The Republican-led Minnesota legislature approved late Saturday putting a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to voters in November 2012.
The Minnesota House of Representatives voted 70 to 62 after about five hours of discussion, cementing the amendment’s place on the ballot for 2012. The Senate approved the proposed amendment earlier in May largely along party lines.
Minnesota law already bans gay marriage, but amendment sponsors argued that a constitutional amendment would ensure legislators or a small group of judges could not change that.
In other words, go to hell gays and go to hell civil rights, the majority is afraid of what they don’t understand. Of course, this is the state of Michele Bachmann, so maybe these people actually think the founding fathers thought majorities ought to be able to oppress minorities.
Filed under: News, Religions, Same-sex marriage | Tagged: gay marriage, Minnesota |
For the Sake of Science 
You’d rather have minority rule I’m sure, the enlightened making everyone live in the ‘proper’ manner the ‘self-anointed’ think is right?
You can debate the rights and wrongs of the issue, but majority rule is preferable to the minority rule that plagued mankind for millennia and still does in parts.
You imagine there is a better solution than what we have, the majority’s hands tied in many circumstances but decisions still being left to them in others?
Minority rule is not the issue. Civil Rights are!
Besides, I’m not a big fan of Majority Rule and our representative government has been founded to protect the rights of the minority. Our forefathers had more intelligence and foresight than any Majority Rule proponents who look at every issue with a str
aight yes or no perspective. They designed our government as a constitutionally representative republic protecting us from the tryanny of the majority.
STRAW MAN ALERT! Stupid statement of intent that is not there.
As Michael is trying to point out before the obfuscation, is that majority rule is NOT supposed to take rights away from minority viewpoints.
Lets attribute Nate to wanting majority rule eliminating the rights of blacks, women, Jews, Muslims and whoever else the majority feels they don’t like today.
Paul, I wasn’t stumping for majority rule all the time, or even most of the time. You are right the issue is civil rights, not the rule of the minority, but as far as I can see there is no right to marry, as there is no right to drive, or fly an airplane or own a dog or build a fence or do a number of other things, for better or worse.
My only point was that we have here something that is not defined as a right and what better way to define social conventions than letting the society at large do it.
Of course, my solution is to get government out of marriage entirely. Leave it to the priests, ministers, rabbis, notary’s, etc who they will and will not marry.
And I’m still ignoring trolls.
Noisy Nate, the straw man builder, actually recognizes that he is a trolll He is negative and obfuscatory on nearly every post of Michael.
Paul, you understand correctly that the government has no reason to take away rights. Marriage is something private that it can not disallow. It does not come with responsibilities like driving. I wonder if some right wingers want to go back to the days of disallowing mixed races marrying. Gay marriage is exactly equivalent to that.
I disagree because I believe it is a civil right for individuals to express their love and committment to other individuals.It is a basic human need as well a right.
The other rights you mention are not as basic as marriage and in a sense trivializes marriage. Besides, these rights are not being contested and if they were I’m sure would be adjudicated in favor of their exercise..
We have regulations surrounding the exercise of these rights (i.e. licensing a dog or piloting an airplane, or zoning ordinances fo build a fence, etc etc etc). We have regulations surounding marriage (i.e..witnesses and someone licensed by the state to perform the ceremony) and everyone, gay or straight, must abide by them. Regulations can and do prevent someone from exercising these rights but they shouldn’t indiscriminately deny them the rights.
Since governemnt is in marriage now, it is discrminating against a group of people who cannot receive the necessary sanctions of government.
We are fighting for the civil rights of marriage to be to be included in the 14th amendment thus protecting individual rights being denied in any state in which the majority might wish otherwise. We are a union of disparate States who might want to go their own way in many matters ( up to secession) but our magnificent and brilliant constitution binds our fragile togetherness .
Finally, it is important to note the majority of Americans favor Gay Marriage.
For the first time ever, support for gay marriage (and the rights that come with it) is in the majority. According to Gallup:
http://friendlyatheist.com/2011/05/23/support-for-gay-marriage-hits-a-new-milestone/
Most people now realize that taking away rights is wrong.
More handiwork of ultraconservatives:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/ml_saudi_women_driving
Again, rights being taken away, ONLY due to religion.
Paul, I just disagree that marriage is a basic human right. In which case I’m certain that the rule of law will allow the states to do as they please. It would be an easy thing to get government out of the marriage game, than it’s no ones business.
People can marry their pet turtles, eat horse manure and beat each other over the head with glass dildos in so far as I care.
And troll, while statistics have been showing a fairly even divide for a while, I don’t see why you are all jumping up and down over one study (if you can even use that word for polls). Isn’t that a big scientific fuax pax on your part?
What do you define is a basic human right??? Since we disagree on what a human to human marriage is, it is improtant we arrive at a definition,
Do you really think people have a right to a government sanctioned marriage?
