WOW, spoken like a true devotee to Fred Phelps.

O.k.

The government DOES have the power to confer and/or deny legal status on/to people; to define what that status is and how it affects rights to property, etc etc etc.

Hey, the marriage is only recognized by those in that religion. Others only have to recognize it if the clergy signs an official, government issued “license.”

There’s two issues, here: the religions rite, and the conferring of legal status by Ceasar.

And yes, I am aware that not all cultures through their religious believes view gay marriage as a bad thing. And yes, for those who follow those religions and share those cultural beliefs, I accept that.

My opinion is not based on rejecting gay marriage. It is based on the fact that government has no power to legitimize personal relationships in any shape or form.

And no, I’m not turning to the government to sanctify anything. I was merely pointing something out.

By the way, you are aware that not all cultures viewed gays or gay marriage as a bad thing. If you want the government completely out of the marriage business, including no licensing. will you accept the gay marriage performed by those religions that condone it?

All cultures I know of have religions that include the rite of marriage, or an equivalent. Ridding government from the marriage business won’t stop those people from practicing their religious and cultural heritage.

Government has no role what so ever in marriage.

Because gov’t can get a pastor/priest/whatever to do the gov’t’s work, without havin’ to pay ‘em.

And some Churches are refusin’ to perform the gov’t portion of a marriage.

Seems like a lot of folks believe, as you say, that it’s time for government to get out of religious affairs.

Time for government to get out of religious affairs.

I agreed with what you said up to this sentence. The government already is in the marriage business. It’s called having to get a marriage license. The minute the government requires a license, they are already involved. Not to mention, not all people get married by their respective clergy, some of us got married by a judge.

… and gee, why do you think it became an issue… could it be because gays were jamming their gay marriage agenda down our throats via the courts? … no pun intended.

Comment: Buy yourself a $7 box of condoms, and quit screwing multiple partners. Then you won’t need more AIDS/HIV funding. AIDS/HIV is preventable… there you go, there’s your cure.

That’s a stupid sentence, and factually wrong.

The Defense of Marriage cannot block gays from marrying. Gays already are blocked from marrying. The new law can’t block what already is blocked.

The Defense of Marriage Act formally defines “marriage” as a union between a man and woman, and makes it more difficult for “activists” to abuse the courts to write laws that can never pass in the legislature or the ballot box.

Frankly, and I’ve said this before, the government has no business in the marriage business. It’s a religious rite, not a civil right.

And this prevents you on commenting on it how?

EY: I have not heard this. Where is Norm on the public record on this point. He voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment which banned civil unions as well as gay marriage.

I’ve contacted the Coleman campaign press contact to get clarity:

Hi David:

You are listed on Coleman’s website as his media contact. I’m Eva
Young from Lloydletta’s Nooz. http://lloydletta.blogspot.com

A commenter left an interesting comment on MDE’s blog:

“While Norm does state he is against gay marraige, he is not against unions that offer same benefits.”

Does this accurately represent Coleman’s position. The Federal Marriage Amendment (which he voted for) would have banned civil unions.

I wonder why the GLBT community supports the DFL.

“The DFL supported those contracts.”

and then dumped that support at their earliest convenience.
# Digby Says:
February 5th, 2008 at 1:43 pm

No, the Governor refused to ratify them, that’s why they were changed. Without the Governor ratifying the contracts they are invalid. So ask your buddy Timmy, what he has against the GLBT community.

EY: The Democrats in the house and senate dumped those contracts as soon as Pawlenty threatened to do anything with them. They could have held their ground. The Democrats under Matt Entenza took no position (rather than opposing) the Bachmann amendment. That amendment could have been stopped in the house if Matt Entenza had shown some leadership. The year he did that, he got booed at the gay rally.

I’ve always bashed Paul Wellstone on his support of DOMA (used to call him “Paul DOMA Wellstone”, though I quit doing so after he died in the plane crash.

