...the state has no compelling interest in marriage save one--children that are born of those unions. The state doesn't regulate friendships or other non-marital love relationships because children are not the natural result of them. Since homosexuals have to engage in reproductive tinkering to have children (which they shouldn't be doing, I might add, because it's unfair to children who are created that way) the state has no compelling interest in who they love or who they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

While we're at it, I'd love to have you list all the positive benefits that homosexual relationships provide to society (not benefits each partner provides as an individual, but what their actual union provides as a benefit). Maybe you can change my mind on this if your list is compelling.

Macalester Plymouth United Church in St Paul has a gay assistant pastor and a number of gay members of both sexes. As a session member I have observed how valuable and public serving those gay members are to the church and the community.
I also think you are observing natural marriage with rose colored glasses.
R

Scary Ad Guy is racing to NOvember 6, 2012...

I wonder if anyone recalls the quote from the Bible "Judge not and ye shall not be judged?" There are many fine people who are gay, just because some people are threatened by them because they don't fit the "image" our society reinforces is not reason to dictate what they can and cannot do. I say spend your time and energy on more important things like pedophiles, child kidnapping, poverty and the massive homeless problems we have in this country.

...my purpose for fighting this battle is to defend something that provides benefits to ALL society, IOWs, healthy, natural marriage. There are only three responses a government can have toward the behavior of its citizens:

Promote, permit, or prohibit. Government should promote behaviors that help all of society, permit behaviors that are not clearly detrimental to society, and prohibit behaviors that are clearly detrimental to society. We currently permit most relationships, including homosexual ones, as long as they don't involve incest or pedophilia. To convince me that we should promote these relationships, you need to prove to me these relationships provide unique benefits to society.

Please proceed.

Natural marriage:

1) Creates children - NOT ALL OF THEM. INFERTILE COUPLES, OLD COUPLES, AND THOSE WHO CHOOSE NOT TO PRODUCE OFFSPRING DON'T CREATE CHILDREN.
2) Best raises children - WHO SAYS? YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS. AND CAN YOU TELL ME HOW A CHILD FROM AN ABUSIVE NEGLECTFUL HOME WITH 2 HETEROSEXUAL PARENTS IS BETTER RAISED THAN ONE FROM A LOVING HOME WITH 2 PARENTS OF THE SAME SEX?
3) Protects women - FROM WHAT? BATTERING BY THEIR HUSBAND? CERTAINLY NOT. MANY MARRIED WOMEN LIVE IN FEAR...EVER HEAR OF A WOMEN'S SHELTER?
4) Civilizes men - SO MEN ARE UNCIVILIZED UNTIL THEY ARE MARRIED? DO THEY COURT US BY DRAGGING A POTENTIAL MATE AROUND BY THE PONYTAIL OR SOMETHING? AND SEE ABOVE ABOUT ALL THOSE HUSBANDS WHO CHEAT ON AND ABUSE THEIR WIVES.
5) Lowers crime, poverty and welfare, which reduces government spending and deficits. - WHERE DO YOU GET THIS STUFF? MARRIED PEOPLE STILL LIVE IN POVERTY, COLLECT WELFARE AND COMMIT CRIMES.

SO...here's the list you asked for about the benefits of homosexual couples.
1. They can create biological children (this is no more "tampering" than what other infertile heterosexual couples go through) or they can adopt children. Once they are born, kids don't really CARE how the egg and sperm came together any more than they care if they were born naturally or by c section. They only concern themselves with how they are looked after and cared for once they are here.

2. They can provide a stable, loving and safe household in which to raise children.

3. They can be good neighbors.

4. They can hold good productive jobs in the community providing valuable goods or services.

5. They can be good members of whatever church they belong to.

6. They can contribute time and talents to charity or neighborhood projects.

7. They can look out for and help their friends, family and neighbors.

8. Combining incomes would of course, raise the household earnings and I guess you could say that would lessen poverty and welfare (for the same reason you are claiming in heterosexual marriage above) and I don't know that gay people contribute greatly to criminal activity anyway, but OK....I'll claim that can be lessened too. Since you were making stuff up, I guess you can let me slide on that one.

Oh geez....wait....the benefits of homosexual couples are just like the benefits of heterosexual couples. Who would have thought?

