Maybe we should be allowed to vote on whether bigoted a%$#@#^s like Michele Bachmann should be tarred and feathered and run out of Minnesota on a rail. If the majority of Minnesotans agree to that in a poll, I guess that means it’s alright, according to the Logic of Michele.

See ya Michele!

I’d like to be able to vote on whether adulterers should be able to get married. Why can’t we add that to the amendment. Adultery is mentioned in the 10 commandments after all.

6 simple questions based on Senator Bachman’s comments.

1. If this amendment is mostly about curbing activist judges…why not propose an amendment to curb the power of judges? –Or does she only want to curb judges on cetain issues where they come to conclusion different from her own?.

2. If this issue is about letting the people vote and decide for themselves why not also let them decide about abortion (one of the most activist rulings in history) –is it because the pro-life side would loose?

3. If this is really more about maintaining the current definition of marriage then why the language to exclude domestic partnerships or even give other relationship rights?

4. If this amendment is about actually protecting the institution of marriage wouldn’t a constitution amendment limiting divorce do more for the institution of marrige? If it is about protecting the actual marriages how do gay people getting married weaken anyone elses marriage?

5. If this is about the morality of being gay explain how this amendment stop gay relationships? Will this amendment make them decide to stop being gay? And if the amendment actually does encourage people who are inclined to be gay to marry the opposite sex — is this a good thing for marriage? –for society? Would you really want to marry someone if you knew they were also attrated to the opposite sex?

6. Finally, if such a tiny portion of people (as Senator Bachman says) would actually have a gay marriage can it possibly have the profound effect on society that she warns against? Whether or not my gay neighbors marry or simply live together –what difference is that going to make to me or society? They will still be my lesbian neighbors either way. The only difference I can see is that if they got married they and their beatiful little daughter (who is a joy!) might have the legal security the rest of us take for granted.

My responses:

# 1 If it is about people deciding law — then let the people vote for judges or make an amendment limiting the power of judges to review laws. This would not only solve the “gay issue” but all other forms of judicial activism –which is part of the goal…is it not? Personally, I think conservatives are using “judicial activism” to confuse the issue. In reality they have made no attempts to try and curb this problem — unless tying it specifically to one of their political views. They love activist judges when they are on their side.

#2 The problem with Michelle Bachman and the other legislators is that they want the “people to vote” –but not on all issues –just the issues that they want us to vote on. What a farce. Reminds me of Iraq –people got to vote but only for the candidates the government selected for them. Guess it isn’t about letting the peole decide. It is about letting the people decide what they want us to decide. So stop pretending it is all about what “the people” want!

#3 Your right, domestic partnerships and marriages are same thing in evey way except in name. So this amendment is about making sure that same sex couples do not get the same legal benefits associated with marrige? correct? So it isn’t just about keep the traditional definition of marriage — it is about legal rights and who gets them. This is a good old fashioned struggle over rights. Funny that conservatives keep saying it has nothing to to with rights?

#4 Nice try at dodging my question. I never claimed redefing marriage would stabilize marriage or decrease the divorce rate. The goal of civil unions is to provide the same legal benefits, rights and responsiblities to same sex couple. It is the conservatives who say this amendment needs to be passed to strengthen marriage –so it is up to you to explain how this amendment will make current marriages more stable or lower the divorce rate.

#5 ahh…you don’t want to stop gay relationships– You just want to make sure they are not recognized legally in any way? What a lot of difficulty (and potential misery) this will cause for gay people. Hetrosexual couples can get married and if a spouse dies one year later the surviving spouse automatically is condsidered your next of kin. A widowed spouse legally gets half your pension and social security and all of the estate (without being taxed) as well as hundreds of other legal benefits but a gay couple who has been together for 30 years gets none of that. Sure they can write a will –but that won’t give them spousal pension benefits or social security.

Imagine a lesbian couple where one of the women works and the other raises the children. The working partner dies after 30 years. The other woman gets no pension or social security. Her straight married neighbor is in the exact situation gets it all and has a secure future. Does that really seem just and fair? Life isn’t always fair, but we should always try and correct injustice when we can.

#6 YES!! a society should change if it will make the lives of that minority a little brighter and if it makes a society more fair and just. Just because a society has operated one way for thousands of years does not make it right!! Is it OK to deny women the right to vote or work (as they do in parts of the Middle East) if that is what has always been done? Segregation is part of our history but we changed the way our society operated because it made it a more just society.

