There are 38 comments - Display All Comments
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:17:16 PM
Ok then, I guess 0bama got one big win last night.
He does say he’s against marriage.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:17:48 PM
g@y marriage.
I forgot about the censor.
BillChris
topher
Olmsted County, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:26:13 PM
“How does that affect anybody else? It’s a personal thing.”
She has a pretty good point. I’m neither for or against. I doubt I would even vote on it.
Othelmo__
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:42:08 PM
I’m with Bill. Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a rip.
thinkfirs
t
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:44:29 PM
“The instutution of marriage has been preserved....” - Frank Shcubert says.
Do you think that Frank thinks the same about divorced people or a couple living together but who aren’t married? Who is anyone kidding? If the people in the article were really worried about preserving marriage, wouldn’t it be better to make divorce illegal? This is just more hate against people. I think that if a couple want to commit to each other and be given the oppertunity to the many state and federal laws that have marriage written into them, then they should be given that oppertunity. Maybe we just to need to give it a new name like a civil union instead of mariage. That way, the marriage people will not feel so offended, and people can have the legal advantages that others are offered under the law. That way, people like Frank won’t be so offended, or maybe he would just start blaming divorcees and people “living in sin” as his new scapegoats.
thinkfirs
t
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:48:26 PM
Why can the PB use g@y in their headlines, but we can’t type in here?
George Carlin must be rolling over in his gerave!
Above should read “more hate against gay-people” or “more hare toward g@y people”.
thinkfirs
t
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 8:49:48 PM
Atilla: You can use gay-as long as you attatch a hyphen to it like the PB does in their headline.
AverageJo
e
Anywhere, US
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 9:01:35 PM
I ask again, why are g*y marriage advocates limiting the political assault on marriage strictly to what people do with their genitals. Sex is not a pre-requisite for a marriage license. If it’s live and let live, then avail anyone choosing to express their “love” for other human beings the benefits of marriage.
mdb325
Kasson, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 9:09:40 PM
“The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation,” Oh for crying out loud. The institution of marriage is dead in any state with no-fault divorce.
As for the pro same-s@x marriage crowd, be honest. This whole thing started as a call for benefits rights between committed couples. Nothing to do with love. Homosaxuals just wanted to be able to have family medical coverage and other spousal legal rights.
I like the term ‘domestic partnership law’. Let’s give it to them, on the condition that we demand a real reason for ANY divorce/dissolution. None of this ‘Irreconcilable Differences’ B.S. You get married/domestic partnered, you’re in it for the long haul. Choose wisely.
Sea_wolfm
an
Fountain, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 9:17:18 PM
For years now the Gay-Lesbian(and others) have prided themselves by using the courts to promote their cause. Now they find out that a majority of people don’t like it—and now they whine.
They seem quite content to run around as leather clad slaves on St. Patrick’s day. Drag Queens and Drag King’s rule the day—but in Maine-=Not today.
Jules
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 9:24:13 PM
Very sad, I was hoping our culture was more progressive and would have voted for marriages. I blame it on the delusional belief system of Christianity and all their hate for homosexuals.
jared
kasson, mn
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 9:53:23 PM
Interesting logic from sea wolf again.
Let’s see using your logic if gay’s where the majority, it would be ok to outlaw straight marriage?
Hmmmmmm
Othelmo__
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:08:35 PM
Would it be OK for a mother to abort her unborn child if she knew the baby would be “born gay?”
mdb325
Kasson, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:19:14 PM
Oh, Othelmo, you know that would be wrong. They believe you can break out the vacuum cleaner for any other ‘reason’, but that would be a hate crime!
peej
Austin, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:31:39 PM
Funny, after only a few days I am starting to feel like I know some of you guys :-) It is getting kind of addictive - I think I will have to stop reading these posts.
Frankly I am surprised there is not more anti-g@y posting on here yet - that is a good thing in my opinion.
For an interesting take on the marriage bans, see www.fivethirtyeight.com.
