Minnesota Moves Forward...

[zsdersw]

... on a backward initiative.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/statelocal/121750534.html

A majority of Minnesotans oppose amending the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, according to a new Star Tribune Minnesota Poll.

Fifty-five percent of respondents said they oppose adding such an amendment while 39 percent favor a constitutional ban -- views that appear to be a sharp reversal of poll results seven years ago.

Opposition to the ban generally cuts across all ages, though support rises gradually with age. Sixty percent of Minnesotans aged 18 to 34 oppose the idea. A slim majority, 51 percent, of Minnesotans older than 65 oppose the constitutional ban. "We should have our own choices and abilities to chose what we want and not have someone categorize or label people because of their sexual orientation," said Adam Leistiko, a 22-year-old Democrat from Edina who opposes the marriage amendment. "I have a very open mind."

After a long and emotional debate, the Minnesota Senate approved the amendment this week. The state House is expected to soon follow suit. If lawmakers approve, voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended to "provide that only a union of one man and one woman" be recognized as marriage. Gov. Mark Dayton, a supporter of same-sex marriage, has no power to stop constitutional amendments. To amend the Constitution, questions need approval from a majority of lawmakers and then a simple majority of those voting in a general election.

Over the last decade, as a series of states have taken up and passed bans on gay marriage, opinions have changed on the issue. A 2004 Minnesota Poll found that 58 percent of Minnesotans supported a constitutional amendment that would limit marriage to one man and one woman.

Views in the latest poll did, however, break along party lines. Seventy-one percent of Democrats and 57 percent of independent voters said they oppose the proposed amendment. Sixty-five percent of self-identified Republicans back the amendment, with only 30 percent opposing it. All of the Senate Republicans, plus one DFLer, approved the measure this week.

Doug Regester, who calls himself a conservative who votes for Republicans, is among those who support an election to place the ban in the state Constitution. "If there is a way to give the people the say rather than just having a few politicians decide, I'm all for that," said Regester, a 53-year-old personal trainer from Minneapolis. He said limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman has been shown "over the centuries" to be "the most beneficial to society."

Brad Finke, a 46-year-old mechanic from Austin, disagrees. "I think it is a big waste of time and money. They've got more important things to worry about," said Finke, a Democrat.

At the Capitol, amendment supporters and opponents took the poll results in stride. "To me, this is not an issue that is driven by polls," said Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie. He voted for the amendment this week and is sponsoring an amendment measure. "The choice is you either let the court decide ... or you bring it to a vote of the people and you let the people decide."

Sen. Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, said he was pleased but unsurprised by the numbers. "Public opinion has been moving on this issue for some time, probably farther and faster than most folks expected, including myself," Dibble said. He ardently opposes the amendment.

But he, like Hann, said the poll numbers may not reflect how people will vote when they are in the privacy of the voting booth. "We also know people are going to be asked this question after the end of an 18-month campaign, in which millions of dollars are going to be poured in to influence their opinion and the outcome," he said.

The poll, conducted last week among 806 Minnesotans, has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

Seems pretty dumb, to me, for them to push a marriage amendment when support for it is, at best, lukewarm.

I also think this move does nothing to fix the state's financial or economic problems.. which is what legislatures across the country should be worrying a lot more about.

 

[Genx87]

Welcome to MN where politicians do what they please. Next up public funding for a Vikings stadium 30-40% of voters support. Yeah, they cant wait to give tax dollars to a billionaire for the opportunity to pay for high priced NFL tickets.

 

[zsdersw]

where politicians do what they please.

Show me a state where this isn't true.

 

[Genx87]

Show me a state where this isn't true.

Touche

 

[PokerGuy]

Show me a state where this isn't true.

The great state of denial

 

[jjmIII]

Stay out of peoples bedroom! The older I get the more the politics of this country disgust me.

 

[Jaskalas]

If lawmakers approve, voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended to "provide that only a union of one man and one woman" be recognized as marriage

...why the F' does the definition of marriage belong in a constitution? What make it so important as to belong there, as opposed to every other law?

 

[PokerGuy]

...why the F' does the definition of marriage belong in a constitution? What make it so important as to belong there, as opposed to every other law?

The only way it can be safe from legal assault is the constitution. Otherwise, it's easy for some rogue judge to just dismantle it at any point.

 

[zsdersw]

...why the F' does the definition of marriage belong in a constitution? What make it so important as to belong there, as opposed to every other law?

It's an issue of constitutional importance.. duh! /sarcasm

 

[zsdersw]

The only way it can be safe from legal assault is the constitution. Otherwise, it's easy for some rogue judge to just dismantle it at any point.

That doesn't answer his question.

