gay marriage is a very moral and religion idea, in which the state would be directly in violation of the rights of religion and speech. And the implications of gay marriage would have a severe negative effect on the entire nation, as Canada and UK have just begun to realize.

For example, in UK court has just rules that Christians can no longer be foster parents, because their religion beliefs infringe in the government sponsored religion beliefs of homosexuals.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/uk-high-court-upholds-bar-on-christian-foster-parents-over-homosexual-views-49219/

And in Canada, there is a pending case that argues that polygamy should be allowed because marriage has been redefined by the gay-marriage law.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1294304

Canada has also just ruled that ministers must marriage gay couples regardless of their own religious convictions, because they are state funded and therefore the state is obligated to enforce their homosexual religion.

These nations are just beginning to realize that they have created a theocracy – a state supported religion. I wish it was not true and we could ignore the facts, but gay marriage is unconstitutional and does not lead to more rights, but fewer rights for everyone.

It is very easy to get caught up in the movement and buzz words like ‘equality’, but if you do a little research you will find something completely different.

The U.K. case involves sexual ethics as well as religious convictions. Why would the authorities place a gay child with homophobic foster parents as that is tantamount to child abuse? The welfare of the child supercedes all – including Mom, Dad, god, jebus and fantastical writings and associated interpretations.

Public officials who draw a salary from taxpayer funds are expected to follow all laws – and to apply the law equally to all citizens regardless of personal feelings.

The canard about a child needing a mother and a father to thrive is not necessarily supported by reality. Biology and ideology do not guarantee good parenting skills. All children need good, stable parenting – whether it be their mom, their mom and dad, their dad, their grandparents or other relatives, foster parents, their mom and mom, their dad and dad, and on and on.

How about picking up that stuck needle in your mind and putting it on its rest, Tim? It is tedious to hear the same notes over and over from you here.

Lane –

If the “welfare of the child supercedes all “, then gay marriage would never have become legal, because children given to gay parents always harms children by depriving them of a mother and a father – which has been proven to be the safest and most benefitial environment for children.

And yes, once the government puts religious and moral beliefs into laws, they are bound to follow the laws – this is a theocracy, which is the complete opposite of religious freedom. Canada and the UK are just beginning to discover what they have done.

Just pick up that needle, honey.

Timmy timmy timmy.

You’re so wrong you’re not even in the same bloody state as right.

no i agree with you lane
but it is a concern no doubt
its not going to lead down a slippery slope
two people living together , big deal
making it a formal legal representation for two people big deal

i don’t think same sex marriage is going to cause incest,

but in so many cases of all kinds of weird activity is in the hetero sexual community
and probably along with the gay community but it doesn’t create the norm

lane i believe you to be a good person, i see some level headed anger , but i think the dennis’s of this world bring that out

i wish i could some how tell you my story and how people like Dennis made things so much worse , being in the military you see alot of weird things, in which they think are normal which are not

You’re all dumbasses. Tim is obviously not going to understand what love is, ever. And you’re all stupid for trying to make him understand.

lane
i read alot of the web pages thanks for helping me understand

what we talked about before
mel dahl vrs the united states navy

YOUR A GOOD PERSON GOD BLESS

That tidbit Mel Dahl vs the USN is useful information. Thanks, Ray.