…and this is a 
Minnesota does the right thing
Category: Politics
Posted on: May 16, 2008 10:43 AM, by PZ Myers
California may inspire a whole series of legislative actions. Minnesota has introduced a bill similar to California's.
The Marriage and Family Protection Act was introduced by Rep. Phyllis Kahn, DFL-Minneapolis, and Sen. John Marty, DFL-Roseville, on Friday. The bill would make marriage a gender-neutral proposition in Minnesota, allowing same-sex couples to marry. It would also protect religious institutions that have moral objections to same-sex marriage from being compelled to perform such ceremonies.
I love the title of the bill — that will have the wingnuts chewing their tongues in a frenzy.
Comments
Something with "Family" in the title that ISN'T evil? Maybe those fundies are right about the apocalypse...
Posted by: LordJiro | May 16, 2008 10:44 AM
<evil, mad cackling>
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 16, 2008 10:48 AM
Madness?
THIS.
IS.
FRAMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIING!
Posted by: NinjaDebugger | May 16, 2008 10:48 AM
I'm glad I read what it was about, as soon as I saw it called Marriage and Family Protection, I was ready to rail against it.
Posted by: Dennis N | May 16, 2008 10:49 AM
That's the problem with using code words like "family" and "academic freedom". The words have real meanings, and may even have very different meanings in a different context.
When I was in school, "family" meant "part of the gay family".
Posted by: Kevin B | May 16, 2008 10:51 AM
Awesomness.
I'd love to see a trend of similar acts or pushes using the "Family Protection" moniker.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 16, 2008 10:53 AM
I know it will be several years before this becomes a reality in Minnesota. Part of me really hopes to find a job there. I would love to move back to be closer to family, but I'd also love to get back involved in this fight back home.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 16, 2008 10:58 AM
When I was in school, "family" meant "part of the gay family".
Oh you young people... when *I* was in school, gay meant happy and carefree. Well, I guess it still does :-)
Posted by: Ray M | May 16, 2008 11:01 AM
I'm glad that Democrats are catching on about how to name bills. Republicans have been using nice-sounding buzzwords in bills for years, regardless of the bill's content.
Posted by: Tosser | May 16, 2008 11:02 AM
I love how they toss the right's bullshit language back in their face with the bill name.
Posted by: Bob L | May 16, 2008 11:03 AM
I love the upper Midwest! Just as liberal as we horrible Northeasterners, but a little more under-the-radar about it. I did my grad time in Madison. Is there something about the seasonal extremes that just makes it easier for people to be sensible toward each other?
*awaits backlash from sensible Southerners who read this blog*
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 16, 2008 11:05 AM
Though it would have meant living in a time of even greater racism than we see today, I've always thought living through the era of the Civil Rights movement would have been an amazing experience. Maybe I'll get my chance!
Posted by: Lauren | May 16, 2008 11:06 AM
That's the awesomest name ever for a bill like this.
I hate to sound stupid, but what is "DFL"?
Posted by: Eric | May 16, 2008 11:09 AM
I hate to sound stupid, but what is "DFL"?
Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. Those Norwegian bachelor farmers and communist Finnish miners had an effect.
In the earlier parts of the twentieth century, the Farmer-Labor Party became a strength in parts of Minnesota and the Dakotas. In Minnesota, it eventually merged with the Democratic Party, which has retained the combined name.
The Repubicans changed their name to Independent Republicans after Watergate, and then back to Republicans in the late 1990s.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 16, 2008 11:13 AM
Glad to see that "family" doesn't always mean "bigot".
Posted by: Les Lane | May 16, 2008 11:13 AM
Obama takes a cowardly position on this issue:
"I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 16, 2008 11:27 AM
Someone should ask,
Senator Obama, why should your religious definition of marriage be the civil standard? What does your faith have to do with the civil right of couples to form families? Why on earth should we care what your faith says marriage is, when the question is, "What should the civil law say is marriage?"
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 16, 2008 11:30 AM
It's nice to see a bill where the title doesn't require doublespeak. If this one gets passed, we'll need a Student Protection act to keep the creotards's from screwing up education.
