Vote NO! & NO!

[Didier]

Did anybody else notice the Star Tribune poll in which like 49 percent of people were against gay marriage but something like 70 percent were OK with civil unions? Am I missing something in those numbers?

[Shawn]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I feel as though this point is often missed: If we all do vote no, we are right back where we were...now/last week/a year ago. Nothing changes, correct? There may be political momentum in the pro-gay marriage camp, but that's about it, correct?

Also, does someone care to explain why this has to be a constitutional amendment and not simply legislation/law passed by the state of Minnesota, like everything else the government does?

[seanrichardryan]

Did anybody else notice the Star Tribune poll in which like 49 percent of people were against gay marriage but something like 70 percent were OK with civil unions? Am I missing something in those numbers?

All civil 'marriages' should be civil unions. You get a marriage in a church, and mine already grants those to same sex couples.

[MSPtoMKE]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I feel as though this point is often missed: If we all do vote no, we are right back where we were...now/last week/a year ago. Nothing changes, correct? There may be political momentum in the pro-gay marriage camp, but that's about it, correct?

Also, does someone care to explain why this has to be a constitutional amendment and not simply legislation/law passed by the state of Minnesota, like everything else the government does?

You are correct on both counts. Of the 4 States with Same-Sex Marriage ballot questions this election, Minnesota is the only one that seeks a Constitutional Ban. The other 3 are attempts by Same-Sex Marriage opponents to roll back legislation for Same-Sex Marriage passed by their respective Legislatures. If the other three pass, Same-sex Marriage becomes legal in that state, if fails here, everything stays the same. However, it could be viewed as a referendum of sorts on the topic.

The reason that it is a Constitutional Amendment is that the Republicans want to make it extremely difficult to get Same-Sex Marriage in Minnesota. Minnesota State Law already defines Marriage as between a man and a woman. The State Supreme Court or a future Legislature could overturn that law, however. The reason the Voter ID Amendment was not done through the usual Legislative process is because Governor Dayton vetoed the bill that they passed. Constitutional Amendments do not go before the Governor.

[Nathan]

It's true that there are religious conservatives that want to make it more permanent... but there there is always this. GOPers thinking it would be a good way to get some people to the polls... unfortunate as that might sound.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... mendments/

[John]

All civil 'marriages' should be civil unions. You get a marriage in a church, and mine already grants those to same sex couples.

I think this is right on the mark 100%.

[Nathan]

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.

Congratulations! You are an amazing American. And you bet those you help with your vote will help you with their vote if the time ever comes.

[John]

It's true that there are religious conservatives that want to make it more permanent... but there there is always this. GOPers thinking it would be a good way to get some people to the polls... unfortunate as that might sound.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... mendments/

It's cynical politics at its worst!

[John]

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.

That is an enlightened position and I commend you for wanting to preserve our freedoms in this democracy. Forcing ones beliefs or ideals on another is tyranny and the backbone of fascism. That is why this amendment is so dangerous. And you know, in about 50 years when gay and lesbian marriage is legalized and culturally embraced as valid for 6% of the population....guess what's going to happen??...94% of the population will still be getting married in a heterosexual relationship just like they always have!

[Didier]

Still not understanding the fundamental difference between civil union and marriage, except for the name?

[mplsjaromir]

The only problem for allowing civil unions is that hundreds of state laws specifically mention marriage. All those would have to be changed to include civil unions.

[gahwi003]

Still not understanding the fundamental difference between civil union and marriage, except for the name?

As far as I know, civil union you get the tax benefits and whatnot of being married, but you actually aren't married? maybe? anyone wana correct that?

[Nathan]

The other difficulty with a civil union is that the laws for it are different in every state. Minnesota doesn't really want to get into that ball game, they've rejected a number of legislations for it...

[MSPtoMKE]

Civil Unions are really an effort to create a status that is "separate, but equal" to marriage. To separate them makes them not equal. They would certainly be an improvement to the current situation, but the terminology itself casts doubt on the status. You may say it is all semantics, but can you really say you are married, or do you have to add a caveat to it? Civil Unioned? Domestic Partnershipped? It is a little bit insulting, if you ask me, unless you go the route that has been suggested and make all marriages civil unions in the eyes of the Government, and leave marriage to the churches. But what about people who want to be married but don't want a church involved?

[Tyler]

As far as I know, civil union you get the tax benefits and whatnot of being married, but you actually aren't married? maybe? anyone wana correct that?

This is not true. The federal government does not recognize civil unions.

But why are we talking about this? The proposed amendment has nothing to do with civil unions.

[Nathan]

But why are we talking about this? The proposed amendment has nothing to do with civil unions.

Because people are curious...

It is true Civil Unions for same sex couples are a way of the state saying, we'll give you similar rights, but we won't really say you're equal. And the federal government doesn't include any of it's rights, when you get a civil union from a state.

When it comes down to it, people who care about each other and love each other just want to be together, and have the safety, commitment, and responsibilities other couples have. Imagine having to go through court, and spending a ton of money so that someday you might be able to visit your dying partner in the hospital after a car accident, after proving legal status... Those are the kinds of things that really matter. Everyone should have that right.

And voting No doesn't even get us there. Other states that MN competes with on the business, and culture level like WA are voting to allow gay marriage, it's kind of sad that we are this behind on civil liberties. It's not a religious matter, no one wants to force churches into doing what they don't want to do. If we pass this, and WA passes gay marriage, their business climate would be seen as MUCH more accepting and inclusive for talent. If a company like Google or Apple was looking to relocate or open a new regional headquarters and it was between Mpls and Sea, they could easily over look us for these reasons.

[MSPtoMKE]

I have a lot of family in Seattle. If the Marriage Amendment passes here, and Same-Sex Marriage passes in Washington, I will have to think long and hard if Minnesota is the right place for me. I love Minnesota, and it certainly wouldn't be the only factor, but I want to live in a Progressive and Accepting state.

Another thought on Civil Unions. I don't think it is far fetched to assume that there are some otherwise open-minded people who are planning on voting for the Amendment, thinking that we could institute Civil Unions, and that that would be just as good. They're not.

[Lancestar2]

I have a lot of family in Seattle. If the Marriage Amendment passes here, and Same-Sex Marriage passes in Washington, I will have to think long and hard if Minnesota is the right place for me. I love Minnesota, and it certainly wouldn't be the only factor, but I want to live in a Progressive and Accepting state.

Another thought on Civil Unions. I don't think it is far fetched to assume that there are some otherwise open-minded people who are planning on voting for the Amendment, thinking that we could institute Civil Unions, and that that would be just as good. They're not.

I also have thought about it for some time, and in the rare situation that the MN Marriage Amendment does pass I don't see myself staying here once I complete my collage in a few years. Me personally in my youth I was taught that homosexuality was a mental disorder and "straight camps" worked granted this was the early 90's in the Catholic church no gay child should ever have to endure some of the outrageous things taught in the Catholic church. Yes, I do think that every child should be taught in school that being GLBT is OK in they views of society while your religious church may disagree and consider it unacceptable.

I personally get confused when people support the Marriage Amendment but stop there, I mean if you wish to prevent me from marrying another man then why stop there if it truly is against your religion? By your definition I should not be allowed to be in a homosexual relationship. How is a society to decide what religious believes are to be enforced and which religious believes to not be enforced?

I guess I'm off topic given it's really about the children in committed relationships. A child does best when both mother and father is present. Well I apologize if this may come off as a touch of "Heterosexual bashing" ...but you pretty much already destroyed sanctity of marriage yourself! Thousands of unwed teenage mothers are allowed to raise children independent of fathers, as the nonexistent parent pays child-support. Divorce should be outlawed if their is a child under the age of 18 in the family as a family of a mother AND father does best!

Of course we live in a society where we leave it up to the responsible (we assume people are responsible ) adults to figure out what is best for the child. A mother must decide at the time of birth if they want to give the child away or attempt to raise it in the family they choose. I recall a show on cable that showed unwed mothers raising children with the help of their mothers themselves (3 generations living under one roof) Granted one day she could suddenly find that prince charming and become the family that has been "defined" to be what is best for a child. Of course during the show she stated that she intended to raise her child ALONE with her mother's help! ...denying that poor poor child the situation to grow up best in...

hmmm perhaps at the time of birth of a child a mother should be legally required to be married in order for the child to be allowed into the family because we as a society want what has been "defined" to be best for a child. Of course that would be going to far even I know that. I just find it amusing to look at things in a different perspective once in a while.

If you really cared about what is BEST for a child you would have a greater impact trying to fix the heterosexual marriage problems before looking at a minority group who as the majority of GLBT relationships have no kids. I know that logic must seem INSANE!

[Nathan]

in the rare situation that the MN Marriage Amendment does pass

This isn't exactly a rare occasion. 31 other states have passed this amendment. It would be the rare case that it doesn't pass.

Other states have passed this narrowly, like South Dakota passed it with 51% yes.

The latest polls show Yes at 48% No at 47% and undecided at 5%... with a 4% margin of error. In MOST same sex marriage popular vote cases the people undecided at the last minute vote against same sex marriage.

It's a total toss up right now. It's scary close.

[Lancestar2]

in the rare situation that the MN Marriage Amendment does pass

This isn't exactly a rare occasion. 31 other states have passed this amendment. It would be the rare case that it doesn't pass.

Other states have passed this narrowly, like South Dakota passed it with 51% yes.

The latest polls show Yes at 48% No at 47% and undecided at 5%... with a 4% margin of error. In MOST same sex marriage popular vote cases the people undecided at the last minute vote against same sex marriage.

It's a total toss up right now. It's scary close.

yes, but because of the way our law works if they leave it blank it = a no vote... so of the 5% undecided 2% will have to change their mind enough to check the yes box I just think alot of the undecided will just leave it black and not vote. I don't recall any recent poll being OVER the 50% support of amendment so I think it's a tell tail sigh right there I mean in such a liberal state I just can't imagine how everyone would vote yes!