Frankly, I don’t consider anything you need the government to provide to be a right, nor do I recognize any positive human rights.
The majority of this whole dispute could be solved by making it law that hospitals may not bar visitors a patient wishes to see. That’s a sticking point because a person can already give away most other powers conveyed by marriage.
And than get government out of marriage entirely. No tax breaks, no penalties, no special treatment at all. Let the churches, justices of the peace and notaries do their thing, as they please or not.
Nate is not making a strawman argument., he is responding to how the original post opposes direct democracy without mentioning constitutional limitations.
As a constitutional republic, there are certain things the American public can’t vote to do – such as if 80% of the people voted to execute the other 20%. The posts from Bob and Paul support these restrictions.
However, the original post failed to mention that, so its fair game for that type of criticism. And the left runs to decrying majority rule when they lose all the time
I voted FOR gay marriage in Maine in Nov. 2009, and we lost. I would vote for it again in a heartbeat, but I gave NO support to the activists who tried to overrule the vote by going through the courts after the election was over. If they thought the vote was illegitimate, they should have declared that before the election.
And for the record, Bob, you make us secular critical thinkers look bad when you abuse the term “Straw man.” It means someone is knocking down a fictional point, but you bring it up when you think an argument is flawed.
“Lets attribute Nate to wanting majority rule eliminating the rights of blacks, women, Jews, Muslims and whoever else the majority feels they don’t like today.”
That’s a total Ad Hominem.
No, Michael, read Nate’s first sentence in his first post where he puts words in Michael Hawkin’s mouth that is not been close to what the post stated. Nate, as usual, is the first to use nasty tactics. I just hive back what he deserves. Nate does this all the time as well as other nasty comment diversions.
“You’d rather have minority rule I’m sure, the enlightened making everyone live in the ‘proper’ manner the ‘self-anointed’ think is right?”
That’s what I said, and it was a question for which I was seeking an answer. This is not a nasty tactic, Troll, this is a snarky question. You on the other hand continue you do your cause harm by behaving as you do.
As many people that disagree with me and agree with you often note, none of them think you make very good representation.
That’s yor problem Noisy, Nasty Nate, the Troll You twist and turn everything and don’t realize how off putting you are. My proof us just about every post of Hawkins where you do it. I have dozens of examples that people can plainly see. Rant on, Troll Nate. Your own words betray you.
“I don’t recoginze any postitive human rights”…..Nate
I do, Our constitution through the Bill of rights does. Philosophers, socialogists, thinkers, scientists,artitsts throughout the ages do.
Government doesn’t give you a right to live. It can’t! You are already living!!!! And since you are a living breathing, intelligent organism, nature has given you the gift of life.
Science (Maslow) has defined a hierarchy of needs which this life accrues over time ranging from nourishment from a baby to love and intmacy as an adult. I would, for one, translate everyone of these needs to rights!
Now we all have to live together…we are a pack animal and need each other. That is where government comes in….we establish regulations surrounding the fulfilling of these needs…we have to learn to live together…to run as a pack….and they are called rights,
We have established regulations on Marriage which exclude a large percentage of us. It is about time we change that.
I would not want to live in that Anne Ryand world of yours where there are no rights except the survival of the fittest.
Michael,
The post was titled “the tyranny of the majority”. I’m not sure how you can read that phrase and claim it doesn’t make the criticism that the majority does not get to do just whatever it wants merely because it is a majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THE_TYRANNY_OF_THE_MAJORITY
Where were you? I’ve made the argument that rights cannot be voted on plenty of times, just as so many others did and are still doing. Besides, the people who got that vote on the ballot were the conservative bigots, not anyone on the left. And what would it have done if “the left” could have made some formal declaration of the illegitimacy of the vote? So what? That wouldn’t stop anything. The only (immediate) recourse is to file suit and go through the courts after the fact.
Paul, you didn’t list any positive rights.
I’m defining a positive right as one that obliges or permits action. (had to whip out my notes to find that.)
I’ll hop on defense to make my point. You have the right to defend yourself by any means necessary, up to and including, killing the aggressor with your bare hands. You do not have the right to be defended by me or anyone else, although I would be happy to do so.
This is my problem with calling housing and healthcare and so on “rights”. You explain to me how I have the right to a doctors services or a home built and maintained by another.
Methinks there is a little bit of mumbo jumbo regarding positive rights but i won’t bother to look it up..I guess it’s corolary is positive things happen with negative rights but that’s too technical for someone of my irrelevant age class.
More importantly, what do you call your impulse to defend me? Is it nothing but a personal willigness to put your own life on line? If so, you have to answer the question “Why” ? Is it a better half of your human nature to do so while others may act not to defend me?
We are learning the better halves of our nature have been labled good or moral. From that we derive “rights” …everything from “Thou Shalts” of the 10 commandments to “We The People…”
Recognize the innate gooodness of your humanity Nate for therein lies the roadmap for all of us….