Posted by: Scott D. | May 16, 2008 11:35 AM
That is indeed an awesome title. I was disappointed with both Obama and Clinton's response to the CA ruling. Barely lukewarm.
Posted by: Ugly In Pink | May 16, 2008 11:38 AM
I agree with Mark Morford's assessment. Not only is it social progress, it's good for the economy! Out here in wine country, weddings are big business. The bakers, DJs and limo drivers are celebrating too.
Posted by: jck | May 16, 2008 11:44 AM
The First Amendment would already do that. But, I suppose putting that language in the bill might still be good politics.
Posted by: ShavenYak | May 16, 2008 11:44 AM
I don't even mind that Obama's religion makes him think that homosexuals should go to hell...whatever. The thing that makes it stupid is that what he says implies that he somehow believes that his religion should dictate civil code. After all, don't most brands of Christianity also say that ANY non-believers are going to hell? Logically, then, Christianity should be the state religion.
I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper."
Posted by: Scott | May 16, 2008 11:45 AM
Let's hope for a Obama-Edwards ticket ticket!
Posted by: Ralph | May 16, 2008 11:56 AM
Hey, they stole the fringies' buzz-words! How long do you think it'll be until we see a counter-proposal for the Act To Protect Marriage and Family From The Marriage and Family Protection Act?
Posted by: Matt | May 16, 2008 12:15 PM
Frankly, I think that pair-bonding ought to be utterly irrelevant to the law, to taxation, or to inheritance. Do away with its legal status entirely and then the faithful can do whatever they want with it, or not. The end-game with the various "save the family" laws may be recognition that legal supports for pair-bonding and breeding are inherently ridiculous and unfair - while "the destruction of the family" may not be the end result, the "turning marriage into a meaningless checkbox ceremony" might be.
I am very happy that my g/l/b/w friends can get married now, because it's important to them, and I wish them joy of it.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | May 16, 2008 12:18 PM
Along this longitude, I live in the South and I have lived in the North. It seems to me that both are polite, but for different underlying social-conformity reasons and cope for abnormal politeness it in different ways.
Posted by: Moses | May 16, 2008 12:31 PM
This is great news! The way things are going, it won't be long until only a few backward states forbid gays the right to marry, and I can't imagine it's a long way from that, to the Supreme Court ruling that any such bans are unconstitutional.
Sadly, I have to join the crowd that had an instinctive negative reaction to the name of the bill, even *after* reading the title of your post, and knowing what it was about. The fact that the conservative idiots have managed to steal those words effectively enough that even evil liberals like me buy it, shows how important it is for "our side" to start taking them back, like they have with the naming of this bill. Like someone mentioned in an earlier post, lets remove as much doublespeak as we possibly can, especially from the politics!
Posted by: Kaerion | May 16, 2008 12:37 PM
Clinton's back is against the wall and she's not going to take any chances. So I expected this reaction as she can't afford to lose the blue-collar vote, which tends to be a bit more conservative in this area. I also believe that, had she secured the nomination already, she'd have endorsed the California ruling with more vigor.
Still, I must admit that I'm disappointed in her. She needs to stand for the hard issues, as well as the easy ones.
Obama, OTOH, did not surprised me at all. He stands for nothing but mindless change, like Jimmy Carter, but without a spine or platform. Plus, he's already shown his "man/woman" bigotry on this issue. Since Captain "Present" has no spine and his tepidness and wishy-washiness is something I've seen from the beginning (which is why I went to Clinton after Edwards failed in his campaign) I expected nothing more than pablum from him. Now, if he'd just call me "sweetie" or some other denigrating off-the-cuff sexist remark... Oh wait, I'm not a woman, so there won't be any accidental condensation sent my way.
Posted by: Moses | May 16, 2008 12:48 PM
State involvement in marriage is a very modern thing indeed.
