Gay Marriage | Minnesota | News | Pennsylvania

BigGayDeal.com

Minnesota Senate Panel Advances Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment to Full Senate for Vote

A bill passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that would place a voter initiative to ban same-sex marriage in the state on next year's ballot was approved this morning by the Senate Rules Committee, advancing the bill to the full Senate for a vote., the Minnesota Independent reports:

Limmer During brief testimony, DFLers on the committee raised concerns about rushing the passage of such a contentious measure this year and about its possible unintended consequences for same-sex couples.

“This isn’t something that we have to do this year,” Sen. Linda Berglin, DFL-Minneapolis, said. “We don’t have a vote until next year. This is a very controversial constitutional amendment, and we have a limited amount of time before the session is going to be over.”

Sen. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove (pictured), said he was concerned that gay marriage might become legal soon.

“There is a reason; as you know the definition of marriage is a very personal one,” he said. “There is a court case that is pending regarding the definition of marriage. They were dismissed in court and they have avowed publicly that they are going to a higher court.”

He added, “That creates a sense of expediency for the Legislature to act.”

In related news, earlier this week Pennsylvania Rep. Daryl Metcalfe introduced a bill in that state to allow voters to change the Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

“The institution of traditional marriage has never been under greater attack,” said Metcalfe.  “This not only includes the special interests who want to permanently redefine marriage, but unfortunately the executive branch and the federal Department of Justice who have blatantly and recklessly refused to uphold and defend its Constitutionality. Once again, it falls to the responsibility of state lawmakers to restore the rule of law and carry out the will of the people.”

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Dear Sir,

    I have to say that as a Western Pennsylvanian I am deeply upset by your amendment proposal. We are in the midst of a terrible recession and have many other things to worry about. Pennsylvania schools are going bankrupt; our pensions are being plundered; our roads are in terrible condition. Why are you wasting all of our time and money on this proposal? It is none of your business if two committed loving partners wish to marry at all. It is a CIVIL institution that has nothing to do with your religion. Continue to believe what you like as far as religion goes, but as a civil institution, marriage should be open to everyone. In fact good sir, if you can name me one, just one, reason why marriage should not be open to everyone that does not have anything to do with religion or prejudice then you may just change my mind.

    I beg you Sir to reconsider this line of action. You do not want to be on the losing side of this battle and be remembered forever as a homophobe and a bigot. Pennsylvania has long been free from this discriminatory practice and I ask that you let it remain so.

    This is the email I just sent to my "representative". Deaf ears, I know, but here? This is not something taht happens in my state!

    Posted by: androjai | May 6, 2011 2:02:13 PM


  2. Limmer is a closet case. Bet on it.

    Posted by: Abel | May 6, 2011 2:35:36 PM


  3. here's a link to assholes contact page:

    http://www.repmetcalfe.com/Contact.aspx

    Posted by: Disgusted Gay American | May 6, 2011 3:32:29 PM


  4. "As you know, the definition of marriage is personal one."

    That's why I'M going to define it by MAJORITY rule in my state!

    Posted by: JFE | May 6, 2011 5:11:33 PM


  5. I think there needs to be two drinking fountains. A traditional drinking fountain for straight people where water comes out when you turn the handle and another one for gay people where no water comes out, it just trickles down the side and they can lick it off the ground if they're really thirsty.

    Marriage is marriage. It's not a new concept. Gay people asking for this right is not redefining it any more than interracial marriage redefined it. What redefines marriage is labeling it as "traditional" or "gay". The repressive hate mongers are the ones who are doing everything they can to redefine this institution (which has evolved over time into what it is today.)

    They are right. We need to stop redefining marriage by calling it "traditional." That's a redefinition. Marriage is marriage. No matter which two adults are entering into it.

    Posted by: Bart | May 6, 2011 5:26:34 PM


  6. I doubt my post will be read by Andy, but the use of the term "Gay Marriage" does so much harm to the fight for civil marriage equality it's hard to quantify it. For the record I DO NOT nor ever shall support "Gay Marriage". I don't want those words on any legal document. I don't want those words in any contracts, I don't want that term used in the Civil Rights arena. I DO Support Marriage. I want to see the term "Marriage" used in relation to Gay people wanting to enter that contract. "Gay Marriage" is loaded AGAINST Gay Americans. Why? Because it is in FACT a special right; ONLY for Gay Americans. I will fight it ever step of the way. I will fight FOR Equal Civil Marriage every step of the way.

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | May 6, 2011 7:09:36 PM


  7. Gay bashing is a handy vote catcher in Uganda - and apparently in Minnesota, too. Sen. Warren Limmer is in great company.

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | May 6, 2011 10:07:07 PM


  8. "Once again, it falls to the responsibility of state lawmakers to restore the rule of law and carry out the will of the people.”

    Ugh. One day we WILL be able to live in a country that does not confuse "the will of the people" with the will of Republican primary voters, which can hardly be more than ten percent of the voting population year-over-year.

    Posted by: vann | May 7, 2011 1:18:28 AM


  9. The Republicans are up to their usual dirty tricks. Use the gays to get the conservatives to the polls in 2012. Despicable.

    Posted by: Anonymous | May 7, 2011 7:47:34 AM


  10. When this whole controversy eventually plays itself out, as it must and will, once again the Republican Party will have found themselves on the wrong side of history. As we all know, hate intolerance oppression intimidation and fear work for only so long. If you need a reminder, just look at what is happening in the middle east these past few months. Eventually, people get their fill of it and rise up against it.

    It's sad it has to take so long, but we can take some comfort in knowing things will eventually change for the better in spite of their efforts to deny us.

    Posted by: mytwocents | May 7, 2011 10:05:43 AM


  11. MYTWOCENTS

    The question is not whether things will change. Almost anything will change in a million years. The question is whether things will change in my lifetime so that my quality of life can get better.

    Republicans know they're on the wrong side of history and they don't care. They're not in politics to be on the right side of history. Otherwise this would be a very different country: we wouldn't have had slavery and the wars we've had. Republicans are in politics so they can hold on to power and use power to impose their social views on the rest of us, both through laws and propaganda.

    The best course of action is to counter their propaganda with even louder voice and work hard to make sure they never get voted into power.

    Posted by: Mark | May 7, 2011 6:50:03 PM


  12. I am embarrassed to be considered a Minnesotan, let alone from Maple Grove. I wrote a letter to this guy and CC'ed the current pastors from my old church.

    Posted by: zeddy | May 8, 2011 12:30:49 AM


  13. Ah, the Happy Face that Kills...

    Posted by: Bill Michael | May 8, 2011 2:37:58 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Bill Gets Hearing, Will Get Vote« «