Nate Silver, an economist and math whiz, has said you can predict marriage ban votes based on these three measures:
1. The year in which the amendment was voted upon;
2. The percentage of adults in 2008 Gallup tracking surveys who said that religion was an important part of their daily lives;
3. The percentage of white evangelicals in the state.
So supporters of g@y marriage or civil unions should not lose heart because the bans are loosing ground at about 2% per year, according to Mr. Silver. So it is only a matter of time until demographics change and more more of us actually get to know some g@y people, for example. It has taken conservatives a while to come around on human rights issues like slavery and the denying women the vote, they will eventually come around on this one too.
Othelmo__
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:32:37 PM
But what about “choice,” mdb? Should a woman be “forced” to carry a “g@y baby” to term?
Whatever happened to “My body, my choice?”
mdb325
Kasson, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 10:50:31 PM
I’m not positive, but I’m pretty sure a woman’s ‘choice’ goes out the window when it’s considered a hate crime. She would be discriminating based on sexual preference rather than because of the simple inconvenience of using proper birth control. Yeah, I still think it would be considered a hate crime.
Othelmo__
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/4/2009 at 11:42:55 PM
So, it would be OK to vacate Roe v. Wade if the baby is “g@y?”
sbintn
Murfreesboro, TN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 6:26:14 AM
It is getting kind of addictive - I think I will have to stop reading these posts.
Peej, the real mental disorder or delusion is spending you time reading and responding to this stupid stuff but once you are hooked that it. welcome to the “club”. It won’t be too long before you will be wondering what it would be like to invite Frank and Othelmo over to your house at the SAME TIME.
BTW are Frank and Othelmo Facebook friends?
mdb325
Kasson, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 8:03:59 AM
Othelmo, I can’t wrap my mind into as many knots as a liberal can, so I may be wrong, but yeah, in the case of a ‘hate crime’ I believe they would find a way around Roe v Wade.
Hard to say, sbintn, Othelmo has really clamped down his privacy level, to the point where I don’t know if he would even show up on Frank’s friends list.
charlie
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:05:12 AM
peej, one thing you should know when posting here, you better be prepared to defend what you wrote. So please clarify what you meant when you said, “It has taken conservatives a while to come around on human rights issues like slavery and the denying women the vote”
It was the republican party that abolished slavery. It was the conservative movement in the north that created the underground railroad. It was the southern democrat that initiated the Jim Crow Laws, not the republicans or conservatives. Regarding Women’s right to Vote, Wilson was in office, Democrats had control of the House and Republicans had control of the Senate. It takes all three to create law. So I suggest the next time you throw out blanket statements, you back them up with some facts. I for one was offended by your post.
irishman
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:28:44 AM
peej: I’m not sure your interpretation of anti-gay postings, rather pro traditional marriage is more the norm.
This vote simply reinforces the obvious when this is brought up to the people, from California to Maine the answer is no. The only hope the GLBT community has for forward movement is through the legislatures or courts and even then making it stick is not a given.
Obama pretty much hung them out to dry on this one. I hope some of you did not vote for him based on you thinking he was going to crusade for your cause. Obviously he said anything you wanted to here just to take your vote.
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:42:17 AM
You got that right charlie.
Too bad most of the populace scarfs down all the untruths.
Ron_Burgu
ndy
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 10:02:09 AM
The $1 million question that I’ve NEVER, EVER been able to get an answer to:
How would it affect anyone’s straight marriage is same sex marriage were allowed?? We make laws to PROTECT people. Tell me, who’s being protected by making same sex marriage illegal??
Ron_Burgu
ndy
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 10:03:40 AM
By the way, let’s put ALL types of marriage to a vote then. I bet we could find some counties in Alabama, Georgia and Mississippi that would outlaw interracial marriage. “Putting it to a vote” is NOT always the answer.
jared
kasson, mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 10:38:10 AM
Quote the Atilla(czar of untruths)
“Too bad most of the populace scarfs down all the untruths.”
Would that include the internet thesis hoax you fell for?
Would it include the William Ayers visiting the white house hoax you fell for?
Would it include the april fools day hoax regarding Obama being born in a foreign country? (I believe many of your “great americans” fell for that one eg Patriot from Zumbrota).