From a NYTimes.com column several months back:
The American colonies officially required marriages to be registered, but until the mid-19th century, state supreme courts routinely ruled that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. By the later part of that century, however, the United States began to nullify common-law marriages and exert more control over who was allowed to marry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/26/opinion/26coontz.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Posted by: TheWireMonkey | May 16, 2008 12:53 PM
The First Amendment would already do that. But, I suppose putting that language in the bill might still be good politics.
The first amendment is exactly why they need to put it in the bill. If the bill lacked that then it could be challenged on first amendment grounds and likely overturned.
Posted by: coathangrrr | May 16, 2008 1:01 PM
Obama advocates separate but equal treatment of glbt people.
Oddly, he doesn't seem to see any issue with defining marriage religiously and having the government be involved in marriage. So much for church/state separation.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 16, 2008 1:03 PM
Here in Illinois I got asked to sign a petition by a Christian activitist group that basically asked for legal protection for religions to discriminate, which included not compelling a church to conduct marriages that are against their beliefs. I asked if this would make it OK for my church (Unitarian) which has no problems with homosexual marriage to conduct marriage ceremonies, or was it only legal protection for their religious beliefs? And then I pointed out that the laws were presently barring members of our religion from following our beliefs that all people are equal before the law. You could begin to see the smoke curl from their ears as the gears slowly began to turn with the realization that their petition might not do what they intended.
It was great fun!
Posted by: DrA | May 16, 2008 1:14 PM
Ralph #23:
Sadly, it's not gonna happen.
Posted by: Full Meddle Jacket | May 16, 2008 1:15 PM
So much for all the Civil Rights work my grandmother did as a Columnist for the SF Chronicle. So much for the suffering of my mother and uncle as they were targeted by the children of bigots and their social/personal lives were ruined, or even getting beaten up a few times, from the fallout.
So much for dead civil rights workers. Or Brown vs Board of Education...
Separate but equal... Fuck, what a goddamn fucking wimp. He's pretty much got the nomination sewn up and he's pulling that shit?
Posted by: Moses | May 16, 2008 1:24 PM
Obama takes a cowardly position on this issue:
So, I guess you'd like McCain to win.
The progress on this issue will naturally be slow in a country where 85% of the population professes some belief in god. Like it or not, some politicians have to not alienate voters unnecessarily. Do you think Obama would seek confirmation of guys like Haynes, or Alito, or Roberts? I don't, I think Obama may mouth platitudes to get into office but what actions he takes once there will be radically different than what a McCain presidency might yield.
Eye on the Prize.
Posted by: Tom M | May 16, 2008 1:29 PM
John Marty's father, famed Lutheran theologian Dr. Martin Marty, taught...
wait for it...
Reverend Jeremiah Wright!
Posted by: Sonja | May 16, 2008 1:50 PM
I owe the Country my vote. Not the Democrats. With the huge Democratic majority likely in the House and Senate, I definately don't owe my vote to Obama because the DEMOCRATS WILL BE IN CONTROL ANYWAY.
And I'm definately smart enough to get past the guilt trip.
Posted by: Moses | May 16, 2008 1:58 PM
Moses: You most certainly do owe your vote to your country, rather than a given party. Unfortunately, we live in a de facto two party system, and you have to think strategically about where your vote will do the most good. My own opinion is not with McCain, any Republican from the last 100 years, or a third party that might whittle the margin.
Posted by: Lauren | May 16, 2008 2:09 PM
Etha: "separate but equal"? Those words do not exactly send shivers of comfort down my spine. And I'm a little shocked that Obama could even say something like that without irony.
Posted by: scicurious | May 16, 2008 2:09 PM
@#34 Moses --
I think what bothers me most in the Obama speech link is the way he uses his parents' interracial marriage as some kind of personal badge of honor and then proceeds to advocate separate-but-equal civil unions for gay people. Let's take his talk about gay marriage and substitute in "interracial marriage":
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 16, 2008 2:11 PM
"And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue..."
...I'll contradict that entirely good-sense proposition when teh gheys are involved.
*sigh* Baby steps toward progress. Little eensy teensy baby steps...
"I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper.""
Was he running for president at the time?
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 16, 2008 2:14 PM
"And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue..."