How do we keep religion out of politics as long as we have the right to vote?

Easy. Vote "NO" to anything that inserts religion into politics. Call your legislators and tell them that religious matters have no place in politics. Do not vote for or re-elect candidates that use religion as a speaking point in their platforms. Once we stop "rewarding" the intrusion of religion into politics, our legislators will stop trying to insert it.

1) This is the exception to the rule, not the rule.
2) There is such a super abundance of evidence of the claim that statistically, the best environment for raising a child with its natural parents that not knowing this shows you clearly haven't done your homework. I have posted dozens of studies supporting this in the past and this doesn't scratch the surface. Since you've ignored what I've posted in the past, I don't see any point in posting it again. Look it up yourself, you will have no problem finding it, I assure you. And abusive parents are bad whether homosexual or heterosexual, but with homosexual parents you know there will always be at least one partner who is not related to a child by blood, and that is a risk factor for bad outcomes.
3) Married women are less likely to be battered by their husbands than they are by their boyfriends, so yes, it does protect them, and all the evidence shows that women are hurt most financially by divorce.
4) The studies on this are also clear. Unmarried men commit more crimes. One study actually showed that married men have lower levels of testosterone than unmarried men. Don't poo-poo things you haven't researched, it makes you look silly when you are rebutted.
5) We're talking statistically speaking, Okey, not individual cases. Again, this is a fact supported by the evidence, as I mentioned, I've read many studies that suggest that poverty among women is often connected to divorce. Promoting healthy marriages is good for society and children. No amount of wishful thinking on your part is going to change that.

Now for your list of "positives"

1. Again, as I've said before, I completely oppose reproductive tampering involving heterosexuals, because it deprives a child of both parents by design, so your argument that this is okay for homosexuals doesn't fly with me. It's not fair to the child, period.

2. They can only provide an environment for raising children that is at best, sub-optimal. By depriving a child of a father or mother, you are depriving that child of something very important.

3. Good neighbors? Yeah, two unrelated people who are living as roommates can be good neighbors. Not a unique contribution to society--at all!

4. They can hold productive jobs? Again, not a function of their relationship. This is an individual contribution.

5. They can belong to any church? Again, what is the benefit to society of their RELATIONSHIP? Unmarried people can do this, as well.

6. Again, an individual contribution, not a relationship contribution. What do you not understand about my request?

7. Ditto.

8. And yes, gay people do contribute to the crime rates as a subgroup. The percentage of homosexuals engaged in pedophiles is far higher than the percentage of heterosexuals involved in pedophilia. They also are more likely to engage in substance abuse than heterosexuals.

Sorry, but your response was way off the mark, because you insisted on providing only individual contributions. Even if I allowed you to include the one involving reproductive tinkering, anyone should be able to see that this just underscores how different the relationships are. The ONLY way they can reproduce is by involving a third party. This is NOT something society should have an interest in (again, I don't discriminate on the grounds of heterosexuality or homosexuality, this is just WRONG.)

...of course they will teach gay marriage in the schools if it becomes the law. They've done this where ever gay marriage has been enacted. The point of this amendment is that there are ALREADY CASES IN THE DOCKET TO CHALLENGE THE CURRENT LAW. Sorry, but I don't trust the courts on this.

Are you completely unaware of the gay indoctrination that's already been happening in our schools? Ever heard of GLSEN? I have.

The following are gay PICTURE BOOKS, intended for young children. The Family Book by Todd Parr
And Tango Makes Three by Peter Parnell
King and King by Linda de Haan
King and King and Family by Linda de Haan
Jack and Jim: Picture Book by Kitty Crowther
Hello, Sailor by Ingrid Godon

There are many more, of course, but these sorts of books have been used to indoctrinate children in public schools for YEARS.

You are truly either one of the most unaware people I've ever encountered, Okey, or a liar.

Also, you have no idea how "gayness" happens. I can tell you right now that all the gay men I've known were sexually molested as pre-teens or in their teen years by older homosexuals. Yes, I've known many homosexuals over the years and I have no problem with them as individuals (other than my first boss who ripped me off of three weeks of pay, but that's another story). No one has ever proven a genetic link to homosexuality--ever.

