Same-sex marriage is about to be a reality in Minnesota but the folks over at Minnesota for marriage tried their best to lie their way into a victory.
They warned folks that if the marriage law passed, people who believe that marriage is between one man and one woman would be labelled as “bigots” (because they are) and “prosecuted under the law” (which is complete bullshit).
See, the law says that same sex couples can get married. You don’t have to like it. There are lots of laws different groups of people don’t like. Not liking a law is completely legal and nobody is going to prosecute you for it.
Now if your job is to issue marriage licenses and you refuse to issue them to a same sex couple, you might lose your job because they are legally allowed a marriage license. You don’t get to re-write the law to suit your “deeply held religious beliefs.”
However, suggesting that people will be prosecuted for believing that same-sex marriage is wrong is a great example of inciting homophobia. All they are doing is trying to make people afraid of homosexuals. They seem to imply that once homosexuals have rights, they are going to trample all over everyone else’s.
That’s what bigots do.
Eric Jacobson bid a tidy sum of money at the Fearless launch party for the right to join us this week. He wanted to talk about atheists in politics so that’s exactly what we discussed. Of course we talked about the upcoming votes in the Minnesota House and Senate and perhaps you will enjoy reaching back into history to hear our thoughts about the legislation and the chances for success.
The central question for anyone who is living a godless life is how do we have more impact on the political process as atheists? We didn’t answer that question in the podcast but we hope that by talking about politics, we can convince other godless folk to get involved in politics.
Eric also provides a stunning level of detail about his sandwich. Click here and enjoy!!
Let me start by saying that this particular law doesn’t stand a chance of passing. I’m not annoyed that it could actually become law.
I’m annoyed that it is being discussed. At issue is the fact that the Iowa supreme court, in a unanimous decision, declared that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. That’s why same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa right now.
Well a few Legislators feel the court overstepped their bounds by interpreting the state constitution (or – to re-state – “doing their job”) in a way that these particular Legislators felt was wrong. So they have proposed to cut the pay of the “activist” justices until such a time as same-sex marriage becomes unconstitutional.
Just those justices, by the way. Any new justices would come in at the regular, pro-homophobic pay rate.
I’ve got a better idea, how about the Legislators cut their own pay until they understand you don’t cut the pay of another branch of government just because you don’t like their conclusions?
I’ve come out as being pretty uniformly against organized religion. I thikn it is a tool by which people push their own agenda onto others rather than a pathway to god (if there is one).
That is not the same thing as stating that everyone who adheres to a religion should be killed. Because that, my friends, is crazy talk. That is the sort of thing bigoted, ignorant people say.
We don’t know yet if this bombing was the work of a Muslim extremist (Glenn Beck does) but even if it was, killing all Muslims is not a viable or reasonable solution. It is, in fact, far crazier than the act that just took place.
When you blame millions of people for the act of one, your priorities are seriously messed up.
Note: Reports this morning indicate the suspects were from Chechnya, which is predominantly Muslim. Preliminary evidence suggests they are Muslims. It still means millions of other Muslims had nothing to do with it.
Oh that’s great Cardinal! I’m glad to see that a high-ranking member of the Catholic Church finally realizes that the Church has no right to make moral judgements for those individuals who aren’t Catholic and you’d stay out of the political arena and…wait a minute.
No. That’s not what he thinks at all. He wants gay people to know that sex is only OK if you are trying to produce offspring so while it is totally OK to be gay, you can’t actually have sex or be married or anything like that. Gay people are totally entitled to friendship, though.
He also wants gay people to know that the Catholic Church is not anti “anybody.” They don’t hate gay people. They just want to make sure that gay people know they aren’t permitted to sexual fulfillment the way straight people are.
So basically, the difference between gay guys having male friends who are gay and me having male friends who are gay is a lifetime of unresolved sexual tension? I bring this up an awful lot but you know what? If that is really what god wants for gay people, god is a dick.
How about you work on improving that message, Cardinal?
I get frustrated when science is doing something cool – in this case sampling water from a lake buried under four kilometers of ice to see if there is life there – and the results are less than thrilling.
I mean, it should be enough that they drilled through four kilometers of ice and took a sample of the lake water to begin with. And I admit, that is pretty fucking cool.
I was really hoping they would find something else there. Maybe they still will but for right now, it looks like the only thing they discovered was water.
I don’t want to sound bitter but I’ve seen water before.
*Note: It isn’t over yet. There is a lot more scientific work to be done. For now, though, there are no ice monsters in Antarctica. Dammit.
July 4th, 1863 was a big day for the North. On the 3rd, Lee had been defeated at Gettysburg and on the 4th he began his retreat. On the 4th, Vicksburg fell to the Union.
While historians will argue whether or not these two events were the turning point of the war, they heralded the end of a long war and ended a long string of Union failures.
I bring up the date because there is a difference between winning a battle and winning a war. If you study the civil war enough, you will realize that the Union always had better resources. They had more industry. They had more men. They had better technology. I don’t want to say a Union victory was inevitable but it was certainly the most likely outcome.
My friend Carr Hagerman has a thoughtful blog today that provides, I think, an important perspective on our choice to vote. He’s right, of course, you don’t have to vote. Voting is not an obligation, it is a right.
You do not need to take advantage of that right.
And yet, if I could ask all those who are disenfranchised enough to skip voting this year to do one thing, it would be this: vote anyway. Vote on one thing and then go home.
If you don’t like any of the presidential candidates, then don’t vote for any of them. If you have no idea who your senator is (or should be), don’t vote for them.
But take the time to go to the polling booth and vote no on the marriage amendment. Even if you are sick to death of the political process you need to understand that this one issue will have a major impact on a great many people and they need your help.
If you want government out of your life, you need to vote no. Otherwise you set the dangerous precedent that our constitution can be used to deny the rights of those who are not like ourselves.
This fight will play out in the courts if the amendment passes. It will not be over.
So please, don’t go to the polls because it is your duty. Go because on this one issue, you can make a difference. Carr is right, the choice to stay home is completely valid.
But this year, that choice will have consequences.
Check one box and go home. Nothing could be easier.
While our opinions on the topic have been quite clear, we wanted to take one more opportunity to voice our support for marriage equality and to offer some logical arguments against constitutional discrimination.
Please read, share and help us