...I'll contradict that entirely good-sense proposition when teh gheys are involved.
*sigh* Baby steps toward progress. Little eensy teensy baby steps...
"I liked something John Edwards said in a debate when asked about his religion and the marriage issue. Loosely paraphrased, his respons was: "My beliefs are completely irrelevant. Anyone who wants to be married should have the right to do so, whether or not I believe it's proper.""
Was he running for president at the time?
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 16, 2008 2:15 PM
Posted by: markbt73 | May 16, 2008 2:39 PM
#40: as an Obama supporter, I wrinkle my nose and ask, "WTF exactly is he even saying there?"
That's disappointing.
I'm still an Obama supporter, tho'.
Posted by: John | May 16, 2008 2:41 PM
...which they already have under current law, but we have to spell it out explicitly in order to appease the bigots. Have you ever heard of a church being compelled to perform a marriage ceremony?
Posted by: ndt | May 16, 2008 2:59 PM
Everyone should definitely go to the Obama for President site and insist that he stand up for equal protection under the law. He was Harvard Law Review, FFS. He knows better than that.
I think the Dem candidates are so used to hearing the crap from inside the beltway that they don't realize that the "base" is way more liberal than they are. They're so scared of pissing off this mythical bunch of
moderatescenter rightists that they're afraid to take a stand. The end result is that they alienate their supporters to placate a bunch of righty assholes who will never vote for them in the first place.Obama still is by far a better choice than McCain. Check out McCain's stance on the issue.
I already was in high hopes that the Iowa Supreme Court would uphold the decision that the Iowa ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The makeup of the Iowa court is more liberal (more Democratic appointees at least) than California's court, so I'm pretty sure the Cali decision will make it even easier for Iowa's supremes to do the right thing. I hope so! I'd love to see the three states allowing gays to marry be: Mass, Cali, and Iowa.
We got one couple married here in Iowa before the injunction on Judge Hanson's ruling put a moratorium on same-sex marriage pending the Supreme Court decision! :) If the court allows same-sex marriage, I hope all the wingers have head explosions.
Posted by: Candy | May 16, 2008 3:14 PM
I think the Dem candidates are so used to hearing the crap from inside the beltway that they don't realize that the "base" is way more liberal than they are. They're so scared of pissing off this mythical bunch of moderates center rightists that they're afraid to take a stand. The end result is that they alienate their supporters to placate a bunch of righty assholes who will never vote for them in the first place.
Extremely insightful and well put there, Candy.
Posted by: ndt | May 16, 2008 3:39 PM
What I see here is a far different statement from Obama than was reported on Pandagon (they got it from TPM):
Still too much "separate but equal" garbage, but better than the whinging about "Christian trabitionamalismickalistics".
Posted by: stogoe | May 16, 2008 3:53 PM
M"arriage and Family Protection Act" If progressives can come up with a name like that there is some hope yet.
Ok, now give Obama a break! You have to walk on tip toe when standing for president. If he came out openly and honestly in favor of gay marriage, he might as well just tell McCain to go right ahead and take the white house. I don't know personally what he believes, but I would settle for equall but civil at the federal level, (that is all Howard Dean was aiming for), for the time being. It is only a few years ago that Vermont became the first state with civil unions, now we are seeing a slow breaking down of the barriers. Force things too hard and you get a backlash - several people have argued that Roe vs Wade gave the republicans huge power because of the anti-abortion people. Let the fed stipulate equall civil rights let the states come round slowly in their own way. When Clinton first got in power he lost months while trying to get gays in the army. He was right, but it cost. One has to keep an eye on the goalposts and not be in too much of a rush. If you have the same civil rights what's the big deal with marriage? It is a kind of dumb religious ceremony anyway. If your bond is of any value it will be a personal commitment that has nothing to do with a scrap of paper.
