Gay Marriage
As expected, the House Civil Law Committee approved a bill banning gay marriage yesterday, on a seven to five vote. The House voted for this amendment last year, so this really is no surprise.
The committee held their hearing in Grand Rapids yesterday, possibly because the Iron Range is socially conservative despite being a DFL stronghold. I didn't see the hearing this year, but I did see part of a committee hearing last year.
The thing I remember about the hearing last year was one testifier in particular. He was a gay man who had "turned straight" because of Jesus, or so he said. He argued that without an amendment, he would continue to be "tempted" to go back to how he was. He was obviously in a lot of pain, and at the risk of using stereotypes, he was obviously gay too, no matter how much he argued that he was not. I felt so sad that we live in a society where he is not able to simply admit who he is and live his life in peace and happiness. Instead, due to the same religious nuts who are pushing this amendment, he had to completely deny his identity so he wouldn't go to Hell or some other such nonsense. I am not much for religion, but I do have to wonder if God exists, how could he think it is better for gays to live in such perpetual conflict by doing what religion tells them to do.
Hopefully, this bill will not pas the Senate.
posted by MN Politics Guru @ 17:17
3 Comments:
Could we also have a proposed constitutional amendment declaring
"civil unions shall be recognized in the same manner and form as 'marriage.'
Civil unions shall be given the same legal status as heretofore accorded 'marriage.'
'Marriage' shall be an option, in accordance with whatever ethical or religious beliefs the partners shall declare. 'Civil union' may, and shall, be recognized without regard to the gender of the partners."
"Any person or entity attempting to use religion for political or partisan gain shall be subjected to the permanent loss of civil rights."
(cf."Pharisee")
"Any person attempting to deny the right of any child to an education or suitable health care shall, where possible, be subjected to a vasectomy by someone with neither professional training nor sanitary facilities."
That should sort of equalize the playing field, eh?
Dave Porter
Here is another way of looking at it (Canadian where our Conservative Party is talkingto get civil unions, instead of marriage recognized in our battle over same sex mariage.)
Its been determined a long time ago (at least in the US) that seperate but equal doesn't exist
I didn't come up with the thought but its worth considering
Sigh. These sort of folks are why I'm sometimes embarrased to call my self Christian. Oh well. I'll just keep trying to take my religion back.
One thing that I find interesting on this debate is telling folks that I don't want the government involved in marrage at all. Marrage should be a religious function, not a governmental one. I'd like to take all of the various marrage elements out of law, and let everyone just decide such things on thier own.
(BTW: recently found your blog - thanks for writing it.)
Post a Comment
<< Home