"Minnesota Appears Poised to Legalize Gay Marriage..."

[OSUViking 505]

http://news.yahoo.com/minnesota-appears-poised-legalize-gay-marriage-210442398.html

 

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Minnesota appears poised to legalize gay marriage, as the Democratic speaker of the state House said Tuesday that a gay marriage bill endorsed by the governor and likely to pass in the state Senate also now has enough backing in his chamber.

 

The House will vote on the measure Thursday, and if it passes, the Democratic-led Senate could vote on it as soon as Saturday.

House Speaker Paul Thissen, of Minneapolis, said that the 73-member Democratic majority he leads will produce at least the 68 votes needed to pass the bill. Senate leaders are also confident of passage, and Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has promised to sign the bill, which would allow gay couples to marry as of Aug. 1.

 

"I think it's in line with the tradition we've had in Minnesota about respecting people, making sure everybody is included in our community and the fullness of participation in that," Thissen said.

 

If the bill passes, it would mark a stunning about-face on the issue in Minnesota, where only six months ago voters were asked whether they wanted to enshrine the current gay marriage ban in the state constitution. They didn't.

 

No House Republicans have committed to vote for the bill. Thissen said while their votes are not needed, they would be appreciated. "It's not a partisan issue. You've seen many prominent Republicans speak out on this issue," Thissen said. One Senate Republican, Branden Petersen of Andover, publicly supports the bill.

 

Fifth-term Rep. Pat Garofalo, a Republican from Farmington, told The Associated Press he decided Monday night he would oppose the bill, saying he had concerns about the adequacy of religious protections. He said he preferred an alternate civil union proposal that would extend gay couples more legal rights, but wouldn't allow them to marry.

 

"We would be much better off unifying the state behind civil unions," Garofalo said. Another Republican, Rep. Tim Kelly planned to push an amendment Thursday to swap gay marriage for civil unions.

 

Unable to count on any Republican support, House Democrats have had to rely on support from several party members from rural, more socially conservative areas where voters strongly backed last fall's failed proposed gay marriage ban. But in recent days, a number of those members have come out in support of the bill.

 

"My brother is gay," said Rep. Shannon Savick, DFL-Albert Lea, who said she'd vote for the bill. "I watched my brother being discriminated against when we were younger. I just don't see why he shouldn't be able to marry the person he loves. I did."

Savick acknowledged the decision could cost her votes in 2014, when all House members are back on the ballot. A handful of House Democrats are still publicly undecided, and the House leaders wouldn't say exactly how many votes they had.

 

"It could cost me the election. I represent a very conservative area," Savick said. "I hope I do enough good in other areas that they'll overlook that."

 

Thissen and Majority Leader Erin Murphy said they met privately with undecided members but that Democrats weren't pressured.

"This is not an issue that is subject to arm-twisting," said Murphy, of St. Paul. "This is an issue where members really have to reach their own conclusion and vote what they think is right for Minnesota."

 

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee approved the bill on a split voice vote as Republicans raised concerns that legalizing gay marriage could cause unanticipated costs to Minnesota's courts.

 

Last year's general election results reflected an apparent shift in the public's attitude toward gay marriage. In addition to Minnesota's defeat of the proposed gay marriage ban, voters legalized gay marriage in three other states — Maine, Maryland and Washington.

 

Delaware became the 11th state to legalize gay marriage Tuesday when Gov. Jack Markell signed legislation approved by the state Senate less than an hour earlier. Last week, Rhode Island became the 10th state to legalize gay marriage. In the Midwest, Iowa has had legal gay marriage since a 2009 judicial ruling. The Minnesota bill would make it the first Midwestern state to take the step by legislative vote, although the Illinois Legislature also is considering a bill to legalize gay marriage.

 

Richard Carlbom, who heads Minnesotans United, a group that campaigned against last fall's amendment and has subsequently pushed the gay marriage bill through the legislative process, said the group has been conservative in its vote counting, and that commitments from legislators have been double- and triple-checked.

 

Carlbom said he hoped those inclined to vote 'no' would consider the long view.

 

"The vote that will be taken in the House on Thursday will be remembered for the next 100 years," he said.

 

 

... Alright, I'm done. Seriously, this would make me pretty happy if Minnesota did this.

[blotsfan 2,112]

Nice job Minnesota.

[BwareDWare94 723]

As it should be, but everywhere, not just a handful of states.