Posted by: sailor | May 16, 2008 3:58 PM
One major criticism of Obama is that he's an "empty vessel" in which his supporters pour their own desires. The reason I have supported Obama since Edwards dropped out is that he is young enough to not have any baggage from the culture wars of the Vietnam era. It bugs the bayjaysus out of me that he would be on the wrong side of a major issue in today's culture wars. If he gets in, we have to continually remind him that he owes his term in office to the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
Posted by: Longtime Lurker | May 16, 2008 4:10 PM
Moses, dear, 2 things really quickly. First, I don't think you're really getting over the guilt, you know, about to whom you owe your vote. You might think you are, but you're not. Do you know how I know? Because the commenter I quoted wasn't you.
Get a new name, you hardly uphold the legend of Moses as a grand and illustrious personage, of strong character, high purpose, and noble achievement. Au contraire
Posted by: Tom M | May 16, 2008 4:59 PM
We got one couple married here in Iowa before the injunction on Judge Hanson's ruling put a moratorium on same-sex marriage pending the Supreme Court decision! :) If the court allows same-sex marriage, I hope all the wingers have head explosions.
I would be thrilled with the heads of my Dutch Calvinist relatives going boom. The entire northwest corner of the state would be suddenly depopulated.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 16, 2008 4:59 PM
California needs to update some of it web sites!
Welcome to the State of California, Department of Health Services web page. This web page will give you general information regarding the requirements for the issuance and registration of public and confidential marriage licenses in California, as well as answer many frequently asked questions regarding the laws pertaining to marriage licenses and ceremonies in California. For further information, please contact the County Clerk or County Recorder's Office in the county where you will be applying for the marriage license.
General Information
You do not need to be a California resident to marry in California.
Only an unmarried male and an unmarried female may marry in California.
http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/ovr/marriage/GeneralInfo.htm
Posted by: CalGeorge | May 16, 2008 5:18 PM
This marriage thing is a bit outdated. Way back in the middle of the 19th century, Victoria Woodhull was advocating free love.
http://www.sexuality.org/authors/steinberg/cn70.html
"Victoria Woodhull's great virtue and her great failing were one and the same -- her refusal to remain silent about the sexual empowerment of women and about the sexual hypocrisy she saw all around her among important political figures of her day, both within and outside the suffrage movement. Frequently overtaken by the "spirits" from whom she drew her inspiration, she insisted on speaking uncompromisingly about what she believed and, when hypocritically attacked for her sexual views, about the dalliances of the people around her.
With regard to women's sexual appetites, she was both indignant and uncompromising: "Some women seem to glory over the fact that they never had any sexual desire and to think that desire is vulgar. What! Vulgar!... Vulgar rather must be the mind that can conceive such blasphemy. No sexual passion, say you. Say, rather, a sexual idiot, and confess your life is a failure... It is not the possession of strong sexual powers that is to be deprecated. They are a necessary part of human character... they are the foundation upon which civilization rests."
With regard to marriage, Woodhull was equally outspoken: "Why do I war upon marriage.... because it is, I verily believe, the most terrible curse from which humanity now suffers, entailing more misery, sickness, and premature death than all other causes combined.... Sanctioned and defended by marriage, night after night there are thousands of rapes committed.... There was never a servitude in the world like this one of marriage.""
So there.
Posted by: bernarda | May 16, 2008 5:27 PM
about the responses of the current crop of presidential candidates...
I keep wondering what would happen if ALL of them simply stopped pandering the religious nutters. Seriously, it's obvious to anybody who knows them that these candidates aren't 1/10th as "religious" as they come off on the campaign trail.
what would the nutters do?
stay home on election day?
yeah, that would be a shame.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 16, 2008 5:59 PM
what would the nutters do?
Build isolated compounds and pair girls off with adult men at the first sign of menstruation?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 16, 2008 6:04 PM
In that case, at least one of them would recognize an ecological niche, a market segment, and would immediately start to exploit it. Three minutes later we'd be back in the real world.
With that logic, the Democrats are in control right now.
I am weeping with you, but I know you will vote for Obama. Because a McCain presidency would simply be too horrible to contemplate.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | May 16, 2008 6:56 PM
Off topic, but speaking of strategic naming, I've thought for quite a while how interesting the naming of military operations is.