Norm Coleman does have a history of exploiting anti-gay animus for his political gain – he did that by pointlessly picking fights with the gay community by not signing gay pride proclamations in St Paul (a practice that was quickly discontinued by his successor and heir apparent Randy Kelly).

So your choice is to not change the contracts and have state workers not getting paid (which I am sure the Governor would not mind since his buddies would still get a check). Or to change them and wait until we can elect a Governor who values the contributions of all state employees.

“the Governor refused to ratify them, that’s why they were changed.”

Bullshit.

# Sen. Scott Dibble and Rep. Karen Clark (both DFL) proposed that domestic partner benefits for state employees be reinstated. This amendment failed in both the House and the Senate.

# Sen. Dibble and Rep. Keith Ellison (both DFL) proposed an amendment that would allow state employees’ domestic partners to purchase health insurance at their own expense, but at the lower rates offered by the state employees’ purchasing pool. This amendment failed in both the House and the Senate.

Both the House and the Senate are DFL controlled

There have been many DFL politicians who have come out against gay marraige. You are also VERY WRONG about the GLBT community pushing for the gay marraige issues. All over the country many are pushing for that very cause even though they have been offered unions with the exact same benefits. Most employers now offer benefits to civil union partners.

Things have come a long way for that group and judging by your post you are still one of the angry few and want to turn GLBT issues into a democRat or Republican thing when in fact it is hardly ever going to be so easy to identify.

Just by your very qick excuse about Wellstone tells me all I need to know, which is you have no clue of which you speak.

How you feel about Franken then dipshit? Actions speak louder than words. While Norm does state he is against gay marraige, he is not against unions that offer same benefits.
Franken has made gay bashing an art form. Apparently you are too young to recall this but the same GLBT community you seem to think you know so weel was rather upset at that time with his hatred humor.
He may get public support from some groups in town, but I know the rumblings of many and when it comes time to pull the lever, they will not pull for Franken after all he has done.

Master of None: Gay marriage isn’t the only issue GLBT people care about. In fact, more care about employment non-discrimination which the DFL was instrumental in getting passed in 1993. Protection from bias crimes, a national non-discrimination act, more HIV/AIDS funding and securing partner benefits outside a gay marriage came before gay marriage in a recent CUNY nationwide poll of GLBT voters.

Gay marriage has been an issue for social conservatives and Republicans much more than it has been for GLBT folks. They’ve framed the issue, not gays and not the DFL.

“The DFL supported those contracts.”

and then dumped that support at their earliest convenience.

Not to mention the torch and pitchfork crowd the GOP brought to the Capitol to bash gay people with signs like “Death to Homosexuals”. Do you really wonder why most people in the GLBT community don’t support you?

The DFL’s record is no better, but you at least get lip service from them (no pun intended).

“which seeks to block gays from marrying. ”

With the DFL in control of the house and senate, where is the legislation allowing gay marriage? Why do DFL politicians hide from ever having to vote up or down on gay marriage?

“The stances of the three DFLers differ considerably from those of Coleman. The Republican broke with the party line to vote for the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act, which was strongly supported by the Democratic candidates and GLBT groups. But Coleman supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which seeks to block gays from marrying. As mayor of St. Paul in the 1990s, Coleman refused to acknowledge Twin Cities Pride, the most important GLBT community event each year. Franken happily marched in the parade that Coleman refused to recognize.

That a Republican operative and the Republican Party of Minnesota are circulating these jokes — as well as demanding GLBT community members respond to them — is disingenuous. The Republican Party of Minnesota has an abysmal record when it comes to GLBT equality, and the statements made and policies pushed by the party damage the community. The hypocrisy makes it that much harder to have a discussion of the jokes themselves — and adds nothing to the debate over the policy issues at stake in the election.”

Rep. Tim Walz: “The new leadership in Congress has gone a long way to restore some fiscal sanity to Washington,…”

Thanks Tim, I think Britney has more sanity.