Details scant on marriage amendment poll touted by GOP

Proof that these extremist groups have a personal agenda and are indeed trying to push their singular religious views into law, and therefore trying to indoctrinate the public to live within their chosen lifestyle.

I find this to be a form of slavery and oppression!

The latest CNN polling (back in April) on the question of gay marriage found that in the Midwest (state by state data apparently wasn’t available) found 54% approval and 45% disapproval.

QUESTION:

If the legislators say they’re voting for the amendment because the people want to put it to a vote, why don’t they vote for an amendment that would LEGALIZE same-sex marriage instead of one that BANS it? That way, people get a say on same-sex marriage AND you don’t endanger the rights of the minority.

It’s a weak argument, I know, especially because minority rights shouldn’t be up to a vote, but it sure pokes holes in the shitty idea that a gay marriage ban is “letting the people speak.”

Elections have consequences. The Repubs won the House by just 600 votes, and this is the consequence of that victory. They have the power to do whatever they want.

Elections may feel shallow or hollow at times, but this ideological overreach should show that voting really does make a difference. Get out there in 2012.

JMW, your argument isn’t weak. If marriage equality is just a matter of statute, then until the GOP gets over its homophobia, the law is going to change every time control of the government changes. Protecting rights might require putting them in the constitution. On the other hand, while the majority shouldn’t get to vote on whether the minority gets rights, the constitution is the appropriate place to specifically protect rights.

@ EricF: I agree. If you listen to the so-called conservatives today, the only purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens against the power of an over-reaching government by enshrining certain personal rights and liberties. That’s why they call the first 10 amendments the “Bill of Rights,” not the “Bill of Things You Don’t Have a Right To Do.” So, it makes sense for there to be an amendment specifically mandating marriage equality, but is absolute nonsense, not to mention un-American, to have an amendment that does the opposite.

[...] Louis Park Legislator's Gay Rights Speech Becomes a YouTube HitPatch.comOn Top Magazine -Minnesota Independent -KSTP.comall 327 news [...]

If there is a hell, there are going to be so many evangelicals in it there won’t be room for any gays.

Marriage wasn’t always JUST a heterosexual privilege. Even the Roman Catholic Church used to perform and bless these weddings AND there is historical record and artifact to prove it.

WHEN SAME-SEX MARRIAGE WAS A CHRISTIAN RITE1

By ThosPayne

St Sergius and St BacchusA Kiev art museum contains a curious icon from St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai in Israel. It shows two robed Christian saints. Between them is a traditional Roman ‘pronubus’ (a best man), overseeing a wedding. The pronubus is Christ. The married couple are both men.

Is the icon suggesting that a gay “wedding” is being sanctified by Christ himself? The idea seems shocking. But the full answer comes from other early Christian sources about the two men featured in the icon, St. Sergius and St. Bacchus,2 two Roman soldiers who were Christian martyrs. These two officers in the Roman army incurred the anger of Emperor Maximian when they were exposed as ‘secret Christians’ by refusing to enter a pagan temple. Both were sent to Syria circa 303 CE where Bacchus is thought to have died while being flogged. Sergius survived torture but was later beheaded. Legend says that Bacchus appeared to the dying Sergius as an angel, telling him to be brave because they would soon be reunited in heaven.

While the pairing of saints, particularly in the early Christian church, was not unusual, the association of these two men was regarded as particularly intimate. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch (512 – 518 CE) explained that, “we should not separate in speech they [Sergius and Bacchus] who were joined in life”. This is not a case of simple “adelphopoiia.” In the definitive 10th century account of their lives, St. Sergius is openly celebrated as the “sweet companion and lover” of St. Bacchus. Sergius and Bacchus’s close relationship has led many modern scholars to believe they were lovers. But the most compelling evidence for this view is that the oldest text of their martyrology, written in New Testament Greek describes them as “erastai,” or “lovers”. In other words, they were a male homosexual couple. Their orientation and relationship was not only acknowledged, but it was fully accepted and celebrated by the early Christian church, which was far more tolerant than it is today.

Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

Prof. John Boswell3, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

While homosexuality was technically illegal from late Roman times, homophobic writings didn’t appear in Western Europe until the late 14th century. Even then, church-consecrated same sex unions continued to take place.

At St. John Lateran in Rome (traditionally the Pope’s parish church) in 1578, as many as thirteen same-gender couples were joined during a high Mass and with the cooperation of the Vatican clergy, “taking communion together, using the same nuptial Scripture, after which they slept and ate together” according to a contemporary report. Another woman to woman union is recorded in Dalmatia in the 18th century.

Prof. Boswell’s academic study is so well researched and documented that it poses fundamental questions for both modern church leaders and heterosexual Christians about their own modern attitudes towards homosexuality.

For the Church to ignore the evidence in its own archives would be cowardly and deceptive. The evidence convincingly shows that what the modern church claims has always been its unchanging attitude towards homosexuality is, in fact, nothing of the sort.

It proves that for the last two millennia, in parish churches and cathedrals throughout Christendom, from Ireland to Istanbul and even in the heart of Rome itself, homosexual relationships were accepted as valid expressions of a [Christian] god-given love and commitment to another person, a love that could be celebrated, honored and blessed, through the Eucharist in the name of, and in the presence of, Jesus Christ.

“… in the evening the youth came to him [Jesus], wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.” —The Secret Gospel of Mark, The Other Bible, Willis Barnstone, Editor, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1984, pp. 339-342.

NOW, when to gay folks get to vote on the straight communities rights? How fair would you think that was if it was YOU who weren’t able marry the person of your choice? Bigotry and hypocrisy ARE NOT Minnesota values. The Mormon Church, NOM and the FRC mothership of outside money and influence should just pack up their bigot-bus and GO HOME!!!

Excellent Comment Wendy!

[...] right-wing Minnesota Family Council to produce poll results on their behalf. Minnesota Independent reported that “the groups touting the survey are remaining mum about the poll’s details.” [...]

[...] right-wing Minnesota Family Council to produce poll results on their behalf. Minnesota Independent reported that "the groups touting the survey are remaining mum about the poll's details." Lawrence said that [...]