Two important social issues will be addressed on our Nov. 6 ballot as amendments to the Minnesota Constitution. Neither issue should be resolved through the constitutional amendment process.
Same sex marriage is currently illegal in Minnesota. If our cultural views, the voters, and our legislature evolve to the point where same sex marriage seems reasonable, we should be able to make that decision without being hampered by unnecessary constitutional restraints.
Fortunately, I have had the opportunity to get to know a number of gay and lesbian people both personally and professionally. Some of them are in long term, committed relationships, just like my heterosexual friends, with the basic human need to be loved and accepted for who they are.
As a Christian, I believe that the love of Jesus is for everyone, no exceptions. If and when our culture evolves, I believe they should have the opportunity to experience the blessings of marriage.
For those of us who use our photo I.D.’s on a regular basis, it is hard to understand how someone can exist without such identification. The reality however, is that a number of American and Minnesota citizens do not have photo I.D.’s, for a variety of reasons. Most of these people are seniors or poor. However, they are our fellow citizens, and should not be denied the right to vote. There is no substantial evidence that voter fraud is a problem in our state. If such a case is eventually made, it can be dealt with through regular legislative and policy channels.
Please join me in voting no on both proposed constitutional amendments.
Lowell (Fred) Johnson
Fort Ripley
Comments (40)
Add commentI would like to know if we
I would like to know if we are going to be like Mass in the sence of schooling of our children. We really monitor what our kids watch on tv. I would be upset if they started teaching gay marriage in school like that one ad says. I would vote no but the school teaching thing has me on the fence. I dont want my kids to be taught anything about marriage or gay issues from anyone other than me.
Barco
I have read and heard all of the arguments that the Marriage Amendment is not necessary, nor is it constitutional. I have read and heard the comments that if I vote "Yes" I am homophobic, a bigot, and no better than those who were against interracial marriage in the last century. I am the belief that this amendment is necessary. I know that same-sex marriage is currently illegal in Minnesota, but there is a court case pending right now in Hennepin county that is very similar to the one in Iowa which judicially forced same-sex marriage on that state. And, yes, what happened (or is happening) in Massachusetts, could easily happen here. Parents have lost their ability to choose what they want their children exposed to in some public school districts, even if it their belief that it is morally wrong. People are being charged with hate crimes for speaking out against homosexuality in some instances - even from houses of worship. I do not want to see the terms "mother and father" replaced with "parents" in official state language so it will not be offensive to same-sex couples who have children - as it is being done right now in France. For me it is not taking away the right of two members of the same sex who want to live together in a comitted relationship. For me it is looking at what comes next and offering a measure of protection to an institution that has always been for a male and a female. There is another hidden agenda here that undermines traditional values and that is the scary part of this issue that people would like to dismiss and overlook. It is there and written between the lines whether people want to admit it or not, visble even without my aluminum foil hat. That is my view - and I am sure that there are many thumbs waiting to turn down.
Wake Up ! Who actually thinks either amendment has MN origin ?
Just more distractions created by the Republicon Party HQ to control the ballot box and do a little ( In the words of Newt Gingrich) right wing social Re-eng.
Vote NO on the Party of NO Bad Ideas !
Eyolf
This is exactly what I speak of.
I am a "McCarthyite" for "spewing" my beliefs.
As for Little Janey out in Massachusetts whose teacher will just gloss it over: How about a school wide assembly in a high school with guest speakers talking about how they will be marrying their partners along with literature handouts? How about parents who do not have the right to be notified or opt their children out of teaching and/or discussions of sex education involving gay/lesbian topics.
The following is an excerpt from a judicial ruling in Massachusetts:
"It is reasonable for public educators to teach elementary school students about individuals with different sexual orientations and about various forms of families, including those with same-sex parents, in an effort to eradicate the effects of past discrimination, to reduce the risk of future discrimination and, in the process, to reaffirm our nation's constitutional commitment to promoting mutual respect among members of our diverse society."
Sincerely,
Joe McCarthy
we expected this - 'gay' taught in school - not!
That was expected late in the Vote Yes campaign.
Fear campaigning as usual.
We young people will have to find a way to take this amendment OFF the Constitution now, as it will pass.
Thanks for voting discrimination into our state values.
It might be a big deal for older people, but NOT my generation.
I see there is a forum tomorrow night discussing how to undo the amendments already. I'll be taking notes.
The anti-McCarthyite troll
from Deerwood strikes with his newest biggoted attack.
It was an expected action.
marsbar
The "How about" scenarios I mentioned are actually real events that have already happened in public schools in Massachusetts. They are out there as well as many more. All one has to do is look for them. I will have to ask my five year old if I am a member of the "older people" generation as I take her out trick-or-treating tonight.
I'LL DECIDE
To think that gay marriage won't be taught in sex education
at someplace in MN at sometime in the future is naive.
The "gay group" has been working towards this and more for
years. If you want to call it indoctrinate, fine.
I've seen a documentary of the New York City gay uprising
in the 60's and that was an education.