The fact that you and your fellow pro-homosexual marriage types don't respect parents' prerogative to NOT have their children exposed to homosexual propaganda is why we must vote YES. Clearly, you and your cohorts cannot be counted on to defend OUR rights to imbue OUR beliefs on OUR children.

Meuhlbau best bolt her door tomorrow as some of those gay boogeymen will be at her door.

For All Citizens in a Constitution than the FACTS presented in Ads by Team Frank Schubert...

_______

Fabricated

Analysis

Creates

Twisted

Scenarios

_______

You state:
"This letter is a reminder of why we should keep religion out of government and politics."
_________________________________________________
The problem with your statement comes from Amendment ! to the Constitution of the United States of America which states:
_______________________________________________
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
_______________________________________________
I see there the requirement for the government to keep it's hand out of religion but absolutely no requirement for religion to keep it's fingers out of government!
_________________________________________________
And, note that it allows all of us to speak our piece whether others like what we have to say or not and, unless there is treason in the words, the government is not to stop us from voiceing our opinion!
________________________________

And by the way Rubbyk this speaks against your position that religion has no place in politics!!!

I don't need an organized religion to tell me what is moral or how to vote. If that tax exempt religion wants to get into politics, it can register and start paying taxes.

You state that government should keep its hands out of religion but religion has no obligation to keep its hands out of government.

HOWEVER, it depends on the religion.
About a year ago, several states passed laws banning Sharia law in their states. I have no idea why Muslims would want to take over Oklahoma, but in the event that they do, the state government (in addition to several others) is ready and "protected" now (whew).

Here in Minnesota, some denominations are actively campaigning for and others are actively campaigning against the rights of gays to get married.
If the vote is NO, not a single thing changes in the state. Even if the law currently banning gays from getting married is eventually overturned, the government will not be meddling in the religion of any single faith that chooses not to acknowledge those marriages. They will not be forced to perform or acknowledge religious rites that conflict with their faith (see precedence in other states and legal rulings across the country).

However,
if the vote is YES, then some components of religion will have effectively used the government as a tool to ban a practice other faith institutions would like to practice. For a church that views all of its members equally -- gay or straight -- and wants to officiate marriages for all of them, the Catholic church and its allies have denied them that right. Some churches take the Holy text literally and some metaphorically, and somehow they have managed more or less to coexist for hundreds of years. Archeaologists know that there are multiple versions of books of the Bible (they were here on loan from Israel in the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit at the Science Museum in St. Paul). It has been noted (this is not up for debate) that the wording, context and in some cases entire sections of books are different from version to version. This is more significant than the translation differences we encounter. But this vote, for the people voting yes, really does come down to their acceptance that the literal meaning is the only correct interpretation. Any study of ancient texts indicates that some of them ebbed and flowed over time. They were changed to suit time and place. Some of our religious institutions grabbed onto one version, canonized it (omitting the others, or at the expense of the others) and now declare that to be the single truth that the rest of the state should follow or be cursed to H-E-double-hockey-sticks.

And readers today use some of these verses to condemn a group of people, but somehow ignore (or refuse to pursue with any zeal) passages that would condemn themselves. Over $10 million dollars has been spent on this campaign. Where is the constitutional amendment to prevent hunger among children, outlaw divorce, stone adulters? They don't exist, and the same groups that have mobilized against gay people would never turn out the organization, the effort or the funding to tackle those other issues. Where are the priorities for what these religious institutions stand for? You don't want to welcome gay people in your place of worship? You don't have to, and never will. But it's a completely different thing to pull out the welcome mat from the state. Especially when so many voices of logic and reason are opposed.

Will there be any clear cut decision? Will the state heal and move on beyond this issue? At this point, I would say, "no." Homophobes will still look for ways to cut gay people out of society and deny them the same protections others enjoy. Gay people will still be asking for their rights to be acknowledged. It's not like the "people will speak with one voice" and declare something to be a value shared by Minnesotans. No. This issue has ripped the state apart. My prediction is that this issue will be decided by the slimmest of majorities, by the get out the vote efforts, and by whether or not the majority of voters are swayed by ads that the most respected independent fact checkers have called misleading at best. One political party has seized the opportunity to use the government to essentially elevate the religious views of one segment of society above the rest. That is not the purpose for amending the constitution.