I am a Catholic who has been married for 41 years, and who also believes that marriage should be between one man and one woman.
However, I am voting no on the marriage amendment because the vast majority of our population, those of us who are straight, should not be able to vote to impact the lives of a minority group.
If this had happened 100 years ago, women would not have obtained the right to vote; 50 years ago, the civil rights movement would not have happened. This is a dangerous precedent, and if it passes, what is next? Scary...think about it.
Gary Niemi
Baxter
Comments (18)
Add commentI'll put it this way...
Thank you, Mr. Niemi.
Better for the minority to inflict their way on the majority...
...am I right, Mr. Niemi? Make no mistake about it, if this amendment doesn't pass, homosexual marriage will become the law and anyone who doesn't like it will be muzzled, just like they have in Canada and other countries where it is the law of the land.
Thank You Gary...
Nope... if this amendment fails
It won't become 'the law'..... marriage between a man and a woman will still be the predominant marriage, just like it is now. There will be no more or less gays or lesbians out there than before. There is still a 'law' on the books preventing gay marriage. Nothing will change. If it DOES pass, we are dealing with a constitution that takes a very small part of our citizenry and treats them differently at the amendment level. That is against the American precepts that I've been brought up to revere. The good news is that you won't be muzzled .... that is also against American precepts... NO ONE will be muzzled... and that's a good thing.
Conservative Predictions
When Muelbauer brings up her scare predictions it reminds me of the Focus On The Family 34 predictions in 2008 if Barack Obama was elected.
The Boy Scouts and private Christian schools were not forced to disband by the Supreme Court; adoption agencies remain in business; religious broadcasters still broadcast; churches are not being compelled to host gay weddings or to hire lesbian clergy; Christian tribal gatherings are still permitted “at the pole” in public high schools; the Pledge of Allegiance and private gun ownership have not been outlawed.
How many of those predictions came true? Care to hazard a guess?
Do you believe the predictions in 2012?
Thank you Zach. Anyone
Thank you Zach. Anyone refuting your comment immediately reveals that the true basis of their argument which is plain old homophobia. Everyone might catch "being gay" and then what? It will be an epidemic with gay marriage running rampant. It will be chaos. LOL! I'm still not sure how this threatens any person who is homosexual, but some people have irrational fears.
Vote No
Comments like those from OkeyDokey really irritate me. We have come to a point where we are bigots or homophobes if we do not support gay marriage. I am neither, but will be voting Yes for the amendment. It is a simple definition - marriage is between members of the opposite sex. Anything else can be called anything you want, but it isn't marriage. If it takes a constituional amendment to protect it, so be it.
Thank you..but I vote no.
I too am Catholic, I'm conservative, I believe in many things that people from other religions perhaps do not believe....but that's my business. It's not my place to judge others or to make decisions for them and it's not the place of lawmakers to make those decisions either. If my religion is a personal choice and a freedom I enjoy, it doesn't have a place in deciding how others live their lives and it doesn't give me the right to judge others based on their choices. Separation of church and state. Go to church (if you want to) and let lawmakers pass laws that protect our freedoms instead of restricting them.
If I didn't know better I
If I didn't know better I would swear that the cons invented hypocrisy. They are just so darn good at it.
"We're the champions of small government" they claim and then they try to shove government into our most private parts of our life.
"We're the champions of fiscal responsibility" they claim and then they blow huge amounts of our tax dollars on an unneeded voter ID amendment.
"We are the only ones who support our troops!" they claim right before they vote against traumatic brain injury research.
Yep. They are just so darn good at it they must be the ones who came up with the idea.
Limmer And Gazelka...
Brought the Amendment to a
You just outed yourself
with that picture of yourself, scribbs.
1 man, 1 woman= marriage.
NO compromising here!
I'm getting a good chuckle outa those that are trying to sway the majority though. There is a reason God created Adam & Eve....
Notice, God did not create Adam & Steve to procreate his people, maybe because God had a better plan. Let's use common sense here people.
Or did they leave that in the closet when they tripped out the door believing the majority would gather round them with open arms....
Not gonna happen.
It's not a "scare" tactic, Bond, it's a fact...
...all one has to do is look at places where homosexuals have been given marriage rights and look at the egregious persecution of Christians who dare to publicly express their ancient beliefs. Look at the activities of the human rights commission in Canada if you want to see some really outrageous examples of how homosexuals abuse those who disagree with them on this issue.
And Fish, if you think homosexual marriage is the fiscally responsible thing to do, or the less intrusive government thing to do, think again. Homosexuals currently have the right to marry in any religious tradition that allows for it. This amendment simply protects the rights of those of us who do not believe that treating different things differently is, or should be, a crime.
What I find interesting is that...
these folks are always the first to point out that the law already excludes gays from marrying, but you never hear any of them carping about the existing law.
I wonder how many of them have tried to get that law reversed.
Just curious.
Think about this. God also
Think about this. God also claims that incest is wrong. But he made 2 people. They first had 2 sons. Ummmmm.....where did everyone else come from? 3 men and 1 woman in the world...biology lesson anyone?
Muell....care to show some case studies of this "egregious persecution"? Nice phrase, by the way. Can you show us where it has happened in states in the USA where gay marriage is legal?
As for the majority of the population speaking. I think it will be interesting to find out how the vote comes out. I'm not sure. But are any of you prepared to eat these words if you lose? Or will it be sour grapes?
And do you folks realize that it really doesn't matter who wins? Either way, gay marriage is still not legal in MN, so the sky won't fall on the morning of November 7. You'll be safe.
Thanks Muehlbau
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/canadian-human-rights-commissions...
Thanks for pointing in the direction of an interesting article on the direction we are headed. I'm sure Canada is not the only place this has happened.
In Defense of Marriage
I hear it said that the absolute best way to raise children is with biological mom and dad (together) This is supposed to be from studies. I am not here to argue about this but rather to ask if this is true why not legislate this???? Why not make living together and single parenthood illegal????
If marriage is reserved only for one man and one woman it would seem to mean that all homosexuals would have to marry accordingly or not at all! Essentially a sham marriage or condemned to lifelong singlehood!!
MN is a liberal state so, you
MN is a liberal state so, you no voters should have faith in the Twin Cities, Duluth, Rochester voters to come through for you on this amendment.
All the needless handwringing shows you don't trust the voters, but yet MN is liberal.