Vote NO! & NO!

[seanrichardryan]

As per the subject line, you should vote NO! on the constitutional amendments. Discuss.

[gahwi003]

This should be an interesting thread

I view marriage as a bond between one man, one woman, and god, not a signed legal document. That being said, it really doesnt matter to me which way this vote goes.

On a side note, I have been, on numerous occasions, publically insulted for stating I would most likely vote yes after being asked my stance by a "Vote NO" advocate. I felt this was uncalled for. I'm probably going to go cry about it..... lol

[nordeast homer]

I witnessed voter fraud during the last election and was told there was nothing I could do about it, so I'm glad to see that this is coming up as an amendment. This is the right thing to do. We have to show identification to drive, to buy liquor, to open a bank account. Why is it not a big deal for those things but it is to vote? I talked to my mom who is in a nursing home and has never had an ID if she thought this was a big deal and she said "no", she was all for it!! VOTE YES!!!

[John]

^^^Knock Knock Gawhi , who's there? I guess we don't live in a country where we have religious freedom, even though that's explicitly written in our constitution! And I most certainly have the right to freedom from your religious beliefs ...thank god! Perhaps with your attitude you would be more comfortable living in theocracy like Iran! I hear it's a wonderful place to live! lol!

Vote no the marriage amendment. The marriage amendment is really about imposing certain religious beliefs and values that will dangerously erode the separation of church and state. Civil law pertaining to marriage rights should be equal for ALL people. We live in a pluralistic society where all citizens should be viewed as equal under civil law. Of course, I do strongly believe if you belong to a religious body that does not morally agree with same sex unions , you absolutely have the right not to acknowledge that union in your religious cermonies or rituals. That is also protected by the constitution.

I guess I will never figure out why people are so opposed or threatened by same sex marriage. If you're not gay or lesbian and you're secure with you sexuality and self identity, what do you have to worry about? It's not your concern.

[gahwi003]

Everyone,

As me and John have already illustrated, it is obvious that we all have polar views on this subject. Pursuant to this, I suggest we all post our opinions, and refrain from insulting comments, and assumptions of others beliefs.

I guess I will never figure out why people are so opposed or threatened by same sex marriage. If you're not gay or lesbian and you're secure with you sexuality and self identity, what do you have to worry about? It's not your concern.

I think this is where you have formulated an incorrect generalization. I, along with supporters of the amendment, don't care what two individuals do with their life, and I agree, "it is not our concern". I am not threatened by same sex marriage. Rather, I believe the tradition of marriage is threatened.

I have two gay roommates that are great friends. They both respect my beliefs, and I hope others on this forum can follow suit.

[Nick]

I have a feeling this isn't going to last very long.

[helsinki]

Hmm, before everyone gets riled up about wedge issues designed to distract us from real issues of governance, why not put this whole hullabaloo into an urban development context.

One element in the resurgence of certain cities in America since the 1990s has undeniably been the presence of a local gay scene. In a nutshell, in countless instances gays have brought cultural amenities, density, and a degree of wealth to formerly blighted neighborhoods. An obvious example is the Dupont Circle nieghborhood of Washington DC. What was once dangerous, poor, and dirty has become safe, wealthy, and super clean. MSP has greatly benefited from this trend also.

The reasons are very simple (pardon any generalizations): (1) gays generally don't have children, ie they aren't personally invested in the quality of public schools, (2) also because of having fewer children, smaller living spaces without yards do not prevent them from living in the city, (3) they often migrate into city centers because of the (real or perceived) cultural animosity of suburbia to their way of life, (4) they are disproportionately represented in the arts - the important institutions of which are almost always located in or around downtown areas, (5) having gays in a neighborhood generally leads to "cool" bars/galleries/etc, drawing in non-gays interested in the arts and an interesting bar scene, (6) because still 2/3 of Americans are white, most gays are also white - this leads to whites inhabiting neighborhoods previously feared by whites as unsafe ethnic ghettos, (7) along with the sprouting of amenities to serve gay communities - stereotypically these are organic grocers, yoga and fitness studios, boutique fashion and design outlets - yuppies, hipsters, the idle rich, students, etc move in, creating density, social cache, and the like.

The reason this is important here is because by putting up a gigantic "No gays, please" sign through "symbolic" (read: unnecessary) referenda, we are shooting ourselves in the urban development foot. MSP has always attracted talented people and successful businesses because it has an inclusive political and social culture. I mean, we have the biggest Hindu temple in North America for a reason.

These are compelling reasons for us to not amend our constitution to say f* you to a group of people who are critical to the success of MSP and MN.

If you disagree, please make the case for how two dudes or two ladies marrying each other harms you personally (without resorting to fuzzy notions of tradition and holiness that mean different things to different people).

