Community residents, faith leaders and parents will gather in Brainerd Saturday to organize opposition to the marriage amendment that will be on the ballot in November.
The event will be conducted at 10:15 a.m. Saturday at the First Congregational United Church of Christ at 415 Juniper St. in Brainerd. Organizers say the amendment would limit the freedom to marry for same-sex couples in Minnesota.
Among the expected speakers at the event are Scott Lykins, a Brainerd native, and an intern with Minnesotans United for All Families (a group opposed to the amendment); Brad and Joanie Swanson, Pine Rive residents and the parents of a gay son; Terry Frovik of Nisswa, a retired Evangelical Lutheran Church of America pastor.
A group of area residents and leaders working with Minnesotans United for All Families are organizing the Central Minnesota Votes No! community kickoff. Organizers said those attending will discuss the efforts in their own communities to defeat the amendment. Community leaders will share personal stories to encourage others to have conversations with their friends, family and neighbors about why they’re voting no in November. The event, which lasts until noon, will include speakers, campaign information and small group discussion.
Comments (43)
Add commentWell, according to this article,
This program is today at 10:15 am.
There is a lot to do in the next 100 days.
Sorry to break it to you, but children are...
...the MAIN reason society has any interest in marriage. If it weren't for the children that are born of heterosexual relationships, I'd argue that society should have no interest in romantic relationships whatsoever.
And of course I used the term "breed" again, because I was still discussing the difference between miscegenation and its definition and laws protecting traditional marriage. But please explain to me why rabid homosexual activists refer to heterosexuals as "breeders". Is that okay? You know, because they are homosexuals?
Two of my homosexual friends told me flat out that they weren't "born that way." They told me they became that way through a series of traumatic experiences. Further, I'm not about to criticize homosexuals for any specific trials they have. We are all screwed up. We are all broken. So stop acting like I think they are less than human or inferior to anyone else, because I do not.
who agrees with THIS premise? LOL
Sorry to break it to you, but children are...
...the MAIN reason society has any interest in marriage. If it weren't for the children that are born of heterosexual relationships, I'd argue that society should have no interest in romantic relationships whatsoever.
ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!! Really?
No coupling up if couples are not interested in children?
You can't stop people from marrying who have no plans to have
...children, and there will always be some people who are otherwise eligible to marry who are not able to have children. These two exceptions to the rule do not change the fact that children remain the MAIN reason the state has an interest in marriage. Do you think it's because the state cares about love? LOL! Now you're making me laugh! And I might add that it's your perverse understanding of marriage...i.e., that it's a license to love...that is one of the most damaging ideas to marriage as a life long institution. What happens when people fall out of love if the supposed rationale behind marriage is to provide official state certification of love? Obviously, the marriage should be dissolved, am I right? This is not a proper concept of marriage and it leads to great instability in society which spills over into all sorts of pathology.
And thanks for admitting that your ideas are demented.
Snow!
People who still believe that lead boring lives, don't they? That is a Catholic tenet. What happens if they don't have children? Is it a non-marriage?
Most people have a less singularly, purposeful view towards marriage.
This isn't pioneer times when maternal and infant deaths were high and people kept reproducing to protect the survival of families.
The laws involving marriage and civil unions spell out protections for couples in tax, medical and hereditary issues; none of which may involve children.
See you at the rally/picnic in Deerwood! Join us, Meuhl, and we can continue the discussion over a beer.
83-Year-Old Takes DOMA Challenge...
to the United States Supreme Court...
Windsor v. United States...
Link:
http://www.care2.com/causes/83-year-old-takes-doma-challenge-to-the-supr...
There are 17 active DOMA cases at present.
United States Supreme Court is very likely to take up the case.
Monday October 1, 2012 is the next start of the session.
Link on US Supreme Court:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/
limited perspective, Muehl
I know and have had many conversations with gays and lesbians. I've never heard a single homosexual "refer to heterosexuals as breeders."
muehlbau
You state:
"You can't stop people from marrying who have no plans to have ...children"
Why not? Just pass a constitutional amendment (conservatives love those) making it a crime not to have children within, say, the first two years of marriage. Attach a large fine and jail time to this crime and an automatic annulment of the marriage, and Voila! We have effectively stopped those from marrying just for -- as you put it -- the "perverse" idea that it is just for love.
While we're at it (since conservatives love the Slippery Slope fallacy) since we obviously can limit marriage to just those who have children, let's stop this list of people from getting married: Veterans who have had their reproductive organs destroyed in war; older people who neither have the capability nor the intention of reproducing; those who have already reproduced and have no intention of producing more children (think divorcees, and parents with adult children).
And the greatest danger to the "institution" of marriage isn't homosexual marriage, it's divorce. So let's pass another constitutional amendment making it a crime to get a divorce for any reason (except for where it is required. see above), as long as there are children in the household.
Are you being beaten by your spouse and want a divorce? No can do. Your spouse has abandoned you and you want a divorce? No can do. Your spouse cheated on you and you want a divorce? No way, Jose. You have money issues, sexual issues (after having children, of course), poor communication, lack of commitment, addictions. Nope, no divorce for you.
Think of the children!
With overpopulation of the globe,
Maybe it's time to do a rewrite on some of those biblical mandates for procreation. I doubt we need to worry about the lack of people on earth anytime soon.