Anti-gay marriage proposal passes House panel

Categories: GLBT

15A.JPG
Rep. Gottwalt wants to make sure the people decide if gays can marry.
A proposal to put an anti-gay marriage amendment on the Minnesota ballot cleared another hurdle today.

With a 10-7 vote on strict party lines, Republicans pushed the bill through the House's Civil Law Committee today. It's looking more and more likely that the issue will be put to a vote by 2012.

Because God knows that the threat of gay marriage--not worries about paying our mortgages and keeping our jobs--is what keeps us voters up at night.

Gay marriage is already outlawed in Minnesota, but the bill's backers want to change the state's constitution to make that ban harder to overturn.

A twin measure announced in the Senate last week is already hurtling through the approval process. And though Gov. Dayton and many DFLers don't approve, there's little they can do given the Republican lock on the statehouse.

Here's Sen. Paul Gazelka, one of the sponsors of the Senate bill, on why it's supposedly needed:

Thumbnail image for 12Gazelka.jpg
Sen. Paul Gazelka wants to make sure gays don't marry

"This constitutional amendment puts the definition of marriage in the hands of the voter," Gazelka says. "There are a variety of perspectives on this issue, we are simply trying to give people the chance to express their opinion at the polls."

As if people didn't already express their opinions on gay marriage all over the place.

Related:
*Republicans fast-track proposed constitutional amendment aimed at banning gay marriage

My Voice Nation Help
5 comments
Equal
Equal

The 14th amendment says no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Equal Protection Clause “ ‘neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.’ The U.S. Supreme Court said: "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." Attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote in their prop.8 filing: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

Michelle Bachmann
Michelle Bachmann

While Obama is wasting everyone's time catching some guy I've never even heard of, Republican heroes are out there doing what is important. Thank God we have true heroes in government who know how to improve people's lives by picking on gay people. The choice is simple in 2012 people! Do you vote for Socialists who waste our time and tax dollars killing Osama Bin Laden or do you vote for heroes like the Republicans who finally put gay people in their place? The choice is simple unless you are a complete idiot.

Nooneslonelyanymore
Nooneslonelyanymore

      It is frightening to hear so many people so strongly for making sure certain types of people do not have as many rights as others.  Why is hate becoming such a strong value, to be spoken up for (yes, it does have a long history, i know)?  Has there ever come a time when a society has suddenly realized that they have been much to lenient in their prejudice against a race, gender, orientation in a people, and apologized by setting up laws to make sure it never happens again: (Example) We hereby declare we have been under the misapprehension of a black man being just a man, deserving freedom and justice like the rest of us, and so now are setting down in our (new) Constitution that this shall not and will never be allowed, so help us God.     I find it hard to believe that such infantile rules can be instituted, but unfortunately types of people, especially types of religions, too easily find all that is right in their own types and all that is wrong in other types; I hope we all as Minnesotans, to begin with, do not let this happen in Minnesota right now in face of the proposed amendment to our Constitution.  But when a House member has the approval to invite a man whom reads as a cult pundit speaking for the fear-of-God republican masses to lead an opening prayer (a prayer!?), I do believe.

Tlmartin43
Tlmartin43

WTF..ARE YOU SERIOUS???

zerofor
zerofor

No, just someone with a sense of humor.

Now Trending

From the Vault

 

Loading...