The Constitution (in any democracy) exists, among others, to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority (aka “mob rule,” one of the most common concerns that the Founders had about democracy).
The more important question is not what I call my ‘impulse’ to defend others, but the fact that it isn’t something I must do.
From my own libertarian perspective I have issues with any ‘right’ that obliges another to act against their own will. From that same standpoint I say that positive ‘rights’ may be created by contract but certainly do not exist outside of that.
For example you do not have the right to a house or apartment. You may make a contract with the land owner giving you the right to it for a period of time, or even indefinitely, but there is no innate right to it.
On the other hand, all the other rights we have that the constitution recognizes are rights that oblige no one to do anything for anyone. Speech, bearing arms (self defense is what it comes down to), practice of religion, etc.
The one exception might be called the right to an attorney, however there are many schools of thought on that one.
So what do I call my desire to defend others? It’s more indignity than anything.
As we can see, it comes down to being a libertarian – one of the most malicious of dogmas in the US. You can sum up their philosophy as “I got mine, so go fuck the rest of you”.
What did you do for work?
I don’t want to live in your Libertarian world…it sounds like a selfish brutal place lacking compassion…with no checks on our darker side…greed..
You are advocating for a world which will never exist….a phantasy in which self plays the only role.
No no, its a world where compassion isn’t dead, you clearly misunderstand.
When people are compelled under law to do this or that, that isn’t compassion, that’s self preservation.
Michael, I see what you’re saying and I actually agree with your philosophy here. I just see a blog post as a self-enclosed realm, and your title said to me that majority voters can push the minority around – the first paragraph of the wikipedia article you linked to summed it up nicely.
The second part about rights was not something linked to or what came to mind from your title. You may respond “well you should have known that” but I didn’t. This isn’t worth discussing further, in my opinion. I’m not a subtle person, nor a subtle writer and this could be differences in opinions on how we write.
I want to respond to something Paul said earlier, because I think we’re a lot closer in viewpoints than one might think
“Now we all have to live together…we are a pack animal and need each other. That is where government comes in….we establish regulations surrounding the fulfilling of these needs…we have to learn to live together…to run as a pack….and they are called rights”
I completely agree that we need each other – what I think adds the most the peoples standards of living is human cooperation. Cooperation across national boundaries, between people who don’t speak the same language, who don’t have the same religious views or belong to the same race – that is the key to our prosperity.
See: I, Pencil by Leonard Read for a short essay on this idea.
The difference I see is how we go about organizing this cooperation. You are right that we need laws to keep from harming each other. We need SOME types of regulation. For example, to punish frauds who lie to their customers.
But some regulations are more useful than others. Does a ban on the sale of spare kidneys actually make the world a better place? I don’t think so at all, but well-meaning regulators stick by this ban. Its possible to make regulations that go so far, even ones aimed at protecting consumers.
I am indeed a libertarian, but I don’t see why thats supposed to be “worse” than being a plain old conservative. We’re in defense of things like gay marriage (nate: don’t sidestep it by saying government should be out of marriage. You know thats not going to happen, and if you can’t stand the government recognizing two dudes can be in love, you’re not a libertarian) legalizing drugs and open immigration. Why would right wing economics with left with social issues be WORSE than being a rightie on both?
Human cooperation between willing partners IS libertarianism. I can understand wanting to use compulsion to force people to not do certain bad things, but that doesn’t mean libertarians have no compassion. We often share your goals, we just don’t think government actions are an effective way to accomplish then.
I don’t think its side stepping it, I don’t really care either way, but as long as we are on the subject of who can marry, one might as well mention the fact that single persons are discriminated against in some ways, which is the whole point of why gays want to marry if I’m not much mistaken.
absurd….we are talking about the bonding of two people called marriage…not one person practicing onanism.
Haha
Marriage IS, in fact, a civil right. The only authority that matters–the Supreme Court–has said so explicitly.
In Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Court struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
“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 …
“To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
Nate, no matter how well intentioned you may be, I see your libertarian values to be counter- productive , in fact destructive, to the universal aspirations of our species.
I just listened to Our President give a great speech at Westminster Hall in which he spoke about our shared values, values based upon the rights of man, values which have allowed the grandson of a Kenyan cook to make a presentation in that grand hall as President of the United States.
This is the type of world I want to live in, not yours…. Where rights are confirmed by laws and where the affairs of citizens are regulated by democratic governments.
You have caused me to think of your values not as just another political philosophy, but as a destructive force to be shunned.
That is what I said Paul, but in fewer words
I could say the same thing about your views Paul and with the same amount of certainty.
..well here we all stand..and here we’ll fall. For on
this cosmic stage, we are a bit of annoying dust….
The Troll is certainly dust. You are more like gravel and I like to think i am too.
Trolls like you, Nate, are not gravel. More like beetle dung.