Gay marriage

Gay Marriage and the Minnesota Constitution

 

  I would like to start my contribution to this blog by adding my thoughts to the marriage amendment being considered for the state constitution.  I plan on voting no for the following reasons.

1.        Maybe I am a bit rusty on the constitution but I am sure that in the there somewhere is language regarding equal protection under the law.  If I am right and any rights are granted to married couples then we must either recognize same sex relationships or the government needs to get out of the marriage business.  What comes to mind immediately is power of attorney, inheritance and tax codes.

2.       I don’t believe that the marriage amendment will stand up to the supreme court of Minnesota and rulings from other states lend weight to my position.   I think the U.S. supreme court will someday here the matter but until then I think the state courts will continue their current track

3.       With the tremendous level of debt at both the state level and national level the court costs don’t justify any gains that would be made.  With gay marriage already not legal we are doing no more than making it more not legal.  I know the anti-gay marriage folks are trying to avert the courts making it legal as they did in Iowa but please refer to my first point.

4.       They church has every right to not ever recognize gat marriage and would never expect them to recognize it nor should they ever have to.  They can speak of moral all they wish but I don’t want my church dictating what is acceptable in society much less some OTHER church deciding what our laws should be.  I wonder what the westburo Baptist church would like to see change.  If one thinks I am off base here please keep in mind that the southern Baptists in our country try to dictate policy on a regular basis.

5.       My number one reason is my children.  I have a son and a daughter with one on the way.  I imagine someday one of my children who I love with all of my heart coming to me and declaring that they are gay.  I would never want that for them because I think gay people have a tough row to hoe but still, they tell me that they have found the love of their life.  Who am I to say how a person lives their life but for my kids I just want them to be happy, I love them and really only want them to be productive members of society and happy and if my son wants to be happy and marry some fella and contribute to America who am I to stand in his way or tell him marriage is out of the question… 

Intro

I look forward to adding to the discourse. My very first thought on here will be of the gay marriage amendment being added to the state const

Dear Class, Here are some general corrections that people could profit from. Exercise Set IV (1) This argument violates the fourth criterion, since there is evidence Reagan appeared in Hollywood movies. (2) This satisfies all four criteria. (3) This violates the fourth criterion, because of all the evidence in favor of evolution. (4) This violates the second criterion of a good argument. (5) This violates the first, second, and fourth criteria of a good argument. (6) This satisfies all four criteria of a good argument. (7) This violates the foruth criterion of a good argument, but the other criteria are satisfied. (8) This rather obviously violates the first criterion of a good argument. (9) This violates the fourth criterion of a good argument, since it overlooks the evidence that medicine advances and hence allows people to live longer. (10) This rather clearly violates both the second and third criteria. Omar Mirza

Gay marriage and Minnesota

Gay Marriage and the Minnesota Constitution

  I would like to start my contribution to this blog by adding my thoughts to the marriage amendment being considered for the state constitution.  I plan on voting no for the following reasons.

1.        Maybe I am a bit rusty on the constitution but I am sure that in the there somewhere is language regarding equal protection under the law.  If I am right and any rights are granted to married couples then we must either recognize same sex relationships or the government needs to get out of the marriage business.  What comes to mind immediately is power of attorney, inheritance and tax codes.

2.       I don’t believe that the marriage amendment will stand up to the supreme court of Minnesota and rulings from other states lend weight to my position.   I think the U.S. supreme court will someday here the matter but until then I think the state courts will continue their current track

3.       With the tremendous level of debt at both the state level and national level the court costs don’t justify any gains that would be made.  With gay marriage already not legal we are doing no more than making it more not legal.  I know the anti-gay marriage folks are trying to avert the courts making it legal as they did in Iowa but please refer to my first point.

4.       They church has every right to not ever recognize gat marriage and would never expect them to recognize it nor should they ever have to.  They can speak of moral all they wish but I don’t want my church dictating what is acceptable in society much less some OTHER church deciding what our laws should be.  I wonder what the westburo Baptist church would like to see change.  If one thinks I am off base here please keep in mind that the southern Baptists in our country try to dictate policy on a regular basis.

5.       My number one reason is my children.  I have a son and a daughter with one on the way.  I imagine someday one of my children who I love with all of my heart coming to me and declaring that they are gay.  I would never want that for them because I think gay people have a tough row to hoe but still, they tell me that they have found the love of their life.  Who am I to say how a person lives their life but for my kids I just want them to be happy, I love them and really only want them to be productive members of society and happy and if my son wants to be happy and marry some fella and contribute to America who am I to stand in his way or tell him marriage is out of the question… 

Add caption

Why Unions Suck (Redux)

Unions charge union dues and in many cases their membership is obligatory, which means their dues are obligatory. Don't give me the "fairshare" crap because it is a scam. After being forced to be in AFSCME and studying their books for years I know it is just a matter of claiming campaign pieces are pushing pro-labor positions and BAM those expenses can be paid for out of the fairshare funds...no matter how political the pieces actually are.

I also know that, at least the stewards at the University of Minnesota that I knew, did a lot of their literature preparation using office supplies (paid for by the U of MN) and their time was on the clock. So, fairshare comments are full of crap and the idea that the members are meticulous about how they divide those things up is less real than unicorn farms and dragon burgers. Honesty within the union's accounting is even less real.

Back to the story.

AFSCME has been sending campaign literature for an issue the is SO-O-O crucial to the labor movement: marriage.

That's right, somehow marriage has such important impacts on labor-management issues that they are spending money on direct mail literature.
Those of you following the issue know what side they are taking. I just cannot figure out how this is so important in employee-management bargaining laws.

It came from AFSCME Council 5 and demonstrates yet again that unions in general and AFSCME specifically are worthless to their original purpose. They should lose all of their tax benefits and be counted as just another PAC. We as a society should remember what they are...a lobbyist group. Nothing more.

Oh, wait, they are a hypocritical lobbyist group. Most of their positions, candidates and endorsements are wanting larger government intrusion and regulation. They lambaste opponents for wanting smaller government. So when their flyer says "too much government intrusion into our private lives" I have to laugh.

Crap like this make groups lose their credibility. But is it possible for a group to have "negative" credibility? Or is a big fat "none" the worst it can be?