An anti-same sex marriage amendment was on the ballot this year in Minnesota. It was defeated, but there is still an anit same sex marriage law on the books which obviously has to be removed somehow. The new legislative leaders in Saint Paul, following a total change in ruling party, has said they won't be addressing same sex marriage in the immediate future, and I've heard estimates of one or even two years before it is taken up.
There were a handful of overlapping reasons why there was an anti same sex marriage amendment, as well as a voter suppression amendment (an amendment that would have repressed liberal and progressive voters) on Minnesota's ballot this year, in my estimation. They include:
More like this
Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has an op-ed piece in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "One Man, One Woman: A citizen's guide to protecting marriage." It's a perfect example of the wild leaps of logic inherent
John Scalzi has written an incredibly eloquent essay on why he, as a married man, supports gay marriage.
The ADF immediately put out a press release after yesterday's ruling on gay marriage from the New Jersey Supreme Court. It was a very strange statement.
I grew up in the state of Washington, and always thought that the west side of the state was politically liberal, however, things are looking mighty strange in that state because of an intitiative that would require all married couples to have kids within three years of saying "I do" or their mar
not taking it up is a smart move on their part.remember how Clinton wasted a good part of his political capital by moving on the gays in the military issue so fast.