If my faith were to prohibit eating meat on Friday, would it be right to make it illegal for everyone. If my religion was against wearing the color red, would it be ok to pass a Constitutional Amendment that outlaws wearing red. If my wife becomes ill, should you pass a law that keeps me from being present at this very personal time of passage. Is it ok to restrict my choice to live where I want by passing a law that says only “the right people” will be allowed to live here. Should we amend the constitution, either in the state or in this nation to restrict anyone’s rights, for any personal choices even if these choices don’t impinge on the rights of others to make their own choices. This is exactly what the proposed marriage amendment is doing to our friends, children, sisters, brothers, aunts, uncles or maybe even a parent who has decided to live their life with someone of the same gender. It is not far-fetched to think that these restrictions could be justified by some and imposed on others who may feel differently about them.
Our constitution has a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Restrictions. We profess all are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and just because your choice of happiness may differ from mine, I do not have the right to inflict on you my choice of what is happiness or how you pursue it as long as you are not taking away my rights. We should not be legislating by Amendments, but use the system our constitution set where elected representatives and the Governor enact legislation. Vote No to both amendments in November. It is a right and just thing to do.
Jim Grimes
Crosby
Comments (44)
Add commentThank You
Thank you Jim for a well written and thoughtful piece on these two constitutional amendments.
My family and I join you in voting NO for these two amendments.
Let's hope enough Minnesotans also search their hearts and minds and turn down these two destructive pieces of legislation.
So you're saying ,"there's a chance?"
Let the record show, you are both recorded as a no vote.
So for the vast majority of recorded history homosexuals...
...have existed without the benefit of marriage, and for most of that history they've never even wanted the right to marry, nor has the state had any interest in recognizing their couplings, but we're supposed to believe that homosexual marriage is just like heterosexual marriage, which existed even in primitive cultures? Yeah, right. It's exactly the same except for the absence of a historical precedent, the lack of complimentarity in homosexual unions, and the procreative thing. Oh wait, I guess that means it's different--very different.
And slaves existed for centuries
and never even wanted to be free, either, in some righties' fantasy world.
How about
you gays quit hating straight people? Your intolerance of non-gay behavior is boring.
remember that it has been mostly non-christians that have started the world wars and murdered millions in the name of communism, facism and (I am not allowed to say the name Al***, I suppose)
Then stop making it my damn business...
...by bringing it into the public square and trying to force me to accept it as equal. You can pretend you are married to your same sex partner to your heart's content in the privacy of your own home, I don't care. What you don't have a right to do is ask me and others who hold to the traditional concept of marriage to accept it as marriage, because we won't.
And it's pure B...S..., to claim that miscegenation laws had a Christian basis, because we know that the Bible does NOT support such rules.
Also, I strongly doubt Jesus was very white, being from the Middle East and all.
No, Hitler was more like you, Scary...
...kind of a leftist who hated Christians.
Yes, scary
Hitler was a Christian. And he was evil personified.
Hitler was not a Christian...
...if by Christian, you mean someone who practiced the Christian faith. As Fuhrer, he persecuted the Catholic Church mercilessly, and this was the faith he was born into and there is no evidence he ever belonged to any other Christian faith. So, unless you are prepared to say he murdered Catholic clergy because he was such a good Catholic, you may want to reconsider your unhistoric claim that he was a Christian.
Excellent, scary
Facts, not fantasy!
Leave it to you liberals
to have all the Hitler manuals at your disposal. I see that you study your masters well.
The communists helped crush
scary's hero so now we have Obama and the new Leftist Regime. G'night commies, I need sleep to pay the taxes that snow claims to pay.
Conservatives restrict. It's what they do.
By a certain self professed Christian definition of a Christian she's not a Christian either. I think I already knew that. I wonder if she does :)
When conservatives step over the line and try to put their narrow view of the world and how OTHER people should behave into the constitution it's time for decent people to stand up and vote NO.
Oh for God's sake!
Stalin persecuted Jews, too. So does Hamas. Being a Christian does not mean persecuting Jews!
And the site is anti-Catholic as are all the other sites that say the same thing. I'm very familiar with the Concordat between Hitler and the Church, as well as the role of Concordats throughout history with other leaders. They are only signed by the Church when She is under attack by a leader or a government. If you bothered to study more history than anti-Catholic hate sites, you would know that Hitler's "religious" views came from an Aryan philosopher named Alfred Rosenberg who hated traditional Christianity but who bastardized some of its trappings to create something called "Positive Christianity", which was nothing more than a huge heresy divorced from all historical Christianity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Rosenberg.
