For anyone who values the current definition of natural marriage, but is waffling regarding the marriage amendment because you think you will be free to hold your beliefs and express them regardless of the outcome of the amendment referendum, I highly recommend you read the following, true story from Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, which he delivered to St. Thomas Law School on Oct. 8.
“You are summoned to a tribunal where you cannot have a defense lawyer and you cannot record the proceedings nor have a witness present. The people judging and prosecuting you have no legal qualifications. The accusation is ambiguous, having to do with ideas the state does not like. The penalties could include fines equal to several thousands of dollars, public recanting, and rehabilitation classes. You are a bishop. This is not China. This is Canada. The offense: explaining why homosexual relations are a sin.”
Make no mistake, if the marriage amendment does not pass, the definition of marriage will be challenged within the year, because there are already challenges to the current legal definition of marriage that have been filed and are pending a court date. If the definition of marriage is overturned, as it has been by activist judges in several other states, Canada’s repressive political environment will become our own in time. If this serious threat to your ability to express age old religious principles concerns you even a bit, vote “Yes” on the marriage amendment.
Contrary to what opponents say, passage of this amendment will not close the debate, but it will keep the final decision on the issue where it belongs, with the people, rather than with a few judicial activists.
Judith Muehlbauer
Brainerd
Comments (48)
Add commentPro-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 (which is basically what happened in the past in the US)!!
Some really sick
people comment on here at times.
Un Christian
Apparently someone doesn't like my calling it like I see it and put a negative rating by my comments already! This is just typical. I can tell you that I have heard some pretty nasty and mean comments about "them" ([filtered word]) in my years out in the world (from school to the workplace). I just have to wonder what would motivate someone to have to be that mean to homosexuals?
Single parents used to face
disdain and discrimination.
We have matured beyond that.
Vote No to discrimination in our Constitution.
My vote is a no, too.
It doesn't matter if I am comfortable with same sex marriage or not..... we already have a law that in its present form can be toughened or loosened. If this amendment passes, that flexibility is gone. I am voting NO for that very reason alone. Our constitution is not meant to be used as a legislative tool, nor a social standard bearer.
Wow!
Single parenthood is still not the optimal way to raise a child and I say this as someone who WAS a single parent for several years. I can't believe you bring that up to support same sex marriage because it's so clearly not the ideal situation to raise a child.
And MMPI, you can't legislate good behavior, and I think you know that. That doesn't change the fact that the societal expectation should be that heterosexuals should marry before having children and should stay married regardless of whether they ultimately have children or not. Marriage is a life long commitment to exclusivity with another person, it's not a ticket to the "benefits buffet."
If Gays Have More Problems Than Straight People......
A lot of groups tend to cite studies that claim to show gays have a lot more of various mental problems/addictions than there straight counterparts (groups like Focus on the Family, NARTH, God Hates [filtered word] - Westboro Baptist Church((who are the veteran funeral picketers)) etc. etc.) I have often felt if these things are true it's because of the way gays are treated in society. I mean really: who is it that are the constant victims of ridicule, derision, or worse???? I have never heard of a group of "girly men" savagely beating up a straight dude, or taunting and bullying straight people in school for that matter. After all they are supposed to be a bunch of sissies right? It's always the gays who are made fun of!! Is it any wonder there is less self-esteem among them as a group.
Good Video To Watch
Those of you who want to use your biblical interpretations, watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeCLwtWbhEs
So, which side of history will you be on?
different ways to bully
Gays bully online. behind the scenes especially to other gays that do not follow in line. there is a gay mafia.
they out other gays like media guys that just want to
be left alone. they just bully in other ways than you are used to.
jb
Real good video's to watch are Obama's 2008 campaign ads. what he said he was going to do & what did he do? Now he's doing it again and you people are stupid enough to fall for it again. Fool me Once shame on you fool me twice shame on you. ( You don't have shame Do you ?)
George Bush Got It Wrong Too
Pickle, you are in good company. George Bush got that saying wrong too!
You said:
"Fool me Once shame on you fool me twice shame on you."
It should be:
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
If you voted for George Bush, shame on him for fooling you.
If you now vote for Romney, shame on you! You got fooled again. So, who now is the fool?
Who was fooled?
That is what many 2008 Obama voters are saying now,
"Fool me once shame on you,
fool me twice shame on me."
I think many are not too proud to admit they have been
fooled.
I do see where that saying can get confusing. I would not
point it out to anyone as it is easy to do.
While I appreciate that
While I appreciate that Canada is geographically close to us, I also recognize that its government is much different than ours. It's better to look to Iowa, our closest neighbor that allows same sex marriage. None of the horrible scary things have occurred there... And a gay mafia? Really? That's almost as scary as the claims that Judith states in her letter. It's time to stop with the scare tactics!
M Brodkorp indicated that Rebranding Chap 3 of GOP Playbook
says
" The optimal number of distractions that should be introduced should not exceed 2 or 3 issues" = 2 or 3 thirty second ad spot attention factor.
Therefore MN shoot first amendment was temp. set aside.
