Well, the pro-SSM side got what they wanted, and it cost even less than giving the anti-SSM side a free balloon or a ribbon or some other school-carnival-level prize, so I guess call this a win and move on.
I rarely see such a fine example of lip service put in writing.
A bill has no legal standpoint if it doesn’t pass.
Some, but I suspect that it was really about electability. There was a lot of concern from some religious that suddenly gay people would be lining up to get married in their churches and that they’d be obligated to do so. It was one of the final arguments anyone was taking seriously (and few were taking that seriously) and they just removed it from the equation .
Because what the average lesbian bride has been dreaming of is getting married by a pastor who damns her to hell or something.
More or less, yes. It has seemed to me for some time that the largest issue for many opponents of SSM wasn’t so much “but it’s icky” as it was a false belief that it would somehow affect their marriages or require them to recognize those marriages as part of their religious beliefs. By assuring these people that nothing changes for them legally, and that nothing changes for them religiously, all that’s really left is the “but it’s icky” argument, which isn’t really defensible for most politicians.
I wouldn’t call this a compromise either because, really, the whole thing was each side talking past eachother and neither really gave up anything. Hell, they all even get to use the word marriage. This is actually pretty close to something I had been suggesting for several years; it’s nice to see that it made the difference somewhere.
That all said, I don’t think this argument would fly in a more religiously conservative area, content to ban things as sins, but perhaps if it’s enough to win over more moderate areas, if it comes to a point that a majority of states are recognizing it, it will eventually force their hand. It’d get pretty dicey here in Virginia where we have one of the strongest constitutional bans on SSM.
The allows conservatives to give in to the inevitable social changes but allow themselves to feel superior, because they are in a real marriage, not just a civil marriage. The distinction is what is important to them.
Did Minnesota come up with the great compromise re: Gay Marriage?
After reading this thread, I’d have to say yes, although I wouldn’t have guessed it initially.
In at least one negotiating class that I’ve had, one solution type that was stressed was what they called an “elegant negotiable” - something that is of no consequence for one side to give up, but would be of value to the other side.
The language “civil marriage” I would not even have noticed if I read the bill. Of course all state laws pertaining to marriage are about “civil marriage”!
But if adding this word allowed the other side to cover their ass with their constituents, then maybe it was an elegant negotiable. I would never have noticed that our side compromised on anything.
This is just a face-saving measure to allow certain people to pretend they didn’t get defeated on the issue of gay marriage. Instead, they can pretend to have reached a compromise.
I’m still confused as to the difference between a civil marriage and a marriage administered by a civil authority (which is what marriage is in the other 49 states). Can you explain the difference? If you cannot explain then it would appear that this was a legislative waste of time which I must oppose on principle as a waste of resources.
Does anyone really think that a legislator can tell his anti-SSM constituents that he didn’t vote for SSM if he voted for this bill? And that they are going to believe him?
Yes. Anti-SSMers are not known for their logic or critical thinking skills. I mean, the best they could come up with for signage was “Don’t Erase Moms and Dads”.
As long as both sides feel they came away with something, then it wasn’t a waste of time, and it was a compromise. For the last few days, as I listened to the debates over this, I’ve been rather pessimistic about the chance that there would be any positive outcome. If my telling people that my SO and I may someday have a civil marriage means that they can sleep at night, after allowing SSM, I’m counting it as a win.
Why should the bigots feel like they came away with something? I really don’t get this. Equal rights = Marriage Equality… unless it’s ok for you to just be in a “civil marriage” as opposed to a “marriage” whatever the F that means. Isn’t this just semantic b.s?
To me if you are “married” then you’re “married”, what’s the problem?
I thought the definition of a compromise was when both sides had to give something up. Since the gay rights lobby got exactly what we’ve been demanding all along, I don’t really see this as a compromise. I see it as an unalloyed victory, with some face saving on behalf of the vanquished.
They shouldn’t, but they weren’t negotiating from a reasoned position in the first place. I guess enough fence-sitters will shrug and play along, while the hardcore anti-SSM types won’t be satisfied but will have become a politically ignorable (and still diminishing) minority.
What the hell happened on April 26, 1941?
The Vietnamese attacked Sapphire Cove.
But it was probably also the last time Minnesota altered its marriage laws and all marriages sealed before that date were grandfathered in, as they would be for this legislation.
I would guess that it was specifically the date from which marriage licenses were legally required.
I’m anti-SSM and I don’t see this as a compromise nor a win-win, just a defeat. But I got my way on national gun control, the St Croix Bridge, etc so I go on with my life.
Nothing personal, but good.
He can say “I protected the sanctity of marriage within faith. Your pastor will never legally be required to perform a marriage he doesn’t agree with.” (Not that he would have anyway.) Where the population was heavily against it, those reps didn’t vote for it anyway. This swayed those where in a few years, the district will be pro-gay marriage anyway.
I was married in Minnesota to an atheist in a courthouse, and I run into people who don’t think we are “really married.” We are as legally married as any other couple in the state, but some people believe it is the blessing of God that creates a marriage. For those people, marriage is still between a man and a woman (and those liberal faiths which are now starting to book same sex ceremonies for the fall - “lalalalalalala I can’t hear you!” or alternative, “they aren’t really a faith.”)