(On Minnesota's state senate passing a law to legalize gay marriage)
I love seeing the comments restarted...somebody must have had a good argument why SSM shouldn't be legalized. Something like incurring more to the states Debt to cover SSM benefits, lawsuits against churches for discrimination, that a small percent of Minnesotans get to redefine a term for the majority, that were passing laws just so we don't hurt someone's feelings, that the majority of MN's don't want SSM (which is a completely different argument than putting it in our constitution), It violates DOMA. If it does pass, I wonder what's next from the bullies and incompetent legislature?
31 comments
Discrimination is bad, except when it comes to buying anything with your own money.
Oh, hang on, that's discernment, a completely unrelated thing.
Whatever; Gay is Good, keep to the Meme.
"that a small percent of Minnesotans get to redefine a term for the majority"
"that were passing laws just so we don't hurt someone's feelings"
"It violates DOMA"
"If it does pass, I wonder what's next from the bullies and incompetent legislature?"
I have occasionally wondered why no one has attempted to argue against same sex marriage on purely economic terms. (The closest I've ever seen is that it would somehow "cheapen" straight marriage without explaining how...)
It's probably not unreasonable to say that any negatives (costs of legal recognition, changing paper forms, etc) are far outweighed by the positives (more purchasing power, vacations to gay friendly places, just generally doing the right thing, etc)
Bottom line, no one has made arguments against it on economic terms because the numbers don't hold up.
There are, however, some very real economic negatives from keeping laws like DOMA on the books: any industry that cares about marital status (finance, insurance, healthcare) is effectively either forced into making costly systems changes to track differences in federal and state laws, or into complex manual processes, which, if not followed properly, can lead to costly lawsuits. Maybe it's me, but I'd prefer it if my brokerage spent more time, money, and energy to helping me make informed investment choices.
"...somebody must have had a good argument why SSM shouldn't be legalized."
- That would be a first, literally.
@Mudak: That's because argueing against people's happiness with "that way I can make more money" sounds like sociopathy to most people.
incurring more to the states Debt to cover SSM benefits
Then get rid of tax benefits for married couples. I'm sure the money being poured into the economy by gay couples purchasing wedding planning services will more than compensate for any burden caused by lower taxes.
It violates DOMA.
DOMA violates the constitution.
incurring more to the states Debt to cover SSM benefits
Then abolish benefits for married couples.
lawsuits against churches for discrimination
There are several states with marriage equality, so you'll have no trouble in listing all the lawsuits that have taken place to date.
that a small percent of Minnesotans get to redefine a term for the majority
Except, as UHM points out, that they don't.
passing laws just so we don't hurt someone's feelings
Isn't DOMA precisely that?
It violates DOMA.
As with benefits, the law can be changed at any time. Remember the Eighteenth Amendment?
incompetent legislature?
But they are elected by the people of Minnesota. I thought you were keen on the rule of the views of the majority. Maybe that's only when they vote the way you want them to.
DOMA will be struck down soon, so that argument is invalid. And aren't you fundies always complaining about legislating SSM federally, saying it should be left to the states? Well Minnesota apparently approves of SSM and you'll just have to deal with it.
Philip-George gay is neither good or bad inherently, there's only healthy and unhealthy relationships.
People 'defending' marriage seem to forget how many straight people have marriages of convenience, hollow relationships based on physical attraction alone, loveless illusions geared solely towards the production of offspring, falling outs, power and trust issues, and especially that marriage is not the property of any one culture or religion.
Gay, straight, bisexual, asexual, everything in between is fundamentally the same. Denying that is to misunderstand the very nature of what attracts human beings to one another even without factoring in sexual desires.
somebody must have had a good argument why SSM shouldn't be legalized
Well, don't keep us all in suspense!!
If nothing cheapens marriage, PG, why this fuss about gay marriage. It doesn't actually have an effect on straight marriage, then.
If a church gets sued, it's because it did something stupid that their lawyer should have warned them against. No church is required to perform same-sex weddings. They're not required to perform weddings for people outside of their church, or even perform weddings at all. But if the church is engaged in a non-church side business, like renting out its meeting hall for wedding receptions to the general public, then it has to follow the same non-discrimination rules as other businesses. The First Amendment's Free Exercise clause only applies to religious activities; not public commerce.
If a church gets sued, it's because it did something stupid that their lawyer should have warned
this is a blog and all these mini exchanges have to be rapid fire, try to be smart, sharp:
I love that comment. The church lawyer!
America/ AMERICA/ AMERIKA/ United-states of America, or united States of America.
John. Maybe, just maybe Judicial Review created most of what America now is ....
I'm fairly sure though it was not juries.
Does a church really need a lawyer. Does every home have one?
This is why I think freedom might come out of China [now that's only a little bit hyperbolic]
somebody must have had a good argument why SSM shouldn't be legalized.
You would think with all this bitching and moaning, about Gay marriage, the fundies have been doing for years that they would have come up with at least one.
Funny ain't it?
Same Sex Marriage - something which, apparently, is devastatingly harmful to the lives of complete strangers and will bring about an end to Life As We Know It.
Don't ask me how, though. They were saying the same thing about mixed-race marriages a few decades ago, and legalising those has had a zero effect on the lives of most people - except the people getting married, and they are really the only ones that matter.
1) If the state can't handle paying for more marriage benefits, why are more people allowed to marry?
Something like incurring more to the states Debt to cover SSM benefits
Miniscule cost.
lawsuits against churches for discrimination
First amendment protects the church.
that a small percent of Minnesotans get to redefine a term for the majority, that were passing laws just so we don't hurt someone's feelings, that the majority of MN's don't want SSM (which is a completely different argument than putting it in our constitution)
Irrelevant, irrelevant and irrelevant.
It violates DOMA
No, it doesn't. Learn how the law works.
I wonder what's next from the bullies and incompetent legislature
DARVO.
@ Phillip-George(c)2013
United-states of America, or united States of America.
I should think the Civil War settled that issue rather decisively. Besides, isn't it the conservatives who love the Pledge of Allegiance? "One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all" ring any bells?
Does a church really need a lawyer. Does every home have one?
Yes, it does. Every business and nonprofit should have a lawyer; if not on staff or on retainer, at least one they consult regularly. Ignorance of the law is no excuse; it is the duty of socially and economically active organizations to inform themselves of their legal rights and responsibilities.
This is why I think freedom might come out of China [now that's only a little bit hyperbolic]
Something tells me you wouldn't like modern or traditional Chinese law. They take a dim view of the kind of rogue judges you seem to idolize.
"If it does pass, I wonder what's next from the bullies and incompetent legislature?"
Obstruction and delay, like their fellow incompetent bullies in the federal legislature?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
