Minnesota Citizens May Lose on Gay Marriage

The Minnesota Family Council is pushing for a statewide referendum in 2012 to place a ban on same-sex marriage.

GLBT - Constitutional ban on gay marriage hits the fast track - http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/11/constitutional.php

If it passes, Minnesota Republicans will have proven that promoting discrimination, division, and hate is more important than working on solving problems.  It disgusts me that so many people are so quick to disparage same-sex marriage when there has never been a single good reason to do so.

It seems to me that all of the arguments against same-sex marriage tend to boil down to religious beliefs.  Doesn't that make a ban like this un-Constitutional based on the protection of the First Amendment?  Perhaps we will have a 'Kitzmiller v. Dover'-esque thrashing of BS with evidence.  I can dream, can't I?  *EDIT:  There may be reasons why this doesn't happen more often - in Iowa, three state Supreme Court justices were recently removed from office by the electorate, allegedly due to a unanimous decision ruling that the Iowa law banning same-same marriage was un-Constitutional.*

I urge everyone in Minnesota to deeply consider this referendum before casting your vote - do your homework and find out for yourself if there is any good reason to prevent same-sex marriage.  If you are against same-sex marriage solely because of your religious beliefs, that would indicate that you have no empirical or rational explanation for your position.  Do we really need more laws with no rational justification whatsoever?

Addendum:  If you are against same-sex marriage and your reasons have nothing to do with religious beliefs, I would be fascinated to hear it - let me know what they are!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Methodological Naturalism Explained - Why Science Can't Consider The Supernatural

I am going to make a bold statement. "For all practical purposes, it is always irrational to assign a supernatural cause to an event observed in the natural world." Now I am going to attempt to back up that statement. The only reason (of which I am aware) to assign a supernatural cause to a given event is the following: "I do not currently understand the details and outcome of this observation given my current state of knowledge and understanding of the natural world." Also, I suspect that many of you would prefer to add the caveat "And the details and outcome of this event are consistent with a particular supernatural belief or belief system", but that is clearly an example of circular reasoning and cannot be a valid part of this discussion.  The supernatural belief or belief system is, in fact, the item in question, or to be more accurate, the observation cannot be assigned a cause which has not been demonstrated, it can only be assigned a hypo
Read more

Atheist / Christian T-Shirt Challenge - Given by The Atheist Advocate

I recently shared a link to a great little article by The Atheist Advocate on patheos.com in which Christians are challenged to wear an Atheist t-shirt for one week, in order to learn about what persecution  means, due to the apparent misunderstanding which is often spread by Christians. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/04/25/challenge-to-christians-wear-an-atheist-t-shirt-and-gauge-reactions/ Pretty good idea, no? Now, I know that '____ Challenge' is currently extremely cliche, but would a good name for this be 'Persecution Challenge'?  Too emotive maybe? I may have found a taker, and I think it would be a really great experience, probably for both of us.  You see, she's a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  I would be required to wear a Mormon t-shirt for one week, while she would be required to wear an Atheist t-shirt during the same time.   If we both agree on this, how should we document everyth
Read more

On Evolution: Common Misconceptions and Deceptions

There are some critical misunderstandings of evolution out there, and I’d like to help clear some of them up. Ray Comfort is offering $10,000 to the first person who provides evidence of a ‘living transitional form’, and he defines this as a species giving birth to an entirely different species, such as a squirrel giving birth to a bird, or a chicken giving birth to a snake.  Now, I personally think Ray is being patently dishonest, but this raises a good point about what people seem to think evolution is all about. Let’s say that you are a paleontologist, and you have discovered fossils of a previously undocumented animal.  What you are looking at is a snapshot in time, as it were.  A ‘species’ is just that - it is a group of animals with particular shared characteristics, and when you look at a particular species, you are actually seeing the ‘current version’ of that genetic lineage.  If you take our hypothetical fossil find, you can determine approximately when that creature was
Read more