DFL launches campaign focusing on gay and lesbian families

The Reitan’s ROCK! We first saw them in the award winning film, “For the Bible Tells Me SO,” in 2007. We invited them to speak at our church (CPC) and they were so gracious. We’re so grateful for them and their advocacy. Go Randi & Phil! …and Jake of course.

Homosexuals do need some legal partnership to allow them to live without worry in these circumstances, but marriage isn’t the answer. Domestic Partnerships or some other civil union is perfectly appropriate.

“Marriage-Lite” does not constitute full legal equality, is not universally recognized, and is an insult to same-sex couples and their children.

@HG

So, you’re essentially making it a semantics issue. Marriage vs. civil union – I fail to see the distinction.

And what is meant by “some legal partnership?” Why should not two committed people of any gender not enjoy the same rights and priveleges with regard to one another as any other two committed people? Where do we draw the line on discrimination, and who decides? Make no mistake – this IS discrimination.

This is awesome. Thanks to all those involved in this campaign. Let’s all share these videos with those who need to see them!

What’s up with the “Bachmann for President” ad right below the story??? lol

Chris,

Because homosexual unions and heterosexual unions are not the same. This isn’t discrimination any more than Domestic Partnerships are. Many DP’s do not allow heterosexual couple under 62 years of age to enter into them. Affirmative action is only afforded to minorities. The laws make distinctions all the time between race, gender, and sexuality. It doesn’t alway mean discrimination and inequality.

Chris if you don’t see the difference between a DP (civil union) and Marriage, then why not just accept DP’s a leave marriage to those who do see the difference?

HG, there are currently lawsuits against the under age 62 restriction for opposite-sex domestic partnerships. Just because lawmakers make a law “distinguishing between race, gender, and sexuality” does not mean it’s legal.

Tovin,

It doesn’t mean it’s illegal either.

HG, whether it’s legal or illegal is not up to you. It is for the courts to decide.

Tovin,

Then I guess it isn’t up to you either, eh?

HG, not unless the case appears in my court.

Which court migth that be?

@Tovind
Truth or not that was really funny.

But I’m very serious.

Which court, Tovin?

HG, you’ll need a court order to find out, and I’m not issuing it.

Tovin,

You realize nothing you’ve said disproves my comment above you initially responded to.

HG, your comment is your opinion. You are welcome to your opinions. But they have no authority beyond your nose.

Well, opinions are exactly what these blogs are about. Readers will decide the merit of the opinions themselves. Yours is just another opinion on this site.

HG, readers read. That’s what readers do. Readers don’t have to “decide the merit” of opinions on this forum any more than I have to decide the merit of a sand castle I see at the beach. You can build your sand castle to please you.

They don’t have to, but they often do. Your comments are evidence of that.

HG, they are all sand castles. If you view them as “deciding the merits”, that’s your view, another of your sand castles.

With such a low view of opinions, why bother sharing your own here?

HG,

Many people on this board have complained that because gay people are treated differently that heterosexuals are also discriminated against. For example in California, any two people of the same sex who live together can go down to their city hall,. pay a fee and get a domestic partnership. They then can receive the benefits of those. When they wish to dissolve the DP, they go down to City Hall again, pay a fee and dissolve it.

Many heterosexuals, even many on this board, complain this is discriminatory against unmarried heterosexuals who live with each other but are not married. They too want the benefits of this “marriage lite”. I happen to agree. Because same sex couples are legally required that they are treated differently, this is unequal treatment, sometimes more benefiting to heterosexuals (more often), sometimes more benefiting to homosexuals (less often). Separate is inherently unequal.

Same or opposite gender, all couples should be treated the same under the law and held to the same standard. Allow all to marry, allow all civil unions, or get the government out of the business of regulating personal relationships altogether.

HG, “low view” is your opinion. Ask yourself, “why bother sharing” it? I did not have a “low view” of sand castles. Thank you for sharing yours with me.

If the religious right wish to foist their religious views on the entire population then the details of their faith, myths and fairy tales become fair game. Constitutional protections aside, they can’t impose a same sex marriage ban unless they can prove the accuracy of the entire set of documents upon which this ridiculous amendment are based. And each detail of their misguided mythology must become fodder for this discussion.

Want to force your religion on the state, prove your religious texts accuracy first. And during that time GLBTs, their families and supporters will remain the voices of reason.

Praise Jebus, God hates tall tales, Amen.

HG,

Please itemize in which ways same sex couples should be treated differently, other than just using a different name.