In the past, military operations were targeted to mislead or confuse the enemy. Names like "Operation Market Garden," or "Operation Overlord." Named with the enemy's perception in mind, bearing no relation to the actual operation itself, betraying no information about the true goal of the operation to the enemy.
Now we have names like "Operation Enduring Freedom" and "Operation We're Good and They're Bad."
And nothing has changed. The names are chosen to mislead and deceive those they are targeted to. The target is just different.
Posted by: craig | May 16, 2008 7:21 PM
@#56 David Marjanovic --
I actually had a nightmare the other night in which McCain was elected and turned the country into a theocracy. Everyone had to wear little badges that read "In God We Trust," and it was impossible for scientists to get grants to research topics involving evolution.
Okay, so maybe my unconscious took some liberties in creating that scenario, but the notion is still a fairly horrifying one.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 16, 2008 7:27 PM
Of course I will vote for Oblablabama in November. But I think he will wimp out in face of Republican obstructionism.
Clinton understands how Republiscum work and could bash a few heads if necessary.
Posted by: bernarda | May 16, 2008 7:28 PM
Because a McCain presidency would simply be too horrible to contemplate.
many of us said those exact words (with a different name) in 2000.
better get to contemplating.
*sigh*
I've learned not to rule anything out.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 16, 2008 7:48 PM
I'm sure some of my wingnut relatives are apoplectic over all this. One of them would erupt in fury anytime two males got too close to each other on TV or in a movie: "It's the liberal media trying to make it seem like it's normal to be gay! And we're not gonna have it!"
Posted by: deang | May 16, 2008 9:49 PM
Hey, I'm a foreigner, and I'm coming online to tell all you STUPID AMERIKKKANS to get out there and vote for John McCain in November! Whatever you do, DON'T elect that Barack Obama just because he's the best candidate left in, no siree-bob!
Posted by: Anne a'Ragornt-Toff | May 16, 2008 11:38 PM
Minnesota does the right thing?
Oh that's so gay.
Posted by: myql | May 16, 2008 11:58 PM
Obama said "[M]y religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Do you really want the government ruling on "sanctity?" When that word is used, it shows that the issue is religious. If a conservative Catholic priest refuses to perform a marriage between two divorced people, do we want the state to say "You gotta do it?"
The solution is to put the civil aspects in the civil realm, and the Sky Fairy aspects in that realm. (Render unto Caesar...) IOW, do like the Italians, and have a civil ceremony that settles legal status, and a religious ceremony for those who want it.
Of course the great state of Virginia got so apoplectic over the possibility of contract law being used to create such unholy unions they almost made it unlawful for a man to buy a used car from another man.
Posted by: BaldApe | May 17, 2008 8:52 AM
This post just reminded me (on subject, not on content) of a blog post I read titled "A Sad Day in California". Obviously the poster was voicing his discontent with what happened for gay rights. Ugh.
Posted by: Sophia Rusconi | May 17, 2008 10:15 AM
My comments on this whole issue over here: http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2008/05/get-leviathan-out-of-marriage-business.html
Posted by: Russell Blackford | May 17, 2008 10:39 AM
I knew you'd love a dishonest little title like that, PZ. You're such a fricking hypocrite, it's both hilarious and sickening.
Posted by: jsn | May 17, 2008 11:37 AM
Since evolutionists deny the reality of intelligent design, they think nothing has any intrinsic purpose other than what they want to attribute to it. Nowhere is this more evident in their crusade to deny the teleogical meaning of the anus by using it as an entrance when it has been obviously designed to be an exit. The anus is not a sex organ no matter how many evolutionists in the Minnesota State legislature declare otherwise!
Instead of creating human life, the evolutionistic "sex act" of buggery creates only viral and bacterial life. They think that with the power of the legislature to validate this disease-spreading practice it will then be equal to authentic marriage. It won't be. Nothing will change what will continue to happen when you jam a life-producing organ into the poop chute. I can almost hear the AIDS virus laughing at the passing of this legislation.
Posted by: Pole Greaser | May 17, 2008 4:01 PM
Does it drown out the other voices in your head?
