This proposed amendment, as well as the proposed amendment on Voter ID are both unnecessary and have wasted a great deal of time in our legislature, a great deal of our court's time, and a great deal of our own time and tax money. Our constitution should be amended only when vitally important. I also think that any proposed amendment should come to us from our legislature only when a bipartisan vote in our legislature favors such amendments. These two were not - by my recollection, both passed on strictly party lines, which should tell us something... that doesn't necessarily bother me when its a law, but when it is a proposed amendment, there should be a wider approval of it.

And Stella, do you suppose no gays nor lesbians shop at Target or Penney's? Cannot a store be supportive of the rights of all people? all their customers? Does this in any way infringe on your rights as a heterosexual? I think not.

Stella is just writing her opinion and her personal choice
to no longer shop at those stores. At least, she's not
demanding a national boycott like the gay community did
when Target donated to a pro-business group last election
cycle. There was no thought there about all shoppers.

Remember that both sides shove money in the back door.

Why? Nothing worth listening to from those guys, just regurgitation of the usual nonsense.

Well, Stella, that is YOUR definition, but yours is not the ONLY definition.

According to Websters....

Definition of MARRIAGE

1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock
c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2
: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3
: an intimate or close union

So, I'm going to go with Websters on this one, since I don't believe you've ever been published in any dictionary. Therefore your definition is simply your opinion, to which you are entitled.

So here's another Webster's definition that also might be of interest to you.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: 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

You have your opinion, and Stella has hers.
She can have her opinions without being intolerant.
You do not know her heart and I don't know your heart
or hers. In fact, I don't know who she or her son are
and don't care. I try not to judge people on this site.

So, according to the tornado logic, liberals get emotional over
social issues, and have no common sense on the current
economic situation. All members of the DFL or GOP
do not think alike. They all have different issues.

Look at the debt numbers on the front page that should be
everyone's issue this year.

My response was not about judgment, free speech, boycotting stores, or even about those who profess to write dictionaries. To clarify, it was intended to raise the bar by requesting consideration of marriage rights with other civil rights issues. A segment of American citizenry is being denied a right afforded to others. That is not a comfy place for those whose rights are infringed, or for those who think it is OK to do so. It's emotional. Again, the question was, when will the 14th Amendment, which is the law now and provides for equal protection, apply to all citizens?

Allowed? Opposite Sex Only? In the 14th Amendment? Sounds a little presumptive to me unless you can see it below.

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

and everything to do with federal benefits of marriage as applied to taxes and death. Discrimination seems to be a two edge sword. Those who support gay marriage are quick with the hate speech to those who oppose, as though they are the only ones that have freedom of speech! It always amazes me when we start to break down society into bite size pieces when talking about civil rights. The day we started to say civil rights apply more to race, religion, gender, sexual diversity was the same day we started saying those on the opposite side had less rights than those constantly crying foul.

Do you think mark ritchie would word that amendment different from what baby has on her post??

The GOP would lose its power to raise money on the issue.

The world as we know it would not end.

Tornado: great post. Some must be reading the Constitution of the Confederacy.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Sorry, don't see a thing there about people with non-complementary sex organs "marrying" in that first paragraph. It does sound like you couldn't prevent a homosexual from marrying someone of the opposite sex, though. That is, after all, the law of the United States. However, even it weren't, I guarantee you that heterosexuals would continue to marry just as they did before the state got involved. That's because the state's recognition is superfluous to true marriage. True marriage is between a man, a woman, and God.

Interestingly, the third paragraph sounds a little like it might disqualify the current WH occupant from holding office.

I am amazed. So many conservatives are so afraid. Reminds me of the song:

"You've got to be taught before it's too late, to hate all the people your relatives hate. You've got to be carefully taught."

Some people read our laws and insert words that aren't there.
They defend their religion and have blinders to its history.
They come to the defense of a US Rep. who has no honor among her own party.

as 3WI endorses her!