The Minnesota Marriage Amendment has been rejected.
The campaign to amend the Minnesota state constitution to limit the definition of marriage to strictly between heterosexual couples was defeated Tuesday by more than 51 percent of a statewide vote.
With 92 percent of state precincts reporting, the Associated Press reported shortly before 2 a.m. Wednesday that Amendment 1—informally known as the Minnesota Marriage Amendment—had failed: "Vote No" won.
Speaking to a cheering crowd of hundreds at St Paul's River Centre, Richard Carlbom, the campaign manager for Minnesotans United for All Families, told audiences that Minnesota was the first state in the nation to reject a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at the ballot box.
"Tonight, Minnesota proved love is bigger than government," Carlbom said.
Carlbom continued: "The strength of this campaign was our thousands of volunteers, and our broad and diverse coalition of partners. This campaign did something that has never been done before: it brought together people of all faiths, in all communities, and of all political affiliations on the principle that freedom means freedom for everybody."
A full copy of his statement is attached to this article.
"No" votes outnumbered "Yes" votes in every provisional vote tally posted Tuesday night, but Carlbom's speech still brought Southwest Minneapolis resident Florence Brammer to tears, which she rubbed away from beneath her glasses.
"I've been married to a man for 35 years," she said. "It really defined my life. I raised three children in a marriage that was recognized by society."
Thinking of LGBT friends in 25-year, legally-unrecognized relationships, she said she was personally offended by an amendment that seemed to target them "with such vengeance."
"I'm very proud, very moved to be a Minnesotan right now," she said.
As Carlbom concluded his speech and left the stage, the Queen song "We are the Champions" began to blare over the loudspeakers, but amendment supporters weren't initially ready to concede quite yet. By 2:30 a.m., though, Minnesota for Marriage's Deputy Campaign Manager threw in the towel via Twitter.
"We gave our best and came up short. The fight to preserve God’s definition of marriage is not over just b/c we lost tonight," Andy Parrish wrote. "I’d like to thank everyone for their thoughts and prayers. The fight for marriage is not over just b/c we lost tonight."
The National Organization for Marriage, who helped bankroll Minnesota's amendment supporters and those in three other states, echoed Parish in a statement issued Wednesday morning.
"Though we are disappointed over these losses, we remain faithful to our mission and committed to the cause of preserving marriage as God designed it," the statement read. "Marriage is a true and just cause, and we will never abandon the field of battle just because we experienced a setback. There is much work to do, and we begin that process now.”
How is this not a law to prevent me from discriminating against your choice/behavior?
There is no imposition on your rights, and you can still think and feel whatever you choose, and discriminate in your church, home, and private clubs. Only your position imposes a restriction on the rights of others.
This is so very true. As with my examples of racism and sexism, they still exist but the law makes it harder and harder to act on those feelings. I know many young adults my son's age (18-22) who voted for the first time in November. Many of them voted BECAUSE of the "one man, one woman" item on the ballot. They feel strongly about this issue, most often because more and more in our generation are not bringing them up with those old prejudices and when they do see it they want to fight it. I am proud of them and proud that our generation is helping to make that shift in how we are raising our kids.
In science, this is known as a necessary but not sufficient condition.
... and don't tell me that the labels are unused. See the post immediately above. It is particularly ironic when those same people reject any sort of transcendent morality, yet insist on their own definition of "right" and "wrong". Those who do hold to a transcendent morality are excluded from the public square because their opinions and agendas are based on something unacceptable.(religion!) Those who subscribe to a self-selected, non-transcendent morality are somehow acceptable, and somehow superior. The irony and illogic is thick.
You've Got To Be Taught to Hate And Fear, you've Got To Be Taught from Year To Year, it's Got To Be Drummed in Your Dear Little Ear you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. you've Got To Be Taught To Be Afraid of People Whose Eyes Are Oddly Made, and People Whose Skin Is A Diff'rent Shade, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught. you've Got To Be Taught Before It's Too Late, before You Are Six Or Seven Or Eight, to Hate All The People Your Relatives Hate, you've Got To Be Carefully Taught (Rogers and Hammerstein)
John Lewis, testifying before the Senate: "I am very happy to see the Judiciary Committee holding hearings to address the issue of marriage equality. But at the same time, I must admit I find it unbelievable that in the year 2011 there is still a need to hold hearings and debate whether or not a human being should be able to marry the one they love." Rev. Dr. William Barber II, North Carolina NAACP chairman: "They're trying to give people, based on their sexuality, a kind of second- or third-class citizenship. We know what that looks like in the NAACP, and we're calling it what it is." The Rev. Al Sharpton, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, South African President Nelson Mandela, the Rev. Dr. James Lawson, National NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous - a veritable Who's Who of civil rights - all support marriage equality. Julian Bond, testified, "When I'm asked if gay rights are civil rights, my answer is always: 'Of course they are.' Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives, the right to equal treatment before the law. ... There's no one in the United States who does not, or should not, share in enjoying these rights."
"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere' ... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people." "We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy." "Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions." "Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."
Let's talk about pointing fingers and badgering. How many times have you asked, implied, or inferred that those of us who don't consider ourselves Christians do not have the proper or right morals? Yet I'm not in jail, I don't steal, kill, or intentionally break laws or hurt anyone....these are some terrible, terrible morals to live by... Your hypocrisy is even thicker than your offended ego.
And again I will say " If someone is a bigot, they are a bigot, if someone hates, they spread hatred. Using the words is an accurate description of some people. Just because they are ugly words does not make the description any less true."
Many religious leaders and believers support full legal equality for gay people. Many already perform same gender marriages. It is not religion that is the problem, but the desire of some religious groups to use the law to stigmatize and dehumanize others by refusing to treat them as they would themselves under the law. No matter what your motivation, when you refuse legal equality, you harm others needlessly. Most religions as well as non-religious ethical belief systems agree: you should treat others as you would yourself, under the law. And again, you offer no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of a fundamental right of the individual.
http://mendotaheights.patch.com/blog_posts/blog-whats-the-harm-in-same-sex-marriage It's interesting that "harm" can be defined and acknowledged by one side of this debate but no consideration is given to the "harm" suffered by homosexuals. The hypocrisy and willful blindness continues...and/or apparently "harm" can only be measured in dollars.
"The Wildflower Inn in Lyndonville acknowledged it had broken the law and agreed to pay $30,000 in fines and damages."
As you point out, this is another public accommodations law issue. The fine the Innkeepers received was not a result of marriage equality laws, but a result of the refusal of public accommodations by the Inn. Had the Inn treated them like everyone else, there would have been no measurable harm to the Inn. While I have seen a couple of other similar violations involving refusal of equal public accommodations, this does not seem to be a widespread problem and again, only occurs when equal access is restricted or burdened. And still we see no legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal rights.
That totally ignores the fact that MANY religious groups support same sex marriage with their own 'transcendent morality'; different religious sects interpret the Bible differently, Donald, so please explain why YOUR particular interpretation should be codified in our civil law.
Donald, bigotry is as bigotry does.
http://edenprairie.patch.com/articles/should-gay-marriage-be-part-of-a-district-s-curriculum?1363294463#