I don’t read a word of what HG posts on this site and I’d encourage other readers to do the same. If nothing else, he’s boring. He’ll get tired of posting to these articles if nobody responds to him.

nathaniel,

How would you know I’m boring if you “dont read a word of what HG posts”?

Regardless of whether or not you read my comments, others do. Among those other may be those who do not comment. Posting comments isn’t just to respond but to voice opinions rarely represented on this far left “Minnesota Independent” site.

“Allow all to marry, allow all civil unions, or get the government out of the business of regulating personal relationships altogether.”

So either homosexuals get to marry or nobody does.

Very mature.

So HG admits to being a paid troll? There are more honest ways to make a living.

Wrong again Lane. You never tire of that do you

HG, anyone can “voice opinion” but do you have a valid reason why the government should restrict the legal benefits of marriage to only opposite sex couples? Or do you believe the government should just do whatever is popular, as for example, to deny someone government benefits if that person is disliked?

Tovin,

I’ve expressed valid reasons in my opinions. You deny the validity. Why should I answer you again?

HG, you do realize that by broadcasting your opinions such as they are along with your inability to counter rebuttals is not particularly persuasive to the fair-minded, but undecided reader that may visit this website? That many of our rebuttals would probably not have been articulated and published here absent your comments in which case we thank you for your unwitting role.

In other words, you are probably hurting your crusade against equal access to civil marriage for those who are LGBTI.

HG, a valid reason does not need your opinion to hold it up and your opinion is not a substitute for a valid reason. A valid reason can stand on the force of its own argument. You posted your erroneous opinion about a Dutch study but the study itself proved you wrong, and even if the study had agreed with you, it wasn’t a valid reason to deny gay people government assistance. So you have yet to answer the question.

Well you’re entitled to your opinions.

Apparently we are all entitled to HG’s opinions. Just not any proof supporting his opinions.

Praise Jebus, God hates reasons, Amen.

Carl, you deny the CDC and other findings as well?

I guess you just want everyone to play along, eh?

Let’s all just forget the facts that support the CDC and NEMESIS findings. Lets pretend health departments including the NY department of health aren’t warning homosexuals about the physical and mental health risks. Let’s ignore the fact that many health departments throughout the world will not allow homosexuals to donate blood.

Gee, this is fun. Homosexuality is perfectly healthy.

HG, you talk of “the CDC and NEMESIS findings”, They have found a “direct link” (your term) between being female and a variety of mental disorders, that “disproportionately affect women”. To quote the World Health Organization, “Gender differences occur particularly in the rates of common mental disorders… These disorders, in which women predominate… constitute a serious public health problem.” Do you believe that means the government should provide less benefits to women than to men? There are also increased risks being a race car driver or living in one city versus another. Does that mean race car drivers and people in certain cities should not be permitted to marry?

Tovin,

Dancing around the facts won’t change the realities I just referred to in my last comment. You go ahead and keep trying to justify your views of the findings. I’ll stick with what the medical community is actually doing in response to the findings.

HG,

You have started with an assumption, namely homosexuality is bad, to which you cling with a death grip, and then cherry pick only the information that supports your assumption. Your cherry picked evidence has been countered and explained, even disproven in a half dozen strings across this website. Your pseudoscience, misused evidence and appeals to tradition, heritage and religious control are no longer in play for those who have monitored the debate. But, there’s always a new string where you can ignore previous defeats and repeat your propaganda no matter how tired, off point or misleading. Would Jesus lie even if He thought that lie was in furtherance of a larger Truth? I don’t think so.

Anyway, here goes…Straight people and the general public have also been warned by the CDC about a constellation of behaviors, activities and environmental hazards over the years. Shall they be oppressed or constitutionally constrained according to their specific public health risks? And what pray tell do gay people do that straight people do not? Oral sex? Sodomy? Please tell me you are not that naive, HG.

Praise Jebus, God hates freewill, Amen.

HG, “the medical community” is by and large pro-same-sex marriage. “What the medical community is actually doing” is informing us that everyone on the planet has different risk factors and that risks are a societal issue as much as a personal issue and they can be managed. You might want to get a mental health checkup.

Standard Carl Rove strategy. Repeat lies often and those who want them to be true will believe.

Praise Jebus, God hates the secular state, Amen.

Carl,

Nothing has been adequately explained, just explained away. Much like you’re doing now. You may wish to remain convinced that homosexuality is not a significant health risk, but the facts prove otherwise. You may attempt to equate those risks with other findings, but you have to ignore the differences to do so. For instance, “what do gay people do that straight people do not?” as if sex with the same gender is no different from sex with the opposite gender. The answer is obvious, gay people have sex with the same gender, straight people do not. In fact, that distinction alone is grounds for refusal to donate blood in some countries. Sex with the same gender within the last ten years is a disqualifier.