[PhilmerPhil]

Just had to post this:

[Nathan]

I view marriage as a bond between one man, one woman, and god, not a signed legal document. That being said, it really doesnt matter to me which way this vote goes.

So this is the whole point, You believe it to be between a man, woman, and (your)GOD. For some of us, our god (the ELCA second largest church in the state) believes in a marriage between two men and god or two women and god. IF in case the fact is that you believe in Religious freedom, and the protection of church from state, you should actually vote no. Your church is not in any way threatened by this amendment. My church however is. That would be the Government telling my church that they cannot practice their religion as they see fit.

And I know that you see marriage as "not a signed legal document" But getting married at the church does NOT actually constitute a marriage. That is why at EVERY wedding the Pastor/Priest/whoever says "By the power vested in me BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA..." They don't say by the power vested in me by the Catholic God or Lutheran God, or Allah... The state issues marriage licenses, and they should not be able to discriminate based on a religious point of view. And if you respect and honor the idea of religious freedom (your churches right to deny same sex marriages) I strongly suggest that you consider voting no, or simply not voting on the amendment (especially since you don't really care which way this goes, why purposely discriminate if you are indifferent?).

It's really a big lesson in Civics. The constitution was never written to discriminate or enshrine personal beliefs. It is created to be an unbiased document giving and over arching set of rights to all people.

[Nathan]

Hmm, before everyone gets riled up about wedge issues designed to distract us from real issues of governance, why not put this whole hullabaloo into an urban development context.

One element in the resurgence of certain cities in America since the 1990s has undeniably been the presence of a local gay scene. In a nutshell, in countless instances gays have brought cultural amenities, density, and a degree of wealth to formerly blighted neighborhoods. An obvious example is the Dupont Circle nieghborhood of Washington DC. What was once dangerous, poor, and dirty has become safe, wealthy, and super clean. MSP has greatly benefited from this trend also.

The reasons are very simple (pardon any generalizations): (1) gays generally don't have children, ie they aren't personally invested in the quality of public schools, (2) also because of having fewer children, smaller living spaces without yards do not prevent them from living in the city, (3) they often migrate into city centers because of the (real or perceived) cultural animosity of suburbia to their way of life, (4) they are disproportionately represented in the arts - the important institutions of which are almost always located in or around downtown areas, (5) having gays in a neighborhood generally leads to "cool" bars/galleries/etc, drawing in non-gays interested in the arts and an interesting bar scene, (6) because still 2/3 of Americans are white, most gays are also white - this leads to whites inhabiting neighborhoods previously feared by whites as unsafe ethnic ghettos, (7) along with the sprouting of amenities to serve gay communities - stereotypically these are organic grocers, yoga and fitness studios, boutique fashion and design outlets - yuppies, hipsters, the idle rich, students, etc move in, creating density, social cache, and the like.

The reason this is important here is because by putting up a gigantic "No gays, please" sign through "symbolic" (read: unnecessary) referenda, we are shooting ourselves in the urban development foot. MSP has always attracted talented people and successful businesses because it has an inclusive political and social culture. I mean, we have the biggest Hindu temple in North America for a reason.

These are compelling reasons for us to not amend our constitution to say f* you to a group of people who are critical to the success of MSP and MN.

If you disagree, please make the case for how two dudes or two ladies marrying each other harms you personally (without resorting to fuzzy notions of tradition and holiness that mean different things to different people).

Also, I love this reasoning!

[mulad]

The voter-ID amendment doesn't make any sense since it's attacking a problem that is nearly nonexistent. There are bigger issues with absentee voting fraud and simple ballot spoilage. In-person voter fraud tends to be measured in single digits for any given year, while thousands or tens of thousands of ballots are discarded because voter intent isn't clear. In the Franken-Coleman recount, the campaigns initially challenged 6,655 ballots, though that shrank over time as many challenges were reconsidered. There were also about 12,000 absentee ballots that were rejected basically without even being looked at since they had not been mailed in proper accordance with the law (I think you have to sign the outside of the envelope, for instance). 2,887,646 votes were ultimately counted, and there were 6 felons charged with voting while ineligible that year (probably citizens, possibly with completely valid photo-ID).

[John]

I guess I will never figure out why people are so opposed or threatened by same sex marriage. If you're not gay or lesbian and you're secure with you sexuality and self identity, what do you have to worry about? It's not your concern.

Quite frankly, I'm afraid this is really the core issue of this marriage amendment. It's actually a very sad situation. If you are secure in your sense of self, you don't feel "threatened" by anyone. Fear, ignorance, and insecurity are the motivating factors behind the people who brought this amendment forward. There is just no way to avoid this fact when discussing this issue.