 

There is no legitimate argument against legalizing gay marriage. None whatsoever.

[PackIsBack 124]

I'm excited that Minnesota is taking the necessary steps to legalize gay marriage. Hopefully other states will follow and do the same.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

It is sad when the right thing is looked upon as a testament of equality to the majority.

[OSUViking 505]

It really seems like the states are starting to realize that there isn't anything wrong with gay marriage. I'm hearing of the recent legalizations, the possible legalizations (Illinois, Minnesota), and support for legalization movements in a few states across the country.

[OSUViking 505]

It passed through the House. The Senate should pretty swiftly pass it and the Governor is a lock to sign it into law.

[CARDINAL 205]

As it should be, but everywhere, not just a handful of states.

 

There is no legitimate argument against legalizing gay marriage. None whatsoever.

 

In your opinion.

[blotsfan 2,112]

In your opinion.

And the opinion of anyone who is correct.

[CARDINAL 205]

And the opinion of anyone who is correct.

 

since when is it a crime to have a different viewpoint than other people? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and shouldn't be crucified for taking that point of view. People who do that to others are stupid.

[BwareDWare94 723]

since when is it a crime to have a different viewpoint than other people? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and shouldn't be crucified for taking that point of view. People who do that to others are stupid.

 

False. Homosexual couples deserve the same benefits and opportunities as heterosexual couples.

 

You're wrong on this one, man.

[Omerta+ 1,206]

I am all for gay marriage and rights.

 

That said different opinions on moral issues are bound to happen and I am sure that arguments could be made for both sides. Dmac and Thanatos come to mind, but just because they are different does not make them wrong or right.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

As it should be, but everywhere, not just a handful of states.

 

There is no legitimate argument against legalizing gay marriage. None whatsoever.

 

You mean a book written by humans claiming that it is the word of a higher deity isn't an argument?

 

[BwareDWare94 723]

You mean a book written by humans claiming that it is the word of a higher deity isn't an argument?

 

 

ROFL

[SteelersNation36 128]

 

Edit: Before people start going off about the weed part having nothing to do with this specific legalization of gay marriage. Was more posted for how differently things can be interpreted from one person to the next. Also yes I realize the person who posted this was just trying to be a smart ass.

Edited May 12, 2013 by SteelersNation36

[blotsfan 2,112]

since when is it a crime to have a different viewpoint than other people? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and shouldn't be crucified for taking that point of view. People who do that to others are stupid.

Anyone other than cardinal and I'd assume the hypocrisy was meant for laughs.

[OSUViking 505]

It may be because of my stand on the issue, but I don't think there are any logical arguments against homosexuality and rights being extended to them. I understand issues with it based on religion, but let's face it... most of the opposition to homosexuality is more than likely homophobia. Also, while I do understand reservations based on religion, I do not interpret that as "we shouldn't let them marry or have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples because God says so" when we live in a secular society.

[Thanatos 2,847]

There actually is an argument.

 

I still don't think I agree with it. But here ya go:

 

Would you or would you not agree with the following statement: "Any two consenting adults should be allowed to get married if they choose."

 

The statement itself is actually discriminatory. "Two" consenting adults. Why not three or four? Even if its just two, how about a brother and a sister? There was an article in the London Times about a mother who wished to marry her daughter, not for anything sexual, but to give her benefits, etc. Her argument is as follows:

If I were gay, I could pop into a lesbian dive, pick up a cute little chickie, install her in my home and then, giddy with optimism and desire, trot her off to the register office a month later and make her my civil partner. Romance aside, by doing so I would be protecting the person I love most from the potential for financial disarray that, quite sensibly, is a frequently given reason for wanting to do it at all.

 

We would enjoy the mutual pension rights and the tax breaks of a married couple, including the chance to use each others’ capital gains tax allowances. Were I to be run over by a bus, if we lived in a council flat the lucky girl would be allowed, as are wives, to stay in it. If we lived in my privately owned home, she’d also be sitting pretty: totally freed from inheritance tax, she could own every brick of my estate.

 

As it happens, I do live with a cute little chickie and have done for 32 years. She is the person I love most, there is no possibility of that ever changing, yet I cannot protect her at all. Come the killer bus, the rise in house values means that there is no way that she could possibly afford to pay the taxes on my estate; she would be flung out of the only home she has ever known, paying the price for being not my squeeze but my daughter.

 

...