 

[thraashman]

The only way it can be safe from legal assault is the constitution. Otherwise, it's easy for some rogue judge to just dismantle it at any point.

Seeing as state laws like this already directly violate the US Constitution, the judges that need to dismantle this are the USSC justices.

 

[PokerGuy]

That doesn't answer his question.

Yes, it does. Who decides what is important enough to be in the constitution versus any other law? Well, a lot of people think this is an important issue for society. Had that been done long enough we wouldn't have all the hubbub now.

 

[PokerGuy]

Seeing as state laws like this already directly violate the US Constitution

Says who? You? :biggrin:

 

[zsdersw]

Yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. You said: "The only way it can be safe from legal assault is the constitution. Otherwise, it's easy for some rogue judge to just dismantle it at any point.".

That explains the mechanics of constitutional amendments... not why this particular issue belongs there, which is what he asked.

Well, a lot of people think this is an important issue for society.

There are a lot of important issues for society. Shall we amend the constitution to enshrine one particular view on them all? You have yet to explain why a constitutional amendment is necessary for this issue.

Something treated so cavalierly by a majority of its participants (marriage, as evidenced by the divorce rate) has NO business being in the constitution as an amendment.

 

[GoPackGo]

This whole thing is BS...they have no business dealing with this or the stadium when there are budget and jobs issues that need to addressed.

I am glad we voted Dayton in or else this would have been a Republican Stinkfest.

 

[cliftonite]

So much for the will of the people.

 

[Jaskalas]

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but I also do not want the government involved. I think it’s ridiculous for Republicans to attempt to amend constitutions to provide such definitions and limit legal rights and benefits.

The only way it can be safe from legal assault is the constitution. Otherwise, it's easy for some rogue judge to just dismantle it at any point.

That doesn't answer his question.

Well, it is his answer. No need to argue whether its spot on, for it does touch on something important. They want to prevent Judges from having a say in it, and think they have the votes for an amendment to do so. It’s not often that they think they have the votes for something so bold.

That explains the mechanics of constitutional amendments... not why this particular issue belongs there, which is what he asked.

Yes, well, no need for a particular person to tackle that one. I invite anyone to chime in.

What's funny, is even if they get what they want and amend Minnesota's constitution to define marriage... all a same sex couple would need to do is arrange for one of them to legally sex change.

Didn't think about that one, did they? :hmm:

 

[HomerJS]

GOP logic...

Gay people getting married a threat to traditional marriage

Divorce/multiple wives....not so much

 

[BoberFett]

MN may be a pretty blue state, but this place is still full of bible thumping busybody Lutherans. They may vote Democrat, but they're still prudes.

 

[Paul98]

GOP logic...

Gay people getting married a threat to traditional marriage

Divorce/multiple wives....not so much

Yeah would be nice if they could keep a coherent argument. If people didn't follow it and believe what ever they are told it would be funny and not so sad.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I want to know how a poll conducted by a local newspaper somehow represents the majority of a state? If the majority of the state took it to a election I'd bet the outcome would be a lot different than what this newspapers poll shows.
The newspaper polled 800 people. Hardly a good representation of the state as a whole.

I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms among consenting adults.
I'm not even a religious person, but what people never seem to grasp is that Marraige IS a religious practice, be it Christain, Jew, Muslim, Buddism, Hinduism ect. Most of the major religions do not condone homosexuality, and it is the followers of these religions that vote out the gay marraige crowd.
The gay marraige crowd it seems is attacking the idea of marraige as a in your face attitude towards those that don't condone their actions. Thus the anti-s push back (Kinda ironic isn't it )
Live your life and be happy. Saying you're married doesn't magically make you a better couple. If you need to have that to "prove" your love for someone else, then there is an underlying problem in your relationship that needs to be resolved before you go any further.
One gripe I hear is about making life choices for partners in dire situations. That's what living wills are for. Those have no baring based on race, sex, religion, blood type, sexual preference. It's a legal document anyone can get and have it enforced.

It is a funny issue though. Proponents of gay marraige also tend to be very liberal and anti-second amendment. They have no problems telling people that they shouldn't have an already gauranteed Constitutional Right, but will act like, excuse the term, a bunch of sissies, when someone speaks their opposing view about an issue they believe in.

 

[zsdersw]

I want to know how a poll conducted by a local newspaper somehow represents the majority of a state? If the majority of the state took it to a election I'd bet the outcome would be a lot different than what this newspapers poll shows.
The newspaper polled 800 people. Hardly a good representation of the state as a whole.

No one really knows how many believe one way or another... but that wasn't my point. The point of that part is that this likely isn't a 70/30 or even 60/40 issue for the state... but more like a 55/45 or 51/49 issue... and taking action right now on such divisive social issues is not appropriate in a time of economic/financial peril.

