Minnesota Governor Signs Same-Sex Marriage Bill Into Law

[rightwinger]

It is a matter of state's rights. The voters in the state have a right to punish the liberal legislature any way they want. Then they can repeal the law if they want. California can ban same sex marriage if we want.

Same sex marriage will end up like abortion. Tied up in courts as it gets chipped away. Unless the country follows history and goes down the shithole first.

It is impossible to force opinios on people that they don't hold. That's why direct action is being taken when the government has failed. In England gays are burned alive. In France and Russia they are beaten to death. I would personally not want that to happen here. But the way it is going it will be unavoidable.

That's interesting since here in MN, after the ballot measure to define marriage in our Constitution as one man and one woman failed at the ballot box, Democrats took over the Legislature in both the Senate and the House.

Payback is a bitch

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . it just shouldn't be forced on all the states by the federal government or by judges

Neither should have DOMA by the GOP and Clinton.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All throughout history it has ended the same way. Acceptance of same sex marriage is a symptom of a much larger societal disease. The host fights off the disease.

The disease exists in your head that you can deny marriage to loving couples.

 

[SanTropez]

38 states to go

More importantly, gay marriage is moving from the Northeast to the rest of the country

California is next

It's moving from Liberal State to Liberal State. Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's. That's why they're bankrupt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's.

Non sequitur and not factual.

 

[Seawytch]

38 states to go

More importantly, gay marriage is moving from the Northeast to the rest of the country

California is next

It's moving from Liberal State to Liberal State. Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's. That's why they're bankrupt.

Iowa and Minnesota...those bastions of liberalism.

No, we don't give undocumented people "lots of extra benefits" and that is certainly not why CA had financial difficulties. In case you didn't notice, there was a this George Bush recession that hit the entire world.

 

[The Breeze]

There's only one way this can end.

Yup...with marriage equality across all 50 states. Hallelujah!

Of course, that's probably not what you had in mind, but mine is the reality. What is the "only way" you think it will "end"?

God will punish us all

Isn't being gay punishment enough?

 

[martybegan]

More importantly, gay marriage is moving from the Northeast to the rest of the country

California is next

It's moving from Liberal State to Liberal State. Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's. That's why they're bankrupt.

Iowa and Minnesota...those bastions of liberalism.

No, we don't give undocumented people "lots of extra benefits" and that is certainly not why CA had financial difficulties. In case you didn't notice, there was a this George Bush recession that hit the entire world.

Iowa and Minnesota have always had a populist streak, which leads to a "dont mess with me, I won't mess with you" attitude.

If this would have been imposed by court decsison, I guarantee the people there would be less supporting of it. They want to be able to have a say in how thier laws work, not have it imposed on them. That is the main difference between populism and progressivism.

 

[rightwinger]

38 states to go

More importantly, gay marriage is moving from the Northeast to the rest of the country

California is next

It's moving from Liberal State to Liberal State. Of course California will do it - they already give illegal aliens every right that a normal citizen has, plus lots of extra bene's. That's why they're bankrupt.

Once California accepts gay marriage we will reach a tipping point where half the nation has married gays and the other half does not recognize it. As gay couples and married gays in the military move about the country there will be conflicts over their legal status. Those conflicts will be settled in our courts.

Give it ten years and it will be the law of the land and Republicans will say they always supported it

 

[JakeStarkey]

. . . populism and progressivism.

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

 

[martybegan]

. . . populism and progressivism.

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

 

[Seawytch]

. . . populism and progressivism.

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

 

[Jroc]

Good news.

Minnesota governor signs same-sex marriage bill into law ? CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

(CNN) – Minnesota became the 12th state to legalize same-sex marriages Tuesday after Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, signed a bill giving same-sex couples the right to marry.

"It's history," his Twitter account read, along with a photo of him signing the bill on the Capitol steps. The state Senate on Monday voted 37-30 in favor of approving the legislation.

Have conservatives come out in support of this yet? The reason I ask is because this seems to be a textbook example of states' rights, and everyone knows how committed to states' rights conservatives are.

Yes

 

[Seawytch]

. . . populism and progressivism.

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

How do you feel about a CA people's initiative banning handguns?

 

[martybegan]

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

 

[martybegan]

Take the time to look up the terms, study the definitions and narratives of each, and come back and tell us what you have learned.

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

How do you feel about a CA people's initiative banning handguns?

A direct violation of the 2nd amendment. The constitution is clear on the right to keep and bear arms. It is neutral on the topic of marriage, and thus legislatures or referendums at the state level can do as they see fit.

 

[rightwinger]

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

Both instances are about others defining who you are allowed to love based on their own hatred and prejudices
Very similar

Can the state decide who is allowed to establish a legal relationship without demonstrating a pressing reason?

 

[martybegan]

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

Both instances are about others defining who you are allowed to love based on their own hatred and prejudices

Very similar

Not similar at all. Race is simply based on genetic clusters and how much sun your ancestors had to resist. All the other parts are identical (if not proportional).

With same sex marriage there is a physical difference between hetero and same sex relations that have no precedent when it comes to the marriage contract.

That being said if a state wants to amend its laws via legislature, go for it. Just dont go running to the consitution and create some "right" when the document is 100% neutral on the topic.

 

[rightwinger]

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

Both instances are about others defining who you are allowed to love based on their own hatred and prejudices

Very similar

Not similar at all. Race is simply based on genetic clusters and how much sun your ancestors had to resist. All the other parts are identical (if not proportional).

With same sex marriage there is a physical difference between hetero and same sex relations that have no precedent when it comes to the marriage contract.

That being said if a state wants to amend its laws via legislature, go for it. Just dont go running to the consitution and create some "right" when the document is 100% neutral on the topic.

Marriage is about love not sex

The 14th Amendment requires equal protection under the law which is not being provided to gay couples

 

[Seawytch]

I dont need to review it, I am well aware of its history. Populism was more concerned with change via legislation, intitiative and referendum. It was a movement to convince people to come along with them at the ballot.

Recently progressivism seems to be fought in the courts, with the logic that the progressives know whats good for you, and you all are just to stupid to go along with it. Therefore we have to force you to do what we think is "right"

Populists win people over at the ballot, progressives try to find the right judge.

Recently? 1967 is "recently"? (Loving v Virginia)

We have already argued about the difference between race and sexual oritentation. Loving was correct in that it removed the criminiality of miscogenation. Equal protection applied as blacks were allowed to marry other blacks, whites other whites, and a law banning the crossing of that line did violate equal protection.

This does not carry over to gender however.

That is your opinion. Equal protection is being violated, just wait.

Loving v Virginia was "judicial activism" by the RW definition, plain and simple. Those opposed to it said so back then...and there were A LOT of people opposed to it.

Wow...look at how popular interracial marriage was in 1967.