Gay Marriage.....

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by DonHannis

...We are actually quite confused. .....

LMAO!!!!

Pete

[Bigerik]

Originally Posted by DonHannis

My family is quite the modern family. We have gays, whites,blacks,protestants,catholics,jews. We are actually quite confused. My gay sister and her partner have one child through insemination and adopted a second black child. The kids are the most well adapted children you would meet. I believe they should have the same rights as the rest of us. Not sure about topics like polygamy.

[Independent]

Originally Posted by Boreas

.... was on the ballot in Maine, Maryland, Washington and Minnesota. The Christian Right and the Catholic Church spent tons and tons of money trying to defeat these measures. All but Minnesota passed the measures.

Any thoughts?

John

You're wrong about the vote in Minnesota. The vote "YES or NO" was to define marraige between one man & one woman, which would put all kinds of restrictions for anyone wishing to be a same-sex couple. The vote "NO" won, so the bill was defeated, which opens up the possibillity to have a new vote for gay marraiges to now pass in Minnesota during the next election, 2 years from now. There were a lot of pissed off right-wing religeous zealots in Minnesota last Wednesday morning.....




Indy

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Independent

You're wrong about the vote in Minnesota. The vote "YES or NO" was to define marraige between one man & one woman, which would put all kinds of restrictions for anyone wishing to be a same-sex couple. The vote "NO" won, so the bill was defeated, which opens up the possibillity to have a new vote for gay marraiges to now pass in Minnesota during the next election, 2 years from now. There were a lot of pissed off right-wing religeous zealots in Minnesota last Wednesday morning.....




Indy

Hey, Indy -

I thought there were two ballot measures. There was the one you mentioned which would have inserted the "traditional" one man, one woman definition into the state constitution and another which would have specifically permitted same sex marriage. Both lost. Am I mistaken?

Just checked Ballotpedia. Looks like I am wrong. You guys only had the marriage amendment and a voter ID law to vote on. Both failed!!!! Gotta love those Minnesota DFL and Independent voters!

John

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Independent

You're wrong about the vote in Minnesota. The vote "YES or NO" was to define marraige between one man & one woman, which would put all kinds of restrictions for anyone wishing to be a same-sex couple. The vote "NO" won, so the bill was defeated, which opens up the possibillity to have a new vote for gay marraiges to now pass in Minnesota during the next election, 2 years from now. There were a lot of pissed off right-wing religeous zealots in Minnesota last Wednesday morning.....




Indy

Hey, maybe Jesse will move to Bachmann's district and run against her as an I or a L! I really can't help liking that guy.

John

[Independent]

With the exception of Michelle Bachman being re-elected by a very slim margin in "a mostly" republican district, Minnesota did well. The House & the Senate are both back in the the hands of the Dems, and with a Dem Governor, things should get straightened out rather quickly around here.

Minnesota did give the Tea-Bag movement a shot here for the last 2 years, but as you can see by the results Tuesday night, they didn't like what "the party of no" was all about. If the Tea-Baggers/Repubs continue this way in Washington over the next couple of years, I'm pretty sure we will see the same thing happen there in 2014 as well.




Indy

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Independent

With the exception of Michelle Bachman being re-elected by a very slim margin in "a mostly" republican district, Minnesota did well. The House & the Senate are both back in the the hands of the Dems, and with a Dem Governor, things should get straightened out rather quickly around here.

I didn't see Graves as a particularly strong candidate. When you couple that with the demo for that district, things look decidedly bleak for Queen Tea.

Minnesota did give the Tea-Bag movement a shot here for the last 2 years, but as you can see by the results Tuesday night, they didn't like what "the party of no" was all about. If the Tea-Baggers/Repubs continue this way in Washington over the next couple of years, I'm pretty sure we will see the same thing happen there in 2014 as well.

I think we'll see that nationally. Whatever their ideology, Americans want to get things done. All the tea stained Republicans can do is interfere. They have no viable agenda and no respect for the proper role of government.

John

[bhunter]

I'm all for gay marriage. My problem is with any government advantage given to those that are married. There is no longer a good reason for those married to get special treatment IMHO.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm all for gay marriage. My problem is with any government advantage given to those that are married. There is no longer a good reason for those married to get special treatment IMHO.

What, specifically, do you believe to be anachronistic or otherwise inappropriate?

What about the little "nuts and bolts" stuff like spousal benefits on insurance policies, hospital visitation rights or (gasp) conjugal visitation for prisoners?

John

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Boreas

What, specifically, do you believe to be anachronistic or otherwise inappropriate?

What about the little "nuts and bolts" stuff like spousal benefits on insurance policies, hospital visitation rights or (gasp) conjugal visitation for prisoners?

John

I would be surprised if he wasn't talking about the tax benefits afforded to breeders. Gasp!

How does a little tax break for replacement (two kids) and a penalty for three and above sound to you guys & gals? Free vasectomies & tubal ligations!!