More than 60 law professors speak out against anti–gay marriage amendment

I’m proud of my colleagues for taking a public and principled stand, based on their professional experience and also on their concern for fairness and equity.

There is hope for true moral ground, I am proud that people are starting to understand the oppression and indoctrination, fear tactics that is coming from the religious extreme.

Separation of church and state!

As a lifelong republican, I am embarrassed by their actions. I will remember this when I vote, and I will vote against any representative that has voted for this horrid amendment. This is not the will of Minnesota.

Kudos for these fine members of the legal community-they stated the truth in plain terms. Unfortunately,for many people their particular religious beliefs /personal beliefs trump legal equality.Which is why the rights of the minority should never be subject to the majority.

I must admit, I’m truly amazed at the number of people who are speaking up against this amendment so early in the process. Not only are they speaking up against it, but their arguments are impeccable. I’m pretty awe struck and proud as hell.

The opponents of this travesty have provided sound and reasonable arguments against the passage of bigotry and hate. The only problem, though, is that the proponents do not respond to reasonable arguments. They only know hate and election cycles.

Just because a majority backs a belief does not make it legal or moral. This amendment push needs to be defeated soundly.

Uhm…affirming the unique nature of the relationship between male and female–the one and only biological relationship that forms new human life independently of third parties, and provides a superb environment for raising those children is “bigotry and hate”? Looks to me like reason (and the vaunted value of “civility”) has fled the state. Virtually all the legal needs mentioned can be dealt with without redefining marriage to mean nothing more than “love” or “love and commitment;” a reciprocal beneficiary statute could solve virtually all the issues and be less discriminatory, as it would serve a wider range of households. But no, the goal is “marriage” for the advocates of homosexual behavior–using the force of law to deem biological sex to be irrelevant, and the procreative heterosexual relationship to be immaterial to public policy. Impeccable arguments against the effort? Only if you ignore the difference between intercourse and intracourse….

I’m seldom surprised, through I’m always disappointed that those who benefit from or are unaffected by discrimination don’t see the problem.

@Paul…You say its not the will of Minnesota? Then fine, the people can vote against it at the ballot box and it will fail. That’s the whole point here: the people of Minnesota should be able to decide the definition of marriage, not politicians or judges.

Secondly, I am gay, and happen to support the amendment. All that it does is clarify Minnesota’s already existing marriage definition, and it doesn’t take away anybody’s rights. How is that for your self-righteous, patronizing attitude? I wish people would realize that gay people are not all the same, and we all have different values and opinions. Some of us oppose same-sex marriage, and for good reason.

This amendment will pass overwhelmingly, and as a gay male, I intend to vote for it. I am so sick of leftist nuts pretending to care about my “civil rights” when I already have the same rights as anyone else. To liberals, anything they want or desire is somehow a “civil right” that must be afforded to them. It is ridiculous and sad at the same time. Once we give them this, they will push for something else even more radical.

Marriage has a certain meaning and purpose, neither of which is to simply call any sexual relationship a marriage.

I hope Minnesotans aren’t so stupid as to listen to the opponents of this measure, and rightfully pass it in 2012.

[...] MN: More Than 60 Law Professors Speak Out Against Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment. Read more [...]

The worm has turned

Here’s the Amendment which would allow voters to decide:

“Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

@ Steve

I am sorry that you have only had sexual relations with other people, and have not had the grounded, soul filled reasons to unite as a family and a marriage.

This is for all the people that need that.

I am all for single straight people that want to just live with people, that state that they don’t kneed that paper, that civil and legal binding right of taxes that would equal their 20 year relationship, the ones with children, the ones that need to have the same legal protection for their families on their death beds, in the economic end of their estates, and in the raising of their children.

I am all for those single straight people that want to have no children or see themselves as not parent material, perhaps you do not see yourself as that as well.

This is not about all gay people the same! Just as its not about all straight people being the same. its about the choices, that are given, and the limitations that are placed.

A committed, loving couple that want to join together and have the same legal rights in their union should be the same if man man, woman woman, man woman.

I am a straight person, married for many years, with children. I am the one that all things goes to default on any legal grounds. We have more tax help to allow one of us to stay home, where a same sex couple would not.

This is not about singular views. This is not about your view of your sexual relations but of Unions. Sex is not the top priority, its important, but its not the top of a union.

Ranger G,

You wrote,

—-”Uhm…affirming the unique nature of the relationship between male and female–the one and only biological relationship that forms new human life independently of third parties, and provides a superb environment for raising those children is “bigotry and hate”?”

You’re ignoring the broader context of evidence. First is the observation that opposition to gay marriage appears to be nothing more than an irrational prejudice. If no rational reason can be provided for treating a class of people discriminatorily, then bigotry is a reasonable conclusion. Second, and this should hardly even have to be mentioned, prejudice against gays and lesbians is prevalent in society and includes everything from verbal insults and threats, to discrimination in housing and jobs, to acts of violence and murder. So, if one is looking for the reasons behind opposition to gay marriage, it would sociologically unreasonable to not take prevailing prejudicial attitudes into account.

You also wrote,

—-”But no, the goal is “marriage” for the advocates of homosexual behavior–using the force of law to deem biological sex to be irrelevant, and the procreative heterosexual relationship to be immaterial to public policy.”

“Biological sex”, by which you presumably mean heterosexual intercourse, isn’t deemed irrelevant–it’s bizarre that you’d even make the claim–it’s merely one factor among others that form the case for the institution of marriage.