You would also know that when Hitler invaded Poland, one of the first things he did was slaughter as many priests and nuns and he could. There also was a special block in Dachau where he housed priests and would have one crucified every year at Easter. Sorry, but your pathetic attempts to show him as a Christian FAIL in the face of true history. Really, you embarrass yourself.
Ha! Narrow view of the world?
You mean like Bloomberg who has outlawed Big Gulps, trans fats, and locked up baby formula in hospitals. Right, Fish, nothing restrictive there. Totally liberal!
Bloomberg is an Independent since 2007
according to the Mayor himself.
Bloomberg is a liberal...
...I don't care what his party designation is.
Christians and their wars
Pre WWI and WWII Germany was filled with Christian churches. And farther back in history some of the most terrible European wars featured Christian leaders carrying God's banner into battle. Not to mention the horrors of the Christian Crusades. Or the abuse of the native Latin Americans.
Jim
"We should not be legislating by Amendments, but use the system our constitution set where elected representatives and the Governor enact legislation."
You're right Jim. In fact, maybe we should even repent of our past errors and remove all the existing amendments, especially those in the U.S. constitution.
The thirteenth amendment (the one about slavery) should be rescinded. The one about establishment of religion? Get rid of that one too. Amendment XV guarantees you the right to vote since you are citizen. Don't need that one since illegals should also be allowed to vote. The XIX? If we can get that one rescinded soon, only men will be allowed to vote in November. If we do the II (guns), the leftys will jump for joy. That one's definitely gotta go.
Yes, Jim, I think you're on to something here. I guess it is true that happiness can be legislated.
Would you also agree then...
Fish, would you also agree?
When liberals step over the line and try to put their narrow view of the world and how OTHER people should behave into the constitution it's time for decent people to stand up and vote NO.
Cite an example, Truman, please.
Of that being proposed or having happened.
If it is a narrowly held view, it would not succeed in becoming an amendment.
And please do vote NO in NOvember.
Jim, been to Chick fil a lately?
You know the restaurant that liberals have blasted because someone had the audacity to express Freedom of Speech. You may not know that one; not one liberal does. All they know is their narrow little mindless thoughts centered on their genitals, which they want to flap in everyones face and scream "Accept me, tolerate me, because I won't do the same!!!"
Freedom of speech is not limited to the righties or the lefties.
Boycotting is a time honored peaceful means of protesting. If you don't protect the right for all sides, you may lose it when you need it most.
By all means, show your support.
A filet of a different flavor -- a pox on both your/our houses?
This is an article worth pondering as we mix our religion with a heaping dose of politics:
http://www.redletterchristians.org/american-christianity-is-at-war-again...
Why is there is so much hate
Why is there is so much hate and bigotry on this board? Not accepting someone who is different in any way to oneself is a personal choice. Imposing one's preferences on others, whether based on religion or not, is not. That is what the 14th Amendment protects against. It is about everyone having the right to be who they are without majority approval and persecution.
Being angry over someone else's marriage because it is against your religion is like being angry at someone for eating a doughnut because you are on a diet, and it makes no sense. Get married to whom you want, and let others enjoy their own doughnuts.
By the way, today I saw a cool sign at KFC- "Delicious Chicken Served without Hate." They could have a point.
boycotts on both sides
There was a big protest against General Mills when it came out in favor of rights for everyone, even gay couples.
How quickly we forget...............
Here's a worthy and timely piece! Enjoy
http://www.redletterchristians.org/american-christianity-is-at-war-again...
Oops, wrong article:
http://www.redletterchristians.org/chick-fil-a-dialogue-dan-cathy/
I'd prefer to boycott false religion over a chicken sandwich, but whatever works.
If the homosexual boycott of Chick-fil-A goes on much longer...
...Chick-fil-A won't know what to do with all the extra money they're earning. Proof, once again, that there is a majority of people who don't take kindly to jackboot activists trying to punish a Christian businessman simply because he honestly, and with a complete absence of malice, states his beliefs.
The haters are clearly identified in this case, they are frothing at the mouth minority who can't tolerate anyone who holds traditional Christian views. You know, the ones who deface private property and bully anyone who disagrees with them.
Next, for scary's flawed analogy between existence of slavery...
...and the absence of homosexual marriage. Humans have always known that slavery was an evil, if only with respect to their own right to be free. Homosexuals went for all of recorded history until late in the last century not knowing that they wanted to be married. The fact is, many homosexuals still think homosexual marriage is a farce and they don't want any part of it.