Posted by: brokenSoldier | May 17, 2008 4:35 PM
There was a group of people whose specific job was to think up codenames which meant nothing to the enemy. As far as I can recall, this group included language experts, artists, and historians, as well as military types. I also recall (vaguely!)--but a quick search fails to find any useful confirmation--that Churchill, who clearly was a dab hand with words, personally approved the names of the more significant operations (such as Overlord).
Posted by: blf | May 17, 2008 4:51 PM
@#68 jsn --
There's nothing dishonest about it. The title of the bill ("Marriage and Family Protection Act") accurately represents its intent. From section 2 of the bill:
(Emphases mine.)
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 17, 2008 4:55 PM
Actually, to accurately represent its intent, the bill should be [honestly] entitled "the Marriage and Family Redefinition Act."
Posted by: jsn | May 17, 2008 11:55 PM
You can always count on a hater to care more about the form (one man + one woman) than about the substance (are these people fulfulling the functional role of a family in love and mutual support for each other?), and further, to be willing to punish anyone who doesn't fit his Procrustean bed of a "standard".
Fortunately for all the non-haters (most of the rest of us), the various configurations families can take don't need jsn's approval as to whether they exist or not.
Posted by: thalarctos | May 18, 2008 7:31 AM
aw, the cute little hatemongers have come out.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 18, 2008 8:51 AM
"the Marriage and Family Redefinition Act."
That act was the one abolishing owning many women in favor of owning one.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 18, 2008 8:53 AM
KAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHNNNNNNNNNNN!
Posted by: genks | May 18, 2008 10:39 AM
The current pope, on what makes up a family:
The following is left as an exercise for the readers: which of the following configurations would the pope and jsn consider a family. (Hint: form, not function, is the only consideration that matters to them.)
1. A married man constantly abuses his wife, sending her to the emergency room on multiple occasions.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
2. A married man, on learning his wife is terminally ill, dumps her care on her elderly relatives, and visits once a week.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
3. A gay male couple, together for over 30 years, has experienced multiple health-care crises, and during each one, the stronger of the two partners has taken close care of the weaker partner.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
4. A woman in Haiti or Africa listens to the local Catholic church's lies about condoms promoting HIV/AIDS, and as a result, does not insist that her lover wear a condom. She contracts HIV and dies from AIDS, leaving behind two small children. An uncle takes in the children, and raises them for years, until they are grown up.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
5. Same scenario as 4, except the man who takes in the children is not a blood relative.
Family or not-family, according to jsn and the pope?
Pretty easy to predict, wasn't it? And yet, somehow, *we're* the redefiners.
Posted by: thalarctos | May 18, 2008 12:45 PM
Huh? When did you guys ever leave?
Posted by: jsn | May 18, 2008 8:35 PM
ROFLMAO!!! Yeah, because those all represent the norm. *massive eye rolling*
Posted by: jsn | May 18, 2008 8:38 PM
Huh? When did you guys ever leave?
IKYABWAI went out with 3rd grade, didn't it?
right around the time you formed your worldview, apparently.
Posted by: Ichthyic | May 18, 2008 8:39 PM
@#81 Ichthyic --
Ah, elementary school views on sexuality...brings back memories. At my elementary school, we had a "gay water fountain" whose water would, presumably, make the drinker gay. At first I didn't understand it because I was unaware that "gay" had any meaning apart from "happy"; then someone explained it to me, and I was still very confused...I couldn't figure out why someone would want to guard against feeling attracted to members of the same sex. It seemed like it would be easier to get along with people of one's own gender, so I thought that if anything, people should want to be gay.
I was a very, very confused 8 year old.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 18, 2008 8:47 PM
Hey, Walton--I got yer tyranny of the majority right over here!
jsn, it wasn't a statistical question, but an ethical one. EPIC FAIL on your part.
Posted by: thalarctos | May 18, 2008 8:50 PM
OT to MAJeff - is your blog permanently offline, or on hiatus whilst the dissertating is going on?
For those so scared of same-sex marriage - what exactly are you scared of? jsn, kenny, pole greaser (who I think is a P