Tovin,

What the medical community is doing is warning homosexuals that homosexuality carries with it numerous health risks and those health risks disqualify them for donating blood. Color it however you like, but that is what is happening.

HG, sexual activity whether heterosexual or homosexual carries risks, even between married persons. Married heterosexual persons can also be disqualified from donating blood. But disqualification from blood donation does not mean a person cannot marry or should not marry. You have ZERO authority to speak for “the medical community”. You are an internet clown.

“HG” is obviously an overpaid NOM troll like the highly intelligent David Tyree the latest NOM stooge. Don’t feed the trolls and they’ll all go away upon the rising of dawn. LMAO!!

Hang on to your attempts to equate heterosexual sex with homosexual sex, Tovin. That and twisting my arguments. I’ve never said the disqualification from donating blood should mean a person cannot marry. I’ve never spoken for the medical community any more than you have. I simply observed what they are currently doing. What’s this now, about the 50th ad hominem? That’s all you got.

HG,

Willful ignorance is still not a substitute for an argument. The CDC also warns that people, regardless of orientation, should avoid unprotected sex. Do you stigmatize those straight people that do not heed the CDC on this matter? Ought they be denied the right to marry? I believe Bristol Palin might object.

And with regard to gays and lesbians being denied the option of giving blood, how does this justify a constitutional amendment barring gay marriage in a state that already bars it? In Uganda GLBTS could be killed for holding hands in public. There is the tradition, should we perpetuate this horrific ridiculousness as well?

Your arguments are as tired and ineffectual as the beliefs underlying them.

Praise Jebus, God hates the enlightenment, Amen.

Carl,

Then ignore my arguments.

evolution, please tell me who NOM is and where they’re located so I can pick up my check. I didn’t even know I was working for anyone, but your brilliant observations informed me otherwise.

HG, you did not “simply observe” the medical community. What you did was to post your faulty interpretation. The FACT is that “homosexuals” are NOT disqualified from donating blood. Only some homosexual persons are disqualified from donating blood, just as some heterosexual persons are disqualified. The FACT is that a homosexual person can have engaged in homosexual acts his entire adult life and NOT be disqualified from donating blood. He can even have engaged in homosexual acts with a harem of men for 40 years and not be disqualified. Your “arguments” are full of holes.

Fascinating what you can find on the Internet regarding colicky babies and petulant children …

HG

“So either homosexuals get to marry or nobody does.”

No, either treat everyone equally or not at all. You still haven’t itemized in which way same sex couples should be treated differently in order to warrant coming up with an entirely different relationship status other than just say “don’t use marriage”.

It’s time to stop conflating the marriage contract with the marriage rite.

If marriage is a religious institution, then the State needs to get out of the business of marriage. The only thing the State should offer to couples is a civil union, an acknowledgment of legal ties between consenting adults — the right of visitation, of medical power of attorney, of having the tax benefits afforded to those who choose to share their lives, and all the rights and perquisites that marriage currently confers.

Anyone who feels the need to have their union sanctified by a religious authority would then be free to do so. If their religion blesses same-sex unions, so be it. If their religion does not, so be that as well. And if you are a same-sex couple in a religious sect that does not recognize you, then find another group.

Tovin,

Please show us the facts of which you speak.

Here is my “interpretation”: http://healthomg.com/2011/05/06/u-s-panel-upholds-ban-on-gay-men-as-blood-donors/

HG,

You make yourself a fixture on a website where you lie, manipulate and propagandize to the detriment of the community and then suggest I ignore you? You beg for attention.

BTW, politically conservative states have much rates of murder, rape, divorce, alcoholism and domestic violence. How could constitutional amendments could address this phenomena?

Praise Jebus, God hates hypocrisy revealed, Amen.

Carl,

Or don’t. Your call.

Would Jesus lie? I’m not sure but He sure wanted nothing to do with Rome or political power. Today’s religious fundamentalists want to take over Rome and wield it’s power like a sword. Very unChrist-like. So who do they worship?

Praise Jebus, God hates leading by example, Amen.

@HG,

People with a wide variety of blood disorders, taking many different medications, undergoing all kinds of medical treatments are all prohibited from donating blood. Are they to be constitutionally barred from marriage as well? Your argument is bizarre.

Praise Jebus, God hates even the appearance of rationality, Amen.