Also, don’t act like the concept of marriage has never changed in 2000 years. We now think of marriage as a partnership and our laws give equal rights to both spouses. However, it was not that long ago that marrige in this country was about a woman being obediant to her husband. Women did not and in some countries do not have equal rights within a marriage. Once again, the change has come with some hardship, but in the end treating women in a marriage justly and with equality was the right thing to do.

I think you hit on the real issue. This is about change and the fear of change. It is about straight people wanting to keep the status quo because it works for them. “Why should we have to change to accomodate the minority?” Reminds me of a shelfish child who does not want to share. The activist judge angle and the defend marriage angle are just last ditch attempts to find a reason to justify acting selfishly and unjustly.

This is futile. Half the time you don’t answer my questions. You simply change the argument and then ask you own question. (this way you never have to truly understand or be able to support your own position). Really this is why Blogs are a total waste of time. There is no interest in enlightenment or truth..it just a lot of spewing with no accountability.

Here’s where we disagree. You think the majority should vote. I believe in representative democracy. Also, I do not belive in the will of the majority when it is unfair and unjust. Just because everyone believes something does not make it fair right or just.

According to your logic, slavery was acceptable, the internment of the japenese would be acceptable, and on and on.

You believe in majority rule even when it may be unjust. I believe in fairness, truth and justice.

And yes, if gays were the majority they would discriminate…or try to but that does not make it right.

My mom taught me to wrongs don’t make it right and just because everyone else is doing something does not make it right!!

You clearly disagree… and i honestly feel sorry for you because you so don’t understand the love of God and the calling of Jesus.

You would treat gays no differently??? But you are treating them differently. You won’t let them marry the person they love.

Arguing for fairness is never, ever, weak. The argumement that there is and will always be injustice is not a good enough reason to act unjustly. It is not only the weak argument – if you say you are
Christian it is also completely contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

In fact, our justice system tries to eliminate injustice wherever it can. We don’t say that killing someone is a crime if you are poor but not a crime if you are rich or fat or a women. We strive to treat all adult people equally.

And, you’re right, perhaps some criminals have a predisposition to their crime but we lcok them up because if we did not they would hurt, kill, or steal from others. In other words it is a safety issue. But gay people in a monogomous relationship are not a threat to society. You acknowledge this because you are not talking about locking them up. To compare their disposition to love someone of the same sex to someone who is compelled to to steal, rape or kill is ridiculous. You argument uses false analogies to come to an incorrect conclusion.

I never questioned your faith…i questioned your understanding. And I called this Blog “spewing” because the things you say are not based in fact, the arguments do not follow standard logistical constucts and because the basis of your argument is that injustice is ok as long as the majority want it. One judge rewriting may be unjust too (assuming he does it for his own personal reasons), but that does not make voting for new injustices Ok. In the end you really can’t defend your position because injustice can never be defended no matter what the issue.

Ulitmately, your argument is that injustice is Ok because the majority want it. Using that argument means anything is acceptable. You wonder why I fight against DOMA —because it is unjust. Just like I fight against abortion–because it is unjust. Yes they are the will of the people but they are unjust!

If you find it insulting that i feel sorry for people who claim to be Christians but don’t listen to the words of Jesus–well i’m sorry but I do. Jesus treated everyone as his children and we are called to do the same. We are not called to protect the status quo. We are not callled to live in fear. We are not called to throw stones. We are called to act with justice, we are called to love tenderly and i feel sorry for those that miss this message because you focus on evil and fear instead of focusing energy on love.

Why I came to this blog in the first place…
I came to your blog because i am writing my master thesis on blogs. I’ve discovered that blogs have lower standards and less accountability than the mainstream media. I’m actually going to be catologing statements of fact on blogs and comparing those to the actual facts. I will be doing the same for the mainstream media. Ironically many blogs claim they are more accurate then the mainstream media or watchdogs of the media but they have no system to ensure accuracy and no ethical policies.

You are right we will never agree in a year of arguing because you are going to protect marriage and i prefer to pursue justice for all. (how this helps any existing marriage you seem to be unable to articulate) I just hate the fact that so many Christians like Michelle Bachman are giving Christianity a bad name for her own potilical gain.