I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms among consenting adults.
I'm not even a religious person, but what people never seem to grasp is that Marraige IS a religious practice, be it Christain, Jew, Muslim, Buddism, Hinduism ect. Most of the major religions do not condone homosexuality, and it is the followers of these religions that vote out the gay marraige crowd.

Marriage isn't just a religious practice. If you'd say to me that government shouldn't be involved in marriage at all, I'd agree. If it's going to be involved, though, it should do so for reasons that apply to everyone, not just heterosexuals.

The gay marraige crowd it seems is attacking the idea of marraige as a in your face attitude towards those that don't condone their actions.

Some undoubtedly are, but most are not.

Live your life and be happy. Saying you're married doesn't magically make you a better couple. If you need to have that to "prove" your love for someone else, then there is an underlying problem in your relationship that needs to be resolved before you go any further.

This applies to heterosexuals in their heterosexual relationships too, doesn't it?

One gripe I hear is about making life choices for partners in dire situations. That's what living wills are for. Those have no baring based on race, sex, religion, blood type, sexual preference. It's a legal document anyone can get and have it enforced.

Why should sexual orientation decide whether or not that is the only option? Heterosexual couples can acquire those abilities through marriage as well, so why not homosexual couples?

 

[brandonb]

So, I'll be able to vote on this next election? Sweet!

 

[PokerGuy]

not why this particular issue belongs there, which is what he asked.

There is no guideline as to what belongs in the constitution and what doesn't, and there isn't such a thing as the right time or wrong time. The constitution outlines a process for amending it. As long as that process is followed, there is no "wrong" amendment.

There are a lot of important issues for society. Shall we amend the constitution to enshrine one particular view on them all? You have yet to explain why a constitutional amendment is necessary for this issue.

Guess who gets to decide if it's "necessary" or not? The legislature and the people. If they get the required votes, then yes, it's necessary. It's really quite simple.

Something treated so cavalierly by a majority of its participants has NO business being in the constitution as an amendment.

Strange, I wasn't aware anyone (including you) was in charge of deciding what should be included or not included. Can you link me to this authoritative guide on what can be included and what has "no business" being in there?

 

[thraashman]

I want to know how a poll conducted by a local newspaper somehow represents the majority of a state? If the majority of the state took it to a election I'd bet the outcome would be a lot different than what this newspapers poll shows.
The newspaper polled 800 people. Hardly a good representation of the state as a whole.

I don't care what people do in their own bedrooms among consenting adults.
I'm not even a religious person, but what people never seem to grasp is that Marraige IS a religious practice, be it Christain, Jew, Muslim, Buddism, Hinduism ect. Most of the major religions do not condone homosexuality, and it is the followers of these religions that vote out the gay marraige crowd.
The gay marraige crowd it seems is attacking the idea of marraige as a in your face attitude towards those that don't condone their actions. Thus the anti-s push back (Kinda ironic isn't it )
Live your life and be happy. Saying you're married doesn't magically make you a better couple. If you need to have that to "prove" your love for someone else, then there is an underlying problem in your relationship that needs to be resolved before you go any further.
One gripe I hear is about making life choices for partners in dire situations. That's what living wills are for. Those have no baring based on race, sex, religion, blood type, sexual preference. It's a legal document anyone can get and have it enforced.

It is a funny issue though. Proponents of gay marraige also tend to be very liberal and anti-second amendment. They have no problems telling people that they shouldn't have an already gauranteed Constitutional Right, but will act like, excuse the term, a bunch of sissies, when someone speaks their opposing view about an issue they believe in.

First, just because religions have historically made marriage a religious concept, doesn't make marriage exclusively a religious one. The concept of marriage has existed in virtually every society in human history, religious or not. Just because religions have chosen to use it as a method for control doesn't make it theirs. And it's not the proving or calling yourself married that's the issue, it's the rights and privileges granted to spouses and the rights and privileges granted to married couples that makes this a legal issue. The arguments made against gay marriage are identical to the ones made previously against interracial marriage. And interracial marriage was struck down as unconstitutional, the same way gay marriage should be.

And don't made this a second amendment thread unnecessarily. Most liberals aren't even against the second amendment, they're against the unlimited second amendment concept many conservatives have and how they think anything even remotely related to guns shouldn't be legislated but seem to think limiting other amendments is A-OK (you know, like the 14th which is what's getting denied in this case). Because in the end, registration of a gun or not allowing concealed carry in no way limits your capacity to own and possess a firearm and thus doesn't violate the 2nd amendment, but making illegal something with defined benefits and legal rights in this nation illegal only for specific groups directly violates the 14th.