Keeping in mind the ultimate goal of the distractions during a major election year is to get the cult fired up and off the couch from watching the Faux Entertainment Network.
Meanwhile back at the ranch all you operatives in FL get busy deleting names off the reg. voters list because the PA Sec State says he has his state wired already. GO TEAM !
Wake up out there send 100% of the MN Republicon State Lawmakers packing. Problem fixed.
captron bases his whole attack
on evidence obtained from a lying adulterer that's trying to get a bunch of payoff. While that is the Chicago-Democrat way, it doesn't really make Brodkorp a witness that can be trusted. I realize though that the libs were proud of Clinton (another adulterer) when he comitted perjury and some, like cap, may be dumb enough to champion Brodkorp as another shyster to trust.
Judith
Good read. THANK-YOU
F&B just remember poor cappy,little bond,the new southie & mars/ well you know!! They just can not figure out WHO they are!!!!! VERY CONFUSED little minds!!!
& to whoever said compaire Iowa?? Really you just might not want to know just what happens in those cornfields!!
eyolf, he's a lier,
just like you. He wants money and the liberals that want to smear are willing to pay. He is a dirtbag, and at least he doesn't claim to be so good like someone I know on here.
You should quit throwing nasty names like that as it really shows the level you have dropped to.
Seriously OFB - read the
Seriously OFB - read the reports. Joke all you want about Iowa and continue with deceitful fear tactics to change the minds of reasonable people that deserve facts not partial truths and slippery slopes
JB(aby)
Real good at lookin for mistakes I'm sorry I missed typed see when I went to school Computers just started. I didn't learn to type so this is new to me.
Unlike you & you'r liberal comrades I can answer ?
AS for the one you asked i think as I'm sure alot of other real people do that you would be the fool.
jr. blowing it again!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjmjqlOPd6A
Hey OFB
I just got a phone call. I think old cast iron has been trying to call you.
Canada is a foreign country
"Yes to Marriage" letter explains what happened in Canada, a foreign country. Here in the USA, there is freedom of speech and freedom of religion, as well as, seperation of church and state. So, what is mentioned that happened to the Archbishop would never happen here in the USA or MN. Presently, same-sex marriage is banned in MN and the MN Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex marriage is illegal. If same-sex marriage was ever allowed in MN, no church would ever be forced to allow or accept same-sex marriage. So, the above letter is a mute point here in MN and the entire USA.
A No Vote to the Marriage Amendment will not change anything in MN, but, a Yes Vote will enshrine in our MN Consitution making a minority group of Minnesotans 2nd class citizens. State Contitutions are suppose to give people freedoms not take them away.
Just think, if your son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter grew up to be gay or lesbian, would you vote Yes and forever ban them from marrying the "Love of their Life"? By Voting NO on the marriage amendment, nothing will change, because of MN statute and MN Supreme Cout ruling. Please talk to friends, neighbors, or relatives that are gay or lesiban and ask them how hurtful this amendment would be to them. And, if you're still undecided or conflicted on voting on this amendment, you decide to abstain and not vote on it.
I find it ironic when
candidates send me literature bragging about their family values when they have divorced and remarried. I guess that makes them just the perfect person to preserve marriage and deny the right for others who are gay to have the same legal rights.
Such hypocrisy! I really could care less who divorces or how many times they marry, but don't preach to others that you are the better candidate to "preserve our values."
This entire ad among many they have mailed to us was sent to get out the VOTE YES Vote. Not a word about jobs and the economy. So I am totally in agreement that Brodkorb is right about why this proposed amendment is before us.
Her ads and those against Taylor are paid for by the Freedom Club State Pac. Do they represent your values?
OTOH, Taylor did an excellent job on his forum on PBS against what's her name.
cbarber526
Who would of thought 15 years ago the federal government & state government In the U.S.A. would have this much POWER Tell private business what to do (smoking, Fire head of G.M., Eliminate the stock holders & give it to the Unions), Make churchs & good people pay for other peoples abortions & Contraception (Which is birth control ).
By voting no you are taking the rights of Minnesota's religion away So please stop the Demo(c)RAT's lie. They will be persecuted because of bigotry from people like you.
Look down the road
How will any children of gay parents either be treated or cope with the situation?
Years ago different races marrying was not supposed to be a problem. Acceptance on either side has been a problem that they will have to deal with forever. Please don't tell me how it should be-it is what it is and once done there is no back button.
Separating church and state
Regarding the effort of some religious leaders to influence our vote on the Marriage Amendment, there is an interesting quote from Republican Barry Goldwater,
"Mark my word,” he said. “If and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it going to be a terrible problem.
Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Separation
I believe the original intention was to keep the State out of the Church, not the Church out of the State. Our country is too embedded with God to believe otherwise.
We have freedom of religion, not freedom from religion!
Wrong, Dean
Then which church gets to be involved with government? Would we vote on that? You are free to practice any religion, but not to impose its tenets on the rest of the nation.
Don't be dense!
Everyone brings their own personal beliefs with them. If you think it doesn't influence their decisions, there is no help for you!
Dean
Bring your beliefs, but don't legislate church laws such as "no businesses may be open on Sunday."