So proud to be a Minnesotan today. So proud.
(Well, except for that Bachmann business. But I couldn’t vote against her anyway; different district.)
With Obama winning, the first President of the United States to ever even suggest the idea that Gay Marriage is a good thing, and then have Gay marriage winning - I couldn’t have written a better script for yesterday if I had tried!
My partner of 31, going on 32 years, and I hope that the Supreme Court will now take this ball and run with it. To think we could someday be legally married in the USA, with ALL of the perks and benefits - well, it is truly overwhelming.
Thank you, thank all of you who supported and voted for this!
It just occurred to me that it might be fun to go check out the lunch scene at Chick-Fil-A today 
It’s an excellent result.
And it shows that we don’t need courts to legislate from the bench. I readily concede it takes longer this way, but laws passed by elected legislatures (or validated by popular referendum) are the way we should make law, and I am pleased indeed that we’ve done so here.
It’s easy to be laconic when it’s not your rights on the table, isn’t it.
Four years ago I was depressed for a month over California, where I live, passing the evil Prop 8.
Today you can’t take the smile from my face. Two and most probably a third State have voted in marriage equity and Minnesota’s own version of Prop 8 went down in flames. Those hateful bigots can no longer say that it’s never been decided by popular vote.
Chief Justice Roberts and the rest of the Supremes can see which way the tide is flowing. The corner has been turned. What does he want his legacy to be, another Plessy v Ferguson or another Loving v Virginia?
I am not going to marry a woman again, let alone a man. This is not about me. This is about basic civil rights and it’s a beautiful day for civil rights.
Moved by whom?
The “traditional marriage” defenders will probably take it to the churches, since pretty much every law that recognizes same-sex marriage also recognizes the authority of a church not to have to perform them. First stop: the Vatican, where one statement from Benedict XVI, along the lines of, “If you support same-sex marriage on Saturday, don’t you dare accept the Eucharist on Sunday,” would have a significant impact, depending on how realistic the “Hispanics tend to be devout Catholics” stereotype is.
On the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised if the next step for the “marriage for all” defenders is to demand that churches that don’t perform same-sex marriages be stripped of the authority to conduct any marriages and/or lose their tax-exempt status.
For all I know, the next fight might be overseas. Rosie O’Donnell once said that her objection to “civil unions” was that you couldn’t get them considered as marriages in Europe. Does she honestly believe that, say, France has to accept a same-sex marriage performed in the USA? For that matter, does France have to? (I don’t think any right to same-sex marriage is in either the European Constitution or the Charter on Human Rights.)
I honestly and truly don’t give a shit what anyone venerates at their altars of hate. Just keep it behind closed doors and out of the sight of impressionable innocent children.
Churchgoers may not have to worry, not all gays are fighting tooth and nail to be have their marriage recognized by these exclusive Jim Jones run club house churches. I mean some people might be wasting their life and stressing themselves out to get a membership card from your local goof group who still believe the world is flat just for the opportunity to get married in a room of hypocrites but I doubt all are. It’s the United States government that is actually important and worth fighting for to get it’s recognition.
If only we’d handled universal suffrage, miscegenation, and slavery this way. It’s a fine idea to let the majority decide the rights of the minority… as long as you’re one of the majority.
I don’t see that happening at all. Churches can decide who they want to marry and who they don’t. Forcing churches to accommodate gays is just a red herring used by the anti-gays to charge up their base and claim that they are the ones being discriminated against. Just a few months ago there was a controversy about a church refusing to marry a bi-racial couple. No one made any claim that the church should be required by law to perform the ceremony just that they were bigoted neanderthals who hadn’t quite made it up to the latter half of the 20th century.
I suspect that the way forward for the “marriage for all” group is to get more states on their pro marriage platform, and then going for a federal legislation /court case to force the bible belt to recognize the legality of same sex marriage. After that its just waiting around for social attitudes to catch up to the point that those who object to gays become pariahs.
Is sensibly put as the smart people on the StraghtDope have put it religious people still don’t comprehend the flaw in their ways of thinking. It kills me. They don’t call it brainwashed for nothing.
As I’ve said elsewhere; check out the demographics of the vote in Minnesota.
The likelyhood that people voted in favor of the amendment is almost directly equal to their age as a percent.
65 and older: 64% in favor
40? About 40% in favor
20-29? 20-something percent in favor of the ban.
Even if it had passed, that’s a demographic bullet to the brain of the very idea of banning gay marriage for the long haul.
So younger people agree with banning gay marriage? I thought the age group would be reversed like younger people in support of gay marriage and older people against it? Any idea why? I don’t know much about Minnesota and is this even limited to Minnesota?.
“Congress shall pass no law respecting an establisment of religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.”
Any such attempt would be overturned by in a heartbeat, even in the most liberal state in the country. Changing what churches can and can’t allow their own members to do has never been on the table, and the right should know it.
I think you’re reading that backwards. The younger you are, the less likely you are to want to ban gay marriage.
ETA: The “64% in favor” means 64% in favor of banning gay marriage, not in favor of gay marriage.
Maine’s law takes effect on New Year’s Day.
Gotcha, ok now makes sense to me :o
Minnesota was voting on an amendment to define marriage as between a man and a woman. He’s saying that as demographics get older they’re more likely to vote in favor of the amendment. Sometimes it trips people up but Minnesota voted down an attempt to restrict marriage and the younger the demographic the likelier they were to vote against the amendment.
While the Archdiocese was clearly opposed to SSM and a lot of money was spent on the issue, your article makes no mention of the Archdiocese spending any money, itself.
I am glad that the election turned out the way it did, (and I am sorry that Nienstedt turned out the way he did), but do you have any reference to him actually spending any of the church’s money on this issue?