Legalized marriage is a function of civil authorities, not religious institutions. The U.S. Govt. has hundreds of federal benefits and responsibilities affected by marital status yet there is NO legal justification or “rational basis” for denying gay marriage. The Constitution affirms equal protection under the law. Over time, discriminatory barriers erected against individuals based on their skin color, ethnicity and gender have been removed by our courts; ie: women now serve in combat. Courts use a "rational basis test" to determine if equal right laws are being applied fairly. In Craig v. Boren, the Court claimed, “To withstand constitutional challenge, previous cases establish that classifications by gender must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives.” So what possible “reasonable” objective does the Government have in banning gay marriage? None! It’s time to remove this barrier.
12 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
RangerAl...A better question would be, "Does anyone know of any LGBT couples who have raised a child through to adulthood SINCE LGBT adoption became legal, and if so, in which state and when did it become legal?" Given the fact that many states don't allow LGBT adoption to begin with or the laws have more recently been changed, I think you may be hard-pressed to find LGBT couples who have children over 18 in most instances. I pose this question to you--of married hetero couples that have had children--how many have gone on to raise their children to adulthood while remaining married?
11 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
westline arrogantly believes (s)he is on the right path. Well, the path that runs to the right - as in wingnut - (s)he has correct.
I wonder what the dogma says about vainity, arrogance and pride?
Much less, the one un-scripted, but ever present (or is is prescient); willful ignorance.
I'll bet the Jesus Ponies rode the west line, given their presence to man.
Matthew 5:10 "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." I am in good shape.
3 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
While no religious argument was made against creating a new marriage law to placate a small minority, the charge of religious bigotry was, tellingly, readily employed by the anti-religious agitators who are advocating for that group. A charge of bigotry is not to be taken lightly. It can be a first step toward religious persecution. It causes one to think that that may be the aim of this discussion. Political agitators are quite adept at turning groups into victims and then victims into plaintiffs.<><>Legislating gay marriage is an illegitimate use of the office to which legislators are elected, the public trust they are given. It is bad law and horrible precedent.
4 Agrees | 16 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Absolutely not! Marriage is for a man and a woman, who in general, procreate and raise a family.
The gay folks for the most part are after taxpayer benefits - they could care less about raising kids.
Still waiting for an answer - does any one know a gay couple that has raised one or more children from at least age two through college? No one every answers this question so I guess the answer is no.
4 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Obviously, if gay marriage were to be allowed, then the next step would have to be animal marriage or incestuous marriage. Derp. Whatever.
18 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Of course it should. To the rest of you...Keep YOUR religion out of MY government.
19 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
A peanut and jelly sandwich is a good thing. Now, ketchup and axle grease like each other. They want to be a peanut and jelly sandwich. They want to pass a law that says they are a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. No matter what any "law" conjured up by politicians says, not even if they get the support of their Santa Claus president, they will never be a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
3 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
The constitution comes first. That's the law. You have a right to your religion, but the Establishment clause means that you don't get to filter the constitution through your religious dogma text. You can live your life through your dogma disciplines (yet, there is little evidence that the latter part of the text is part of that discipline) but you don't get to subject that as it has nothing to do within the context the laws that provide a framework for governance.
And using religion as an excuse to be a bigot? Dispicable.
21 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
My aim in politics is conservative, not trying to spend our way out of debt,and in line with what is right, as taught by God through people smarter than me and you, we don't kill our babies, and Adam doesn't marry Steve. On these issues my aim is dead on. And my aim is also dead on in the bathroom, so anything you see on the wall wasn't from me.
4 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
"Wasn't allowing women and blacks the right to vote inspired by activists for special interest groups?"************** The short answer of course is "No" The right to vote was, rightfully, extended to Blacks and women. The right was the same as everyone else's right to vote in the same elections as everyone else voted in. All such inclusions were consistent with the standard test; did they conform with ours being a nation of laws, not men? Simply put, the right to vote was not redefined. It was simply extended to people who had been wrongfully excluded. New ways to vote in elections apart from the general elections, in which ONLY blacks or ONLY women voted were not even considered and would certainly be opposed by the constitutionally conscious among us. Clarity, my (common)man, clarity.
4 Agrees | 17 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Westline, I think I read some of your stuff on the bathroom wall at an area gas station. I think thats a better forum for you.
20 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
If bigots don't understand the basic tenets behind "all men are created equal", then laws are required to to be passed to show those bigots that their bigotry, while a right to hold their bigotted views in this country, are not the path to a more perfect union and their @$$-holeness will not be allowed to be subjected upon more enlightened people.
20 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
WW07,I agree 110%
2 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Some ignorant people think the law should say marriage is between one man and one woman. No. We should be allow to marry who we love. That way i can marry my mother-in-law and my herd of stock cows, whom i love. That way Obamacare will take care of my mother-in-law's hospital bills and my stock cows' vet bills!!
7 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Wasn't allowing women and blacks the right to vote inspired by activists for special interest groups? It's only a matter of time, ww. Minnesota used to be out in front of social issues, 8 years of Pawlenty has stunted our state.
24 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
Activist inspired laws for special interest groups are never a good idea.
2 Agrees | 22 Disagrees | Report Abuse »
508 W. Main St. , Marshall, MN 56258 | 507-537-1551