And it’s difficult to see how gay marriage would make procreation “immaterial to public policy” given that that’s not even a matter under serious discussion in any serious public policy forum. If it were we’d be discussing things like voiding all child custody laws, or striking all laws about abortion from the law books, because after all these things would supposedly be made “immaterial to public policy” if gays were allowed to marry. This is absurd. Of course the purpose of marriage involves the possibility that procreation may occur, but it’s not a requirement for marriage. If it were, many heterosexual couples would be prohibited from marrying.

Lastly,

—-” Virtually all the legal needs mentioned can be dealt with without redefining marriage to mean nothing more than “love” or “love and commitment;”

Marriage is already defined, in part, as a legally recognized “love” or “love commitment.” If that were not the case it’s reasonable to assume that marriage would be reserved for those certain or very likely to bear children. Plenty of heterosexuals get married on the basis of their loving commitment to each other and have no intent for children.

The burden of proof is on you to show why marriage shouldn’t be extended to gays and lesbians when they meet all the criteria for marriage.

All of which adds evidence to the case that the opposition to gay marriage is nothing more than irrational prejudice.

Steven,

You wrote,

—-”I wish people would realize that gay people are not all the same, and we all have different values and opinions.”

The irony is that you want to prevent gays and lesbians who disagree with you from getting married. You want to force them into your box, and prevent them from living according to their values. The only evidence I’ve seen in these discussions of the attitude that all gays and lesbians are the same has come from you yourself.

You also wrote,

—-”All that it does is clarify Minnesota’s already existing marriage definition, and it doesn’t take away anybody’s rights.”

You haven’t explained why it is that the denial of the right (for two men or two women) to get married is NOT to be considered a violation of rights.

—-”Marriage has a certain meaning and purpose, neither of which is to simply call any sexual relationship a marriage.”

Then do you also propose that infertile heterosexual couples be prohibited from getting married? Or heterosexual couples who don’t want kids?

To deny the humanity of me and my wife and the importance of our relationship is beyond the pale.

I doubt Steven is for real.

@lane

valid point.

Even a log cabin Gay that might actually be for the anti-gay amendment is purely doing so to get the Republicans out in force to vote against Obama. Just because your Gay doesn’t mean your NOT prejudiced!

Not only do I doubt Steven is for real, I don’t think Steven is gay. Another lost soul wannabe. Sad.

@Dakotahgeo I think that was Lane’s point when he said he wasn’t real.

HOW DOES ONE PUT BIGOTRY INTO LAW??? SHOULD WE PUT ON BALLOT BAN ON INTERRACIAL MARRIAGES??? JUST BECAUSE SOME VOTE DOESNT MAKE IT OK.IF YOU WANT TO GET MARRIED AND YOURE GAY YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO. DOES MINNESOTA HAVE NOTHIN G MORE TO WORRY ABOUT THAn disabling gays???IS MINNESOTA TRYING TO BE LIKE IRAN??? HOW EFFED UP IS THIS?? ARE BLACKS & JEWS NEXT??

STEVEN THE MAJORITY RULES WHILE PROTECTING THE MINORITY INTEREST AMENDMENT 14TH
SO WE NEED TO PROTECT THE MINORITY INTEREST,,, HOW DO WE DO THAT

LANE STEVEN IS REAL HE MIGHT BE INCOGNITO BUT A POST IS A POST

I HAVE STATED I AM MARRIED WITH CHILDREN AND AM A HETEROL SEXUAL

BUT THAT DOESN’T GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE YOUR LIFE

NO HISTORY ,, NO FACTS , NO NOTHING ,,

DON’T YOU ALL THINK WE ARE TAKING IT TO FAR
JUST LIVE AND LET LIVE

WHAT IS THE GAY COMMUNITY FIGHTING FOR ?

WHAT DO YOU WANT ?
I SUPPORT THE GAY COMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT ME

MY UNCLE FRANK AND AUNT JIM LIVE A HAPPY LIFE [NOT TRYING TO BE MEAN ]

THEY ARE GREAT PEOPLE [ IN FACT JIMS SON IS GETTING MARRIED TODAY ]

I THINK IT GOES TO THE 14TH AMENDMENT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

FORGET THAT I AM MARRIED TO A FEMALE ,, LETS LIVE WITH EQUALITY ,,
I THINK THAT COMES DOWN TO INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

STUDY THE 14TH AMENDMENT ALONG WITH THE 9TH
IT DOESN’T MATTER ANY MORE

WE ALL WANT SOMETHING WE WILL NEVER GET FROM THE U,S,GOVERNMENT
MYSELF PEACE OF MIND
KEEP SEARCHING I APPLAUD THAT ,,, BUT IT COMES A TIME TO LIVE AND LET LIVE
PEOPLE ITS BEEN A LONG AND CRANKY WINTER
ENJOY THE SPRING DAY

LANE AND MARIE GOD IS IN YOUR HEART YOUR FRIEND RAY
PS I WOULD LOVE TO CONNECT WITH YOU TWO ,,,FOR MY OWN SELF PRESERVATION
PPS WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER,, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
NO EXCLUSIONS MS BACHMAN

all this will do is pit neighbor against neighbor……..3yrs later in CA, and there are LONG TIME neighbors who NO LONGER speak to one another….it will do NOTHING but Cause HARD Bitter feelings….and add your state to the list of Bigots/and discriminators in History ….is that want you want MN?

——————————————————————————–

like i said we need to move to individual rights
Marie i think your post is great

how about a beneficiary idea

but it opens so many doors

like i said we need to move to individual rights
Marie i think your post is great

how about a beneficiary idea

but it opens so many doors

so just have individual rights for everyone

i am starting to think this bill will clog the courts for ever

please help i don’t understand this

is there a state that has everything that everyone wants

as usual the everyday press has lost me

LANE,,,, MARIE I NEED YOUR HELP TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME