Gay marriage bill passes in Minnesota

[kydoty]

37-30. Will be signed into law tomorrow. 12th state to have gay marriage.

 

Minn. Senate Votes ?Yes? On Gay Marriage Bill « CBS Minnesota

[Brock Beauchamp]

Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

[kydoty]

Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

 

It's amazing just how quick things turned around here. Six months ago the state was on the verge of burning a gay marriage ban into their constitution. I have to wonder if this would've all happened had the Republicans left the issue alone entirely instead of trying to pander to the worst part of their base.

[TheLeviathan]

It's amazing how much you can motivate people just by being bitter, indignant a-holes.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's amazing just how quick things turned around here. Six months ago the state was on the verge of burning a gay marriage ban into their constitution. I have to wonder if this would've all happened had the Republicans left the issue alone entirely instead of trying to pander to the worst part of their base.

 

Yep. They got everyone thinking about the issue and most people came to the conclusion "don't care".

 

As the election season ramped up, I said 2012 was the last wave of anti-gay marriage bills but even I didn't expect this kind of reversal.

[mikecgrimes]

Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

2 billion in new taxes before they deal with the Vikings stadium is somewhat awful. Glad to have this issue out of the way. As a young Republican this issue was always horrible, you just never knew what would come out of an otherwise smart 60 year old.

[Kobs]

Minnesota is on a pretty solid streak of not being awful.

 

[Brock Beauchamp]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4058[/ATTACH]

 

Can't win 'em all. I was impressed that they almost got rid of her last election, though.

[biggentleben]

Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

[TheLeviathan]

Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

 

This may be a winning strategy to get gay marriage passed around the nation.

[kydoty]

Michelle Bachmann gave an interview saying she'd leave Minnesota if the bill passed. Unconfirmed reports that 38 other states have immediately passed interstate immigration laws disallowing moving from any other state for the rest of 2013.

 

Unfortunately that story was fake. It came from the Daily Currant, a satire news site.

[Mike Sixel]

I don't think it happens w/o the push to make it unconstitutional. It will be hard to get more than a few more states to embarce freedom and liberty for all w/o SCOTUS forcing them to, unfortunately. I find the irony of being against religious oligarchies in the ME, and the attempt to enforce religion on others in the US to be tasty.....

[Guest USAFChief]

Good for Minnesota.

 

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Good for Minnesota.

 

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

 

Utah is too pragmatic to be last. It will be a southern state.

[kydoty]

Good for Minnesota.

 

Last state to adopt SSM? I'll go with Utah as the front runner, with Mississippi and Alabama as close seconds.

 

Mississippi. It took them 148 years after slavery ended to admit that it's a bad thing in its constitution.

[Mike Sixel]

It will be a tie on last, because SCOTUS will find the state constitutions unconstitutional this summer.....not sure what happens after that.....

 

And most of the South is 2-3 generations away from SSM being at least tolerated, according to my friends from there.

[Ultima Ratio]

How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

[mikecgrimes]

I don't think it happens w/o the push to make it unconstitutional.

 

2012 was a landslide in the state house and senate for Minnesota Democrats. Trust me the push to kill it didn't matter. This is the sort of issue that had unstoppable momentum over the years. The moment it could pass it would and thats what happened.

 

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

[mikecgrimes]

It will be a tie on last, because SCOTUS will find the state constitutions unconstitutional this summer.....

 

No chance of that, they probably won't even take up the issue.

[TheLeviathan]

How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

 

[biggentleben]

Unfortunately that story was fake. It came from the Daily Currant, a satire news site.

 

Yes, I realize. I just enjoyed the satire of her being so butt-hurt that she'd leave. Yet, who would want her?!

[Guest USAFChief]

2012 was a landslide in the state house and senate for Minnesota Democrats. Trust me the push to kill it didn't matter. This is the sort of issue that had unstoppable momentum over the years. The moment it could pass it would and thats what happened.

 

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

She's leaving, right? Isn't that what she said? She's giving YOU up.

 

Can't say I blame her, what with the whole pillar of salt thing in play now.

[Hornhead]

How sad for the civil society, kids, and lexical definitions. The dictionary weeps with disgust. But since everything is living and breathing with language now, we can fittingly call this progress.

 

Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As for Bachman the 6th district is a Republican district. If she had any flaws on the fiscal end you could defeat her in the primary process, but as nuts as she is on some issues theres just no way we can give her up. She's one of about 3 reps that I can count on to protect the tax payer and at this time in our history that goes a long ways.

 

No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

 

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.

[jay]

No, what Minnesota needs are a few politicians who haven't strapped themselves into the party of hypocrisy by yammering about personal responsibility while trying to remove every civic freedom with which they do not agree. It's that cognitive disconnect that bothers me most about the Tea Party. When you compare their various ideologies to one another, they don't make sense and are often in direct conflict with one another. Either you want personal responsibility and freedom or you don't; you can't pick and choose between the two because you'll look like a self-serving hypocrite to anyone with a brain.

 

To an extent, the Democrats are just as guilty of this but at least their rhetoric surrounding it isn't so distasteful to anyone with a conscience.

 

Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.

[Ultima Ratio]

Can't tell if this is serious, but consider the argument is well underway that people should have a right to choose their gender. One can even be male at school/work and female at home. Gender will be considered a fluid concept. Is it awful to support a standard by which we define male and female? The reason I ask is that union of male and female is as fundamental to marriage as the union of oxygen and hydrogen atoms is to water. Speaking of threesomes, no reason polygamy should not also be a civil right now.

 

I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, I think you've nailed the Republican party's biggest problem. However, I think that disconnect is more prevalent in the far-right religious conservatives than the Tea Party... which is actually an even more striking hypocrisy. The TP just gets all the media attention.

 

Very true, it's a problem with the GOP in general... They've spent half a decade silencing and/or removing moderates who refuse to radicalize. All you have to do is look at how the party went through such lengths to marginalize Jon Huntsman during the last convention season to see how the party treats people who prefer common sense over party rhetoric.

 

At some point, the party has to come back to the middle. How far they're going to continue heading toward CrazyTown is very much up for debate, though.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I'm serious and you are correct. Polygamy used to a reductio ad absurdum argument (the opposition wrongly tried to call it a slippery slope argument), but since attitudes of temporary politicians keep "evolving" (another bastardization of language), legal plural "marriage" [cringe]is on it's way too. And if proponents are serious (but probably just demagoguing) that the sufficient condition for marriage is love, then yes, plural marriage, marriage of brothers, sisters and so on will have to be recognized -- an if you're against that, then you don't have a conscience, but probably know the difference between inconsistency and hypocrisy. That last line is snark, to be clear.

 

There's a huge difference between polygamy and incestual relations, if only from a physical standpoint. One has medical reasoning to prevent legally... The other has a societal reason to prevent legally due to its past use to subjugate and oppress women, especially young girls (some of this can be applied to incestual marriage as well).

 

For the record, I have no problems with polygamy on its face; I have no business telling others what to do with their lives if it does not affect me. My only problem comes with its past (and in some circles, current) societal implementation and abuse of the system.

[Ultima Ratio]

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

[Brock Beauchamp]

Brock, I didn't say brother marrying sister, but brother marrying brother and sister marrying sister. Does society have an interest in not allowing these "marriages" where procreation is impossible, but the love is sincere and earnest?

 

I don't care, honestly. I also see it being such an insignificant problem that it isn't worth the time it takes to theorize over its morality or social impact.

 

Approximately 8-10% of the population is gay. Gay siblings who wish to marry each other is, what, .00001%?