Skip to main content

View Diary: Marriage Equality Passes the House in Minnesota (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You guys missed all the amendment vote (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamesia, Avilyn, rigcath, Eddie L

    including one to implement an idea voiced frequently on this site: do away with state marriage entirely and convert all state sanctioned relationships to "Civil Unions" and allow religions to administer and manage "Marriages" as they see fit.

    It was sponsored by a Republican and went down 111-22.

    (It was called the "Kelly Amendment" if anyone wants to look it up)

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:31:42 AM PDT

    •  A smart move in my opinion, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      merrywidow

      but not a great surprise that it fell. I think the total separation of religious marriage vs civil contracts is a good idea.

      •  I'm verry happy it went down. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skrekk, ebohlman

        I'm a (heterosexual married) Minnesota atheist who has and wants nothing to do with religion. That remedy would do little but replace GLBTs with atheists like me in the "despised minorities denied the right to marriage" box. Violating atheists' civil rights rather than GLBTs' is not progress.

        Marriage does not belong to religion. Any legislation that treats it that way is a major problem in a secular government.


        On very much the other hand, it was awesome to be in the Rotunda this afternoon when the House vote was announced. What a terrific day for civil rights!

        •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

          How would it deny you your legal rights if Christians and atheists had the exact same legal recognition?

          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

          by raptavio on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:52:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the same reason (0+ / 0-)

            that granting GLBTs "civil unions" only, but heterosexuals marriages, violates GLBTs' civil rights.

            Reserving the term "marriage" for religious unions, while retitling all government-sanctioned arrangements "civil union"s or some such, denies marriage to all of us who want nothing to do with religion.

            Are you not aware of the host of problems with asking people to settle for civil unions, rather than marriage? Have you really never heard GLBTs explain why denying them that word is a severe problem?

            If you are aware, what in the world are you doing asking why I'm not satisfied with forfeiting my marriage and settling for only "the exact same legal recognition" as the people—i.e., religious people—who, under the arrangement we're talking about, would still be allowed to get married?

            •  Ah, I see where you went wrong. (0+ / 0-)

              To strip the term "marriage" as a legal status does not reserve it to religious institutions.

              It reserves it to the individual conscience.

              Which means that a Catholic may consider someone married in a Baptist church to be not truly married, and a Muslim may consider anyone not married in a mosque to be truly married and an atheist may consider all of them married, and it doesn't fucking matter to anyone else because the law don't care.

              We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

              by raptavio on Fri May 10, 2013 at 11:03:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Where you went wrong"? (0+ / 0-)

                Fabulous.

                You can kindly stick your sneering bullshit up your ass. The provision in question is consistently referred to—including on this comment thread—as handing marriage over to religion, rendering my (and every other secular) marriage nugatory:

                [Rep. Kelly's amendment would] do away with state marriage entirely and convert all state sanctioned relationships to "Civil Unions" and allow religions to administer and manage "Marriages" as they see fit.

                 - "Wisper," upthread

                Your response to that is that you "actually like that one."
                maybe it's time to give the word marriage to the churches, and come up with something else for legal unions

                 - "adomanico01," on the Minnesota Public Radio liveblog during discussion of Rep. Kelly's civil-union amendment

                If you gave a shit, you might notice that the entire problem with civil unions at all is the symbolic difference of awarding "marriage" to one kind of people's relationships and relegating disempowered minorities to "civil unions." As just about every description of the solution you support demonstrates, that solution has precisely the same problem: it gives marriage to religion alone, while sticking the rest of us with second-class "civil unions."

                That is a direct violation of the Establishment, Free Exercise, and Equal Protection Clauses, for all the same reasons that the recent California federal district court decision pointed out regarding denying the term "marriage" to same-sex unions.

                And your sneering apathy toward the problem is disgusting. How you can comfortably shoot the bull about destroying thousands if not millions of secular marriages (while broadcasting a .sig line that whines that "We" don't have "enough" religion "to make us love one another") is some rather potent atheophobia.

                Take your bigotry elsewhere.

                •  Stopped reading at (0+ / 0-)

                  "up your ass."

                  Seriously, if you want to be read, put that in the closer. Putting that butthurt whinging up front makes the reader lose interest.

                  BTW, I'm also an atheist.

                  We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                  by raptavio on Sun May 12, 2013 at 02:03:10 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thankfully, (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't much care if callous assholes like yourself "lose interest" in reading comments. Your destructive bullshit got called out for what it was; the job got done.

                    •  You kiss your mother with that mouth? (0+ / 0-)

                      You're ridiculous. Utterly ridiculous.

                      Being in favor of marriage as a legal status, replacing it in all legal cases with some variant of 'civil union', attaching all legal rights currently granted through marriage to instead be granted through civil unions, and leaving the word 'marriage' with no legal recognition so people can harmlessly define it according to their own individual consciences with no legal fallout to anybody, is being a callous asshole bigot.

                      What color IS the sky in your world?

                      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                      by raptavio on Mon May 13, 2013 at 07:52:55 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Ridiculous (0+ / 0-)
                        Being in favor of marriage as a legal status, replacing it in all legal cases with some variant of 'civil union', attaching all legal rights currently granted through marriage to instead be granted through civil unions, and leaving the word 'marriage' with no legal recognition so people can harmlessly define it according to their own individual consciences with no legal fallout to anybody....
                        ...Is not what is being advocated. By anybody in the real world, much less this comment section.