 

A commitment to a civil partnership is a commitment to a person. The “sickness and in health” of conventional marriage is not so much a sexual as a moral tie; where there is a chosen one above all others, a mutually caring unit is established and stability is promoted above caprice. Loneliness is held at bay, isolation is thwarted and devotion is rewarded, some sad day, by the simple security of a roof over a deserving head, be it gay, straight or otherwise

 

Do we want marriage to be reduced to a simple mathematical calculation? Was that even the intent of marriage in the first place, just to give benefits to one other special person in your life?

 

This argument is not a slippery slope one. (I would point out that polygamous marriages will follow from allowing gay marriage, and this isn't slippery slope at all, it's already happened, quite a long time ago.) This is merely an argument that marriage has always been discriminatory, and that this is not, in and of itself, wrong. What needs to be proven is that the discrimination is wrong, not that the current system of one man, one woman is wrong merely because it discriminates.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Thanatos19

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

There actually is an argument.

 

I still don't think I agree with it. But here ya go:

 

Would you or would you not agree with the following statement: "Any two consenting adults should be allowed to get married if they choose."

 

The statement itself is actually discriminatory. "Two" consenting adults. Why not three or four? Even if its just two, how about a brother and a sister? There was an article in the London Times about a mother who wished to marry her daughter, not for anything sexual, but to give her benefits, etc. Her argument is as follows:

 

 

Do we want marriage to be reduced to a simple mathematical calculation? Was that even the intent of marriage in the first place, just to give benefits to one other special person in your life?

 

This argument is not a slippery slope one. (I would point out that polygamous marriages will follow from allowing gay marriage, and this isn't slippery slope at all, it's already happened, quite a long time ago.) This is merely an argument that marriage has always been discriminatory, and that this is not, in and of itself, wrong. What needs to be proven is that the discrimination is wrong, not that the current system of one man, one woman is wrong merely because it discriminates.

 

There are legitimate non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage. I'm no expert on it, and I admittedly was sleeping in church the other day when my pastor touched on this topic.

 

Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic so I'm not gonna go any deeper on this topic, but he went on a 2 hour thing about "the slippery slope", looking at both sides. Among other arguments.

 

Naturally because of individuals like myself who's beliefs are centered on religion causes people to make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is all religious. But even at my college they had a forum about this, over half were against it and only two/three times was religion bought up, and I go to a heavy liberal arts college near the land of the hippies (Ann Arbor).

[OSUViking 505]

Sorry for the assumption, DMac. I'll admit it's poor form for me to assume that every person against gay marriage is against it for religious reasons.

[Thanatos 2,847]

There are legitimate non-religious reasons to be against same-sex marriage. I'm no expert on it, and I admittedly was sleeping in church the other day when my pastor touched on this topic.

 

Like I said, I'm no expert on the topic so I'm not gonna go any deeper on this topic, but he went on a 2 hour thing about "the slippery slope", looking at both sides. Among other arguments.

 

Naturally because of individuals like myself who's beliefs are centered on religion causes people to make the mistake of thinking that opposition to gay marriage is all religious. But even at my college they had a forum about this, over half were against it and only two/three times was religion bought up, and I go to a heavy liberal arts college near the land of the hippies (Ann Arbor).

 

While I would agree there is at least one non-religious reason to be against it, you can hardly blame people for saying that religion is the reason people are against gay marriage. What is the largest group, by percentage, that is against gay marriage? Evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics. And I would say that 90% of the people you talk to aren't gonna give you a secular argument against it. They're gonna pull out Leviticus 18 or Romans 1 as a reason why gays shouldn't get married.

[WindyCitySports 407]

Congrats to Minnesota and Rhode Island. This issue has really been evolving in recent months and I expect a lot of activity in the coming year.

 

Illinois should be voting in the House pretty soon. It easily passed the Senate a couple of months ago, but they didn't have the 60 votes they needed in the House. The campaigns have been hitting pretty hard since (Brendon Ayanbadejo, among others, have been doing robocalls) and they now have about 60 or 61 votes, exactly what they need to pass it (including my Republican representative ). They will have to vote on it (as well as medical marijuana) soon or else it will expire with the end of the session approaching. If it passes, which it looks like it will, the Governor has promised to sign. I really hope it gets done because I want to be able to say that my state was one of the first ones to do this, considering that eventually all states will do it, and rightly so.

Edited May 15, 2013 by WindyCitySports