The Minnesota Misstep
Hello Everyone,
Today I am distressed now that I know one thing: Minnesota has the opportunity to become another state that has discrimination in their Constitution. I have listened to two representatives Murphy and Kreisel speak out against the proposed Constitutional Amendment to bar civil marriage between gay and lesbian couples. They currently have a statute. It will go to the ballot box in 2012 and the next 18 months will be tireless, families will be torn apart as people become even more polarized, friends will now be bitter enemies and vitriolic sentiments will be spewed out all over the state.
I can't describe how lawmakers can fight to amend to take rights away from the constituents that they say they represent. I am going to have to keep an eye on this, and we need to send all the support we can to MN to fight against this amendment. Keith Olbermann said of CA's Prop 8: You have laws that protect farm animals, but you can't allow two people who love each other to marry each other. I can't tell you how much it meant to me that he said that. I am pissed that two other states may also have voters deciding on the fate of civil rights of another minority, PA and NC.
No one has the right to vote on how someone should determine their marriages. No one has the right to tell someone that their choice of a partner is the wrong choice--the fact that a person can choose their partner (and marriage for love) is a fairly modern thing. Marriage had been for economic purposes and at one point the state told you what your place in marriage was, that the man provides and the woman will be the one to be supported. As the roles were scrapped and women were given the same rights as marriage became a union of legal equals and a woman can now sue for damages if her husband was injured--a woman could not sue her husband for rape in NYS until 1984 (Lapides v. Lapides) and this shows one thing---that 'traditional' marriage has in fact changed. If traditional marriage hasn't changed, we would still need a dowry and a woman could lose her citizenship if she married a man from overseas. Now however, she can sponsor him for permanent residency. With gay and lesbian couples, they can be deported even though they are legally married. Too many families have suffered. Too many parents who have supported their gay sons and daughters have been personally attacked with the venomous rhetoric saying that they will harm children, and that somehow them being married will deinstitutionalize marriage... someone needs to tell me what the institutionalization of marriage is--the real answer is: pseudo-intellectual bullshit!
Where's the fairness? Why is this to be put to a vote? To enforce the superiority of heterosexuals and the inferiority of homosexuals? Aren't we all created equal? Aren't we all entitled to equal protection under the law? So why is this being put to a vote? Why should someone have to vote to say that someone can bar you from marrying the person of your choice? This is nothing but a fear mongering, hateful, verminous politicians that are playing on the fact that the record has been very dim on the side of rejecting such amendments
MN is taking a giant step backwards and it is a political Rwanda. Two factions have drawn lines in the sand, one party feels as if they can be the judge and jury of another , and will say: I believe you are inferior because you will not marry the opposite sex and ruin the lives of your opposite sex spouse and family. I believe you are inferior because you will not hide yourself to make me comfortable, and for that I will pass laws to take away more freedoms. It's like Jim Crow but sexual orientation will be the reason, I don't care about you or your families, I don't care that you and your partner have been together and raised children together for the last 15 years. I don't care about you
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
Today I am distressed now that I know one thing: Minnesota has the opportunity to become another state that has discrimination in their Constitution. I have listened to two representatives Murphy and Kreisel speak out against the proposed Constitutional Amendment to bar civil marriage between gay and lesbian couples. They currently have a statute. It will go to the ballot box in 2012 and the next 18 months will be tireless, families will be torn apart as people become even more polarized, friends will now be bitter enemies and vitriolic sentiments will be spewed out all over the state.
I can't describe how lawmakers can fight to amend to take rights away from the constituents that they say they represent. I am going to have to keep an eye on this, and we need to send all the support we can to MN to fight against this amendment. Keith Olbermann said of CA's Prop 8: You have laws that protect farm animals, but you can't allow two people who love each other to marry each other. I can't tell you how much it meant to me that he said that. I am pissed that two other states may also have voters deciding on the fate of civil rights of another minority, PA and NC.
No one has the right to vote on how someone should determine their marriages. No one has the right to tell someone that their choice of a partner is the wrong choice--the fact that a person can choose their partner (and marriage for love) is a fairly modern thing. Marriage had been for economic purposes and at one point the state told you what your place in marriage was, that the man provides and the woman will be the one to be supported. As the roles were scrapped and women were given the same rights as marriage became a union of legal equals and a woman can now sue for damages if her husband was injured--a woman could not sue her husband for rape in NYS until 1984 (Lapides v. Lapides) and this shows one thing---that 'traditional' marriage has in fact changed. If traditional marriage hasn't changed, we would still need a dowry and a woman could lose her citizenship if she married a man from overseas. Now however, she can sponsor him for permanent residency. With gay and lesbian couples, they can be deported even though they are legally married. Too many families have suffered. Too many parents who have supported their gay sons and daughters have been personally attacked with the venomous rhetoric saying that they will harm children, and that somehow them being married will deinstitutionalize marriage... someone needs to tell me what the institutionalization of marriage is--the real answer is: pseudo-intellectual bullshit!
Where's the fairness? Why is this to be put to a vote? To enforce the superiority of heterosexuals and the inferiority of homosexuals? Aren't we all created equal? Aren't we all entitled to equal protection under the law? So why is this being put to a vote? Why should someone have to vote to say that someone can bar you from marrying the person of your choice? This is nothing but a fear mongering, hateful, verminous politicians that are playing on the fact that the record has been very dim on the side of rejecting such amendments
MN is taking a giant step backwards and it is a political Rwanda. Two factions have drawn lines in the sand, one party feels as if they can be the judge and jury of another , and will say: I believe you are inferior because you will not marry the opposite sex and ruin the lives of your opposite sex spouse and family. I believe you are inferior because you will not hide yourself to make me comfortable, and for that I will pass laws to take away more freedoms. It's like Jim Crow but sexual orientation will be the reason, I don't care about you or your families, I don't care that you and your partner have been together and raised children together for the last 15 years. I don't care about you
Love You All
Until The Pen Strikes Again
Comments
Post a Comment