                        Ignoring the consequences of the proposal at issue—especially as regards religion—does not make them disappear.

                        •  Actually, (0+ / 0-)

                          that's precisely what is being advocated. Perhaps you misunderstood this entire time and are railing against something which ought to rightly be opposed, such as creating a 'separate but equal' civil union status or ceding authority over defining the legal status of marriage to churches -- both of those are terrible ideas and definitely ought to be opposed. But that's not what was being proposed. At all. And it's certainly not what I would ever support.

                          We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                          by raptavio on Tue May 14, 2013 at 08:09:48 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Pfft. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil
                            Actually, that's precisely what is being advocated.
                            No, I directly proved (complete with quotations) that that's bullshit two days ago, in the comment that you claimed you didn't read because you were so a-scurred of Bad Words. Again, your insistence on pretending to willful blindness doesn't change the reality that you can't bring yourself to face.
                            Perhaps you misunderstood this entire time...
                            No, you're just pathologically dishonest.
                            such as creating a 'separate but equal' civil union status....
                            Which is precisely what destroying the secular legal institution of marriage, as you propose, would do. As is inevitably noted every time this proposal is trotted out, the idea you're pushing overtly hands marriage over to religion. You can keep barfing out laughable lies on this point, but those do nothing to change the underlying facts.
                            ...or ceding authority over defining the legal status of marriage to churches....
                            How mindlessly ignorant of the entire history of civil unions do you expect your readers to be? "Marriage," as a term that is distinct from "civil unions," has overwhelming symbolic value—as is a matter of settled case law in decisions issued by numerous courts (most notably in California and Iowa).

                            Destroying millions of secular legal marriages and overtly handing the term over to religion is precisely the outrageous attack on irreligious marriage that you pretend you can simply ignore. Some of us are neither so callous nor so dishonest.

                            But that's not what was being proposed.
                            You're lying. As I've demonstrated, with direct evidence.


                            Thankfully, the whole stupid idea is a non-starter. First, there's obviously no need to hand over marriage to religious bigots as a ransom for achieving marriage equality for GLBTs. Said bigots are, of course, quickly losing the argument overall, so there's no justification to give them any concessions whatsoever.

                            More to the point, the absurd notion of destroying all legal recognition of marriage-as-such has gotten and is getting nowhere. Even if it weren't a disgusting attack on secular people, it's a total failure politically. So there's little to worry about; your pretense and disingenuousness only make you look bad, rather than threatening horrific damage to millions of our lives.

                            "Marriage," as a term recognized in law, has specific value in and of itself. That's a matter of settled precedent. Your thoughtless notions about stealing it from all of us in secular marriages are disgusting, though thankfully toothless. As noted above, you'll take away nonbelievers' marriages over several of our dead bodies—but it's nice to know that that will be unnecessary, given the widespread disdain for what you propose.

                          •  Okay. (0+ / 0-)

                            You're ridiculous and inured to reason.

                            End of line.

                            We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

                            by raptavio on Tue May 14, 2013 at 10:25:06 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sure. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil

                            You just can't bring yourself to pay attention to reality—to the real-world proposal you freely declared you "actually like," and to the longstanding legal recognition that marriage, as such, is a matter of overwhelming value. Not to mention a basic constitutional (indeed human) right, recognized in federal jurisprudence for close to a century.

                            It merely falls to some of us to call you out on your lies and bullshit.

                            The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

                            -
                            Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967)
      •  Marriage already is distinct from holy matrimony. (0+ / 0-)

        The only way we could improve things is to do what France does and prohibit all marriages from being formalized in a church.   That way no one would be confused about what marriage really is or who controls it.

    •  I actually like that one. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wayoutinthestix, shaso

      Problem is it would create all sorts of hairiness in terms of 'full faith and credit' with other states.

      We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

      by raptavio on Thu May 09, 2013 at 11:38:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That's a HORRIBLE idea (0+ / 0-)

      that would take marriage away from thousands, if not millions, of atheists (and others) who want nothing to do with "religions." The very idea is an offensive attack on secular people who are or hope to be married.

      Marriage does not belong to religion. Any legislation that treats it that way is a major problem in a secular government.

      It's more than slightly irritating that commenters on a liberal blog so frequently airily suggest replacing GLBTs with the irreligious in the category "despised minorities denied the right to marry." You'll take my marriage away—or force me to genuflect to a church to acquire or retain it—over my dead body.

      •  That was the rebuttal argument (0+ / 0-)

        --minus the dead body reference

        that was offered by the proponents of the bill.

        It failed by a 5-to-1 margin.

        Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

        by Wisper on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:02:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It was? (0+ / 0-)

          Wow! I wish I'd heard that.

          (I was in the Capitol rotunda during the debate, but I didn't get to hear most of the Reps' speeches.)

          •  Steve Simon made that point (0+ / 0-)

            couched in with a lot of "I know this is offered with the best intentions, but...."

            The idea of undoing some huge number (I forget the number he used) of marriages legislatively didn't appear to be a palatable option.

            Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

            by Wisper on Fri May 10, 2013 at 10:24:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site