8 votes

Same-Sex Marriage Amendment, Minnesota's Hoax Referendum

By Roger F. Gay


“An amendment to the Minnesota Constitution is proposed to the people. If the amendment is adopted, a section shall be added to article XIII, to read: Sec. 13. Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

They just won't stop. The confusion over the same-sex marriage issue is now solidly in place and it will be just as difficult to spread the truth about it as it has been to quash the global warming con. It's a great issue to divide the public and draw emotionally driven people on both sides to the polling booths. It doesn't matter to the political con artists that the proposed referendum is technically, legally, totally irrelevant.

Continue Reading

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

A lot of people are confused

A lot of people are confused about this amendment. What does it mean? What this amendment does is up the wording into the constitution. Minnesota already has a law prohibiting same sex marriage. Do we want it in our constitution?
First...I am against this because a constitution is made only to protect the people from its government. This does not.

But, if there were a law that would force the church to marry gays...I would vote no. The government does not have the authority to do so.

What we need to be asking is what the role of our government is.

I would like to add that this amendment was only drawn up by the republicans to get the conservative voters off the couch on Election Day.

This should be such a no-brainer.

The state is only thing that wins if this amendment is made. I happen to think that marriage is a worthwhile thing, which is exactly why I'll even bother showing up at the polls- to vote against this abomination. The state corrupts everything it touches. I wish it would stay away from marriage and every other socially valuable institution out there, be it science, religion, or professional sports.

I've talked to several people about this and usually ask the following questions:

If you think that marriage is ordained by God, but needs the state's approval to be "real", which of the two authorities is more important to you?

If the mafia moved into your neighborhood and started charging you and your neighbors rents for "protection", would you start asking them to define marriage in the way that you want it defined?

If in 20 years, we had an influx of immigrants into Minnesota, and this immigrant group passionately believed that marriage should be between four men and four women, would you be okay if they amended the state constitution so that current marriages were no longer recognized?

I am absolutely disgusted that this is even on people's radar. If it serves any purpose it all, it is simply to be a shiny object to distract people from more important things. At the same time, I really don't like the idea of having this blatantly anti-liberty crap passing, so I plan on holding my nose and voting no. Ugh.

Sad .....

how people are such suckers for this played out distraction.

REAL Libertarians don't give a damn!

What would the Founders do?

Actually, they should ...

REAL Libertarians should care about this issue, a lot; and in the opposite way that Cato has been on. (I've sincerely appreciated Cato over the years, but in the last couple they've jumped off a weird cliff.)

READ THE ARTICLE to understand why / how your liberty has been stolen and what it would take to get it back!

Correlation does not prove causality!


I should have said real libertarians don't give a damn about who marries whom. (Was in too much of a hurry earlier... and I am too accustomed to the divisive neocon right wing v. liberal tug-o-war on the issue.)

But, yes, to your point: the fact that it has become an issue of government is indicative of a larger problem, and I agree that this situation can only serve to thwart liberty.

Legal marriage is in essence commerce in the eyes of the state. (Heck, no surprise here, as it used to blatantly be commerce between families in our past.) Case in point: two people may as individuals each take advantage of tax-exempt status per homesteading properties in AZ, for example; however, as soon as they are married--POOF... now, as a economic "unit" they may only exempt one property. Why? I think the fact that tax status changes upon becoming legally married says it all. And our society pushes the institution on people relentlessly.

I think people should be allowed to marry whomever they want. Period. I support that, even though I'm semi-cynical on the institution itself, I admit. (And certainly it is arrogant and foolhardy of the anti-same sex marriage crowd to insist that they are the only true custodians of the institution... some great job they've done thus far: 50% of hetero marriages ending in failure these days?! Gimme a break!)

I've been in a happy hetero relationship for 14+ years. We're proud to remain legally unmarried, as we are and have been married in our hearts and minds for the duration (And we'll stay this way no doubt longer than at least half of our "married" friends!). No kids and no church here, brother. Some good estate planning and living wills and we're as set as we'll need to be. Whose effing business is it anyway but our own? In medieval times marriage was often a promise between two people--end of story. Why is it blown into such a big deal by our society... especially when most people who enter into it lack the maturity as individuals to even do it justice? It is all too often a joke and a scam.

And check this out: my woman was for a time employed in management by a national chain restaurant. Non-employee partners in same sex unmarried relationships with employees WERE covered under medical benefits, whereas hetero unmarried employees' partners WERE NOT! How effed is that? Bob Evans. Seems like the newest of the new groups to be officially discriminated against is unmarried hetero couples! I never woulda thunk it, but it's true! And what is this exclusion / punishment of sorts meant to say? How does this figure?

Stay unmarried, I say, and stick it to the man!

What would the Founders do?