Marriage is between a man and a woman, in my opinion, which I'm still able to express myself.
.
hey ... so a couple of states
hey ... so a couple of states in new england you can marry your cousin of the same sex?
I wonder why scary
is so interested in that?????
School
There are gay people in the world. Some gay people are in committed relationships. Some gay people are raising children. This is fact. It is fact now; it will be fact at the end of next week; it will be fact forever. This amendment is about constitutionalizing discrimination against these people. The schools are public entities. There job is to teach facts--not morals. Fact-gays are people. Fact-some gays are in committed relationships. Fact-some gay people are raising children. To teach the fact IS the responsibility of the school. To teach respect of all people IS the responsibility of the school. No child will become gay because of knowledge. No child will become gay because he/she accepts that some people are. The school's job is to teach facts; it is the parent's job to teach bigotry and discrimination if they so wish.
Bigot:
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So if I dont agree with you I am a bigot, if you dont agree with me you are a .....
To teach respect for all
To teach respect for all people is the responsibility of the
PARENTS not the schools.
Math ,English, Science and History are the responsiblity
of the schools.
One reason students are behind on these subjects is
that so many social issues seem to be more important.
Well said sadie! By no means
Well said sadie! By no means do I think my child will "become" gay. That is a stupid notion. It is a fact that people rape and kill children in horrible ways; should we use all those facts? Of course not, we need to filter information for our children. I filter more than most parents. That is my right. I have the right to filter Darwinism for my child in school. (for the record I wouldnt) I feel that the line between parent role and teacher role has gotten blurred over the years. It is my job to parent and their job to teach school subjects. I dont come into the classroom and tell them how to do their jobs and they should not be doing my job nor telling me how to do my job. Morals are my job period. The suject of gay marriage or ANY marriage is for me to teach. And before you call me a gay hater or any other names you should know I dont hate gay people. They are people with feelings and rights but I dont have to agree with them.
Not me or my kids, eyolf.
And I'll bet you that a child raised by gays has a 90% more chance of ending up gay than one raised by straight parents.
I'll be voting Yes to cancel you out!
Gay Marriage In Schools
Hey y'all. The curriculum taught in Massachusettes wasn't a result of gay marriage, it was a part of their diversity program started in 1993. Each school is allowed to interpret this at will - teaching gay marriage is not a law. The court case referred to in the ad is misleading, as the courts rejected the case on the basis of it not being a judicial matter but a school board one.
Carry on.
Actually, let's run down a few other "facts"
The small business fined was a bed and breakfast that denied allowing a gay couple to hold their marriage ceremony there. They were fined on a basis on anti-discrimination laws, not because gay marriage was legal. In fact, if the amendment passes, bed and breakfasts in the state of Minnesota could still be fined for not allowing gay couples. These are the same laws that the church was sued under. In that case, a real estate deal fell apart. The gay couple claims it was on grounds of discrimination, the church claims it was concerned about the couple's finances. Either way, it had nothing to do with the church denying their marriage. Churches deny marriages to straight couples they find fit regularly - this is their right as a religious institution.
The individual fired was a sports caster named Damain Goddard. He had made comments on Twitter referring to traditional marriage the day of his firing, which, while unfortunate, was not his reason for termination. Both Goddard's employer and Goddard have confirmed this. At any rate, Goddard is a Canadian, and subject to Canada's far stricter hate speech laws.
The charity that closed down was the adoption portion of Catholic Charities of Washington DC. The charity itself remains open, while they shuttered the government funded adoption leg instead of serving same sex couples. They have opened another adoption program using their own money.
Voter ID and Gay Marriage...
Well, as for Voter ID-
I will vote yes for this if it means acquiring a MN State ID card or driver's license renewal is made free of charge. Otherwise, through proxy, it means you have to buy something to be able to vote. Something that the state profits off of.
Marriage- I don't think anything a Church does should be regulated by our government. There aren't any amendments regarding circumcision, baptism, or communion- there shouldn't be any about who can get married in a church. If a particular Christian sect doesn't want to allow Gay marriage in their church, then that is their choice. If you belong to a Church and they allow people of the same sex to be married, and that offends you, then perhaps it is time to switch churches.
I honestly don't know where
I honestly don't know where all this is coming from and why you are bringing it up. I have heard of the teaching gay marriage in schools
before and from the commercial.
So, you are saying a B@B could be fined if they reject
a gay couple and why is that ? I didn't get the reason
for it. Sorry, it's been a long day and I may have missed
something.
Why would you expect Team Frank Schubert (AD Guy) to...
Tell the Truth...
FUD has WORKED before, so try it again (same playbook)...
Hopefully not in Minnesota...
We're better than that.!.
NOvember 6, 2012,,,Vote BIG NO.!.
_______
I just love how they can fine
I just love how they can fine a business for refusing to cater to them on the basis of discrimination. Whatever happened to a business having the right to refuse service to anyone?