Is that some of the untruths you are speaking about Atilla?
Look in the mirror and check yourself.
Good Luck!
Atilla
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:02:00 AM
There are no laws banning g@y’s from living together are there?
How funny it is that you libbies want to stay as far away from religion in government, yet “marriage” is a religious institution based on heterosexual procreation that you continually beg and cry for.
Legalizing “gay marriage” for a MINORITY is about redefining the definition of marriage, which has LEGAL consequences for the MAJORITY of us.
It is also worth noting that 0boma and the democrats in Congress have publicly stated that they want to REPEAL DOMA and federally mandate “gay marriage” in all 50 states.
There are EXPLICIT religious protections in the Constitution that have been there since the beginning.
There is no mention of homosexuality in the Constitution.
But the Constitution doesn’t seem to matter to ol’ 0bomba and the unelected Supreme Court.
WE ARE NOT A THEOCRACY. If that is what we want to be, then let’s scrap the Constitution and replace it with a theocratic form of gummint, and I hope it’s a Christian one, because I’d prefer Christianity if we decide to live in a theocracy.
People of faith and others, are increasingly being forced to choose between their God, moral issues, and the demands of radical g@ys, along with the Supreme’s “finding” rights to welfare, g@y marriage, health care, polygamy etc....
charlie
Rochester, Mn
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 11:03:02 AM
Ron, here’s my issue with this issue. It’s my reason why I will never support marriage for homersexuals. If you redefine the word Marriage to include homersexuals then you must allow polygamy and any other form of consensual relationships. Will NAMBLA attempt to lower the legal age from 18 to 14 or maybe 12? Where will it stop? Can you really say, “marriage will only include adults over the age of 18, and only two of them”?
Othelmo__
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 8:55:31 PM
Those who favor g@ay marriage need to explain why polygamy should not be sanctioned if 3, 7 or 28 people agree to a consensual relationship among them.
Sid_Vicio
us
East Berlin, IA
Posted on 11/5/2009 at 9:06:48 PM
Those who are “in defense of marriage” need to explain why they don’t work as hard to outlaw divorce as they do fighting against people who love and care about each other, no matter their personal preference.
Monica
Minneapoils, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 8:45:46 AM
I don’t understand why this is on any ballot.
Can you imagine where our country would be if we had been allowed to vote on civil rights issues in the 50’s or 60’s?
DoesntExi
st
Rochester, MN
Ron_Burgu
ndy
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:24:55 AM
“Those who favor g@ay marriage need to explain why polygamy should not be sanctioned if 3, 7 or 28 people agree to a consensual relationship among them.”
Exactly! Who cares?!?! As long as all 28 people are of legal age and not being forced against their will, who the heck cares??
The conservatives want to dress up their hate by calling it traditionalism, but that’s a load of garbage. Over half of straight marriages end in divorce. What about the “sanctity of marriage” in those cases??
Rochester
_Gadfly
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 10:31:06 AM
Ron (and other ghay marriage supporters), please explain to me why the government should be in the marriage business at all? Why don’t they just create civil agreements that let two or more adults join together as a domestic union and leave the “marriage” blessing to the churches.
Ron_Burgu
ndy
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 12:28:31 PM
I agree with you Gadfly, but that’s the way it is.
freethink
er
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 3:58:35 PM
Much of this could be avoided if there were federal statutes put in place that establishes civil unions that carry with it all of the federal privileges that marriage does. This would allow same sex couples to be recognized at a federal level and thereby benefit in tax issues and citizenship.
Birddog
rochester, mn
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 4:19:50 PM
If you don’t approve of what the voters of Maine do, I would suggest you move to Maine, establish residency and cast your ballot for what you want.
Rochester
_Gadfly
Rochester, MN
Posted on 11/6/2009 at 4:32:18 PM
”I agree with you Gadfly, but that’s the way it is.” Suddenly status quo is OK, eh? :-) Well, instead of the government getting itself even deeper into the marriage quagmire, something 31 of 31 states so far have rejected, they should just get out.

E-mail Story
Print Story