HG, the article you cited is an example of poor reporting. As poor as it was, nowhere does it say that all homosexual persons are restricted from donating blood. For example, your article says nothing about homosexual women, and it only speaks about some, not all, homosexual men. Your article mentions a “ban on gay men donating blood” but in reality there is not a ban on all gay men donating blood. Your article mentions “any man who since 1977 has had sex with another man” but those men can be gay or straight. And per the Red Cross and the blood bank that I contacted, “had sex” actually means “oral or anal” sex, not just any kind of sex. It is entirely possible for men to engage in a variety of homosexual sex acts today and still donate blood tomorrow. And even those who engaged in 40 years of anal or oral sex with other men before 1977 can also donate blood. And so too a man who just a year ago engaged in other kinds of sex acts with men who have engaged in oral or anal sex. And, of course, a homosexual woman can donate blood today after sexual acts, including anal sex, with her same-sex partner this morning. I don’t recommend that these things. I just inform you what the blood bank says.

Gents, thanks for the lively discussion, have a great weekend..

I suppose the up side to being a hired gun is weekends off.

Praise Jebus, God hates public relations, Amen.

Carl, for all the good it did him and his cause. NY State approved same-sex marriage! Yahoo!!

“I apologize for those who feel offended,” Mr. Grisanti said, adding, “I cannot deny a person, a human being, a taxpayer, a worker, the people of my district and across this state, the State of New York, and those people who make this the great state that it is the same rights that I have with my wife.” -Mark Grisanti, the 33rd and deciding State Senator who legalized marriage equality in New York

I am still Snoopy-dancing over last night’s historic vote!

Like Mayor R.T. Rybak, Lt. Governor Robert Duffy who presided over the NY Senate and former mayor of Rochester NY has such a good, decent heart with hardly a mean streak in him. That is why he had a hard time controlling Senator Ruben Diaz, being unable to tell that asshole that his two minutes have long since been up and to STFU already! Diaz’ antics reminded me of Michele Bachmann’s spluttering “But Mr. President … wait … wait … Mr. President!” with her right arm upraised pointing as the President of the Senate James Metzen promptly adjourned the 2004 session just before midnight as mandated by the state constitution. I recall MAMA I being bottled in committee hence Bachmann’s desperate last-minute attempt to call a floor vote to force that bill out of committee for an immediate floor vote.

I remember being anxious that night as I watched the Senate session on cable TV, being dumbfounded at Bachmann’s conduct unbecoming of a Minnesota legislator as well as cringing at the sight of her spittle covering the inside of the TV screen!?!

C&V,

Yeah! I just read the great news. The question becomes, is Minnesota a progressive, open minded state or will we follow the likes of Arkansas and Georgia into the religious right’s new confederacy?

I have more hope today.

Praise Jebus, God hates equal rights, Amen.

“A man can be wiser today than yesterday, but there’ll be no respect for that man if he has failed in his duty to do the work.” – Sen. Mark Grisante, New York State

That is why there is no respect for the Republican Party of Minnesota because of the marriage debate and the threatened government shutdown: Because they have failed in their duty to do the work – they entered the Legislative session with the absolute intention to ramrod through their agenda, and they have neither stopped nor slowed down for ANYTHING. Not reason, not lives, not anything.

[...] Independent journalist Andy Birkey covers some of those efforts from the DFL party through these videos. Some are pretty good If you know [...]

HG wrote The laws make distinctions all the time between race, gender, and sexuality. It doesn’t alway mean discrimination and inequality.

The Laws you are writing about, were made because of discrimination! Because of people like you.

and you also write that we are all allowed our opinions. You do know that Religion is an opinion correct? that there is no fact, or proof of any Religion, and it is only an opinion, and not law?

I know you state that you are not commenting here from a “religious” view, just wondering if you actually know that Faith of any kind is NOT fact?

I wonder if you are brave enough to answer?

PS, NY has made huge ground in equality, they are never the first but when they do move, the nation moves with.

Doesn’t the term “family” suggest adults plus the children they’ve incurred?

These people don’t want “marriage”.
These people want benefits?

Selfish desires, that’s it!

Watch and wait…

Kirk, considering 1 in 4 gay couples have “incurred” and are raising children, then yes. And for the rest, having children has never been a requirement for marriage, as we certainly don’t deny marriage to couples who decide not to have kids or to those who can’t through age or infertility.

My partner Mark and I are in the last video. You guys are missing the point!! This is not about God, Jesus, or quotes from the bible. This is about people and their rights. I don’t know if we will ever get married but if we decide to we want to be able to. I don’t have the right to vote on whether or not you can get married and no one should have the right to vote on whether or not we can! End of discussion!!!