[woofner]

I witnessed voter fraud during the last election and was told there was nothing I could do about it, so I'm glad to see that this is coming up as an amendment.

Curious about the voter fraud you witnessed and who told you there was nothing you could do about it. Wanna give more details?

We have to show identification to drive, to buy liquor, to open a bank account. Why is it not a big deal for those things but it is to vote?

There is also a great deal more fraud in those things than there is in voting. Why would ID make voting even fraud-freer if it didn't work for those activities?

This may be borderline offensive but I have to put it out there - I'm curious to see the polling on this amendment broken down by degree of education, because I think that most people who went to college probably know how easy it is to get/make a fake id.

[Rich]

The only kind of fraud a photo ID will prevent is voter impersonation fraud - which is virtually nonexistent. Noone in their right mind would risk a multi-thousand dollar fine and possible jail time so they can pose as someone else at the polls and cast a single vote. Voter ID laws are a solution without a problem. We should be focused on fraud that occurs during registration and during vote counting.

[gahwi003]

I view marriage as a bond between one man, one woman, and god, not a signed legal document. That being said, it really doesnt matter to me which way this vote goes.

Your church is not in any way threatened by this amendment. My church however is. That would be the Government telling my church that they cannot practice their religion as they see fit.

I liked how you provided me with another side of the argument! I can see where you are coming from.

I agree that this amendment is heavily bias, and favors a certain demographic's social views over others. In regards to the quote above, your church currently cant marry same sex individuals in MN, and if this amendment passes, they still wont be able to. Therefore, I contend that the government won't be telling your church anything new, will they?

On a new topic, did this amendment have to pass a US Constitution screening to deem if it is even constitutional, or is this not necessary since it is at the state level?

[Nathan]

Therefore, I contend that the government won't be telling your church anything new, will they?

On a new topic, did this amendment have to pass a US Constitution screening to deem if it is even constitutional, or is this not necessary since it is at the state level?

That's why this is such a big lesson in Civics. The constitution is a Document written to give over arching rights to all people of the entire state. It shouldn't be divisive and based on certain people's ideals. It helps protect the minorities from the majority to ensure basic rights to all. Here is an opinion piece written by the man who wrote the Minnesota state constitution as to why the document should not be amended.

http://m.startribune.com/opinion/?id=172374301&c=y

The law against this same sex marriage, DOMA (defense of marriage act) is the correct way to legislate a law protecting certain things in the state. These sorts of laws allow the elected officials to determine the legality of it. That way if they do something people don't like it's only 2 years before the next legislature could change it. Certain people are using this amendment to Permanently enshrine their personal beliefs on ALL Minnesotans. (because they are afraid of change, or feel so right that they need to make everyone live the way they do?) Voting no keeps the conversation open for the state and elected officials to decide as the conversation evolves, the laws could change. That would maybe then allow my church to practice how they want to. BUT if this passes all of that becomes EXTREMELY difficult to reverse.

And in regards to the US Constitution, it is, right now, up to each and every state to decide their marriage laws. However, right now there are states going to the Supreme Court saying that the National DOMA is unconstitutional based on the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment which says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Really I think it kind of comes down to this... JUST BE NICE TO EVERYONE!!!

[mplsjaromir]

The Bush administration thought voter fraud was a big problem so from 2002 through 2007 they did a through investigation. About 120 people were charged and 86 convicted nationwide. Voter impersonation is a small problem. Definitely not a problem worth amending the state's constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/washi ... 80&ei=5070

[FISHMANPET]

I agree that this amendment is heavily bias, and favors a certain demographic's social views over others. In regards to the quote above, your church currently cant marry same sex individuals in MN, and if this amendment passes, they still wont be able to. Therefore, I contend that the government won't be telling your church anything new, will they?

I'm not sure how continuing to withhold a right from a group of people is any different than taking it away. Would you say that not enacting women's suffrage was fine, because it's not like they could vote anyway?

And voting yes would be infringing on that church's right, you'd just be further reinforcing an already existing infringement on their rights. Though that's not a very good argument, because we've been infringing on the Mormon Church's rights for over a hundred years by not allowing polygamous marriages. Though at least at that time you could make a very practical argument that one man isn't physically capable of supporting that many wives and children.

[gahwi003]

Thanks John, fotoapparatic, and FISHMANPET for the conversation. Although I still view marriage between one man, and one woman, I have changed my position on this amendment. It seems, like many have stated, it is wrong to force one's ideals onto an entire population.

[MSPtoMKE]

Hey, now that warms my heart to see you say that. Thanks for taking the time to think about your position.