Outlaw divorce!

This reminds me of the most recent Daily Show episode.  The topic of discussion was the media's push to instill conservative ideologies into our young people.  Recently there have been a few animated TV programs that are a means to this end.

Personally I've always thought of Duluth as a more progressive city.  The idea of voting a man such a Tim Riley into office scares me because he strikes me as neo-conservative and would probably move our city in a right-wing (and in my mind backward) direction.  

But like Paul said, if the amendment went into effect we'd all be able to come out of the closet and stop having kids.  The only negative I see in that would involve China realizing that we won't have a next generation to push our debt onto, causing them to create a payment plan so that we pay it off in the next 30 years.

Thankfully, Mr. Riley won't have very much say in the realm of Constitutional affairs.

Why even bring it up? We're supposed to elect him on the basis of a highly divisive issue that will likely never come up at a council meeting? 

As a city councilor, your primary focus is supposed to be on the substance of running the affairs of the city. Get it? WTF does a marriage amendment have to do with making decisions that affect the city?

Luckily, Mr. Riley has 0 chance of getting elected.

Uhg.  Gay marriage as a city council issue is just dumb. 

By the way, I wonder how Jeff Anderson's silly little $20 useless pieces of paper certificates are going?

I thought "our very existence (as a city/state/nation) depends" on liberty and justice for all.  That would include people who want to marry their same-gender loved one.

It used to be thought that two people of different religions cannot be married, since marriage was an institution within a religion, and not across religions.  

It was also thought that people of different races could not marry, since marriage was thought to unite people of the same race.  There were anti-interracial marriage laws in many U.S. states.  It was only in 1967 that those anti-marriage laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Three times in American history, there were constitutional amendments proposed on the floor of Congress banning interracial marriage.  This Minnesota constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is just as stupid.

Hannah Arendt wrote that anti-interracial marriage laws were a deep injustice, and that the free choice of a spouse was "an elementary human right: Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs." 

Her point applies to gay marriage today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

Yeah.  Marriage is a sacred vow.

I worry about the decision to not allow gays to marry being based on the idea that they can't produce offspring. Being "sterile" myself, I worry about "the folks who like to decide for others" coming for my spouse and me next! Yikes!

Just so we're on the same page: gay rights is human rights.

And get your fucking church out of my government.

Agreed with Elden's comment about getting government out of marriage.  Let every consenting adult decide to marry or not or get the government completely out of the game. 

Churches can do whatever they want on the marriage topic.

The Mormon church funded the support for the anti-gay marriage (why does it have to be gay marriage, anyhow? Why can't it just be Equal Rights?) bill that was passed in California a couple of years ago (prop8?)

You can bet we're going to see a lot of the same funding come in both supporting and opposing a state amendment from outside our borders ... and for the same reasons as California ... any state that has the issue come into play becomes a battleground for "rights" on both sides of the issue.

... "our very existence blah blah blah ... depends on the institute of marriage." Mr Riley.
 
The institute he is referring to has a well-documented failure rate of 50 percent divorce. Of the 50 percent that stay married it is anyone's guess how many are unhappy and/or cheating. No one gives marriage a bad name more than married people.

"You see Mr. Bond the laws of the land are nothing more than the enforced prejudices of the ruling class." Mr. Big to James Bond in "Live and Let Die," (the book not the movie!)
 
I have asked many a married couple how the gay couple down the street getting married threatens the straight couples commitment to one another. If I ever hear a valid, reasonable  answer I promise to publish it here first. Don't hold your breath.

What an effing maroon.

OMG, THAT made me laugh, Rougement!

Just to throw a curve ball in all of this: At the community forum in Lincoln Park put on by the League of Women Voters, Tim Riley talked about helping to found the GLBT student group at Lake Superior College (it's on the LWV website). He's also written a book called something to the effect of "It's Not Natural After All."

I'm totally taking Tim Riley and the Marriage Amendments as my new band name.

Well, somebody has to defend "traditional marriage." Look what I did to Kim Kardashian's sanctimonious "marriage." Next up on the "agenda": destroy my next-door neighbor's "marriage."

Sorry about the scare quotes. Just following the Evang's lead. 

Are you scared yet?

I just saw Mr. Riley on PBS. Marcus Bachman comes immediately to mind (Mr. Michelle Bachman, that is). I don't see any need to out anyone, it is so personal. However, when the corrosive nature of the closet presents itself in such a pathetic and mean spirited exhibition it must be done. I have nothing unkind to say to Mr. Riley. It is sad to see him flail about attempting to keep his particular closet door sealed shut... then again, I presume that Mr. Riley thinks that Marcus Bachman is as straight as an arrow.

Oh Jim, you so silly.