Fair and Balanced raised by straight parents
""And I'll bet you that a child raised by gays has a 90% more chance of ending up gay than one raised by straight parents.""
F and B:
So does that mean that straight parents have kids with a 90% more chance of being straight??? Newsflash: Gay kids come from straight parents! When did you "choose" to be straight???? I know I never "chose".
Since when do schools "teach" marriage - any kind of marriage??? I went to Brainerd schools in the 90's and have no recollection of ANY class that discussed marriage, "traditional" or otherwise. What class would that even be in??? This seemingly was only a part of my church Sunday school/parents' teachings of their values.
More FYI.
Animals can't consent nor sign a marriage license
Children can't do marriage either.
It also seems to be a common assumption that when boys/young men are molested that the perp is gay/homosexual and it also seems to be a common assumption that therefore gay men always = pedophile (as in all gay men must be child molesters because a few commit sex crimes). If this is the case of gay men what does it then say about heterosexual men in general when a few of them molest/rape girls/young women????? Aren't they all pedophiles because a few (way far more girls/women are sexually assaulted than boys BTW) straight men commit sex crimes??? I hear this insinuated all the time about gay people (that they are ALL molestors) and therefore, knowing what I know about about sex crime statistics, have to assume the same about straight people. BTW it's not about sexual orientation for most/all victimizers of young children. Kind of like the fact that perpetrators of male rape in the military indentify as straight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EW5IdwltaAc
Darwinism Barco? Really?
First off it is not "Darwinism" Secondly, it isn't just a "belief" like so many like to insinuate. It is a hard science based upon a preponderance of evidence - kind of like quantum mechanics governs the computer/electronics you are looking at right now. How can one use the rules science (evidence based facts that someone is continually trying to shoot down by experimentation/study) to make a computer but not apply it to biology? Scientific Laws and Theories aren't just because someone "believes" them to be true - if contradictory evidence mounts up that discredits them they are modified/added to or abandonded (kind of like relativity modified Newton's gravity - new observations modified past understanding)- point is evidence based belief not because so and so says it's so. This is why science WORKS (or should in principle, but like everything else we have ego). BTW not all "evidence" is created equal either!
And yes we have observed evolution in real time - note drug resistant disease/different flu's every season/nylon digesting bacteria around waste water of a nylon factory (hint - nylon didn't exist 50 years).
As far as I am concerned teaching young people to ignore something based on evidence is not only intellectually dishonest, but is only going to hurt America's economic prowess in the future!
P.S Should one not believe in gravity if some preacher said it contradicted God's word (if so jump out of a plane without a parachute then)??? There are STILL people arguing for a flat earth because they interperet it from the Bible/Koran. There are also people that INSIST that the earth is stationary and the sun and universe revolve around us because the bible says it's so!!!!
minister ?
Science Guy,
Name me one known species that evolved into another previously unknown species. According to Darwin's Math, scientists say that atleast 6 known species must evolve in a year into another species. Those numbers given the earth's age Darwin believed it to be would put us at the amount of known species now. IF you can tell me 1 new species and the date it was proven to evolve from an existing species I will be won over. Until then Darwinism is hogwash or spit in a spitton and holds little to no scientific value. But said, as a quasi Darwinist, I understand it only exists for Procreation-every plant and species just wants self-preservation in the form of offspring.. Please tell me how sodomy or same sex relationships fit into Darwins theory of Procreation?????? If you can explain to me how gay marriage, natural law and evolution fit together, I will vote no, because then I will understand the earth is at stake if we defy natural law in lieu of our own self-righteous anarchal social laws
Earth is Flat!
Here are some
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpeYDmDpma8&feature=plcp
I also had a video of someone argue for a flat earth on Iraqi television
Ecocafemx
Don't have a lot of time: farm animals/food crops, drug resistant bacteria, rattlesnakes with little or no "rattle" in areas where they are hunted, elephants without tusks where they are being hunted for tusks, dogs and cats. Why is it that the ONLY science theory currently to be bitterly opposed is evolution??????????????
minister
name me one known species that evolved into a previously unkwnown species?? IF so, I'll believe, otherwise Darwinism is just spit in a spittooon. If you perform the math atleast 6 documented species must be created every year from known species...
There is science that is provable then there is science that assumes the scientist is self-righteous because it's not provable.. gravity is hard fact evolution is dung in the field.. It can't be proven, alteast hasn't been yet? now's your chance minister
minister--just name me one new species and known species?
I'm an organic farmer and licensed organic farm inspector.. I've worked in jungles, rainforests, cloudforests, corn fields, coffee fields, been tracked by jaguars, hijacked by drug lords, almost died from bugs, parasite, etc but I haven't found proof.I got 13 winters in the rainforest--no answers!????
I've talked and looked, never once has any one shown me a new species.. Yes, I have seen ALOT of local adaptation but never a recorded case of species evolving into an unknown. I love science but will not be gullible and fall for JUNK science.
local adaption--provable,,, EVOLUTION--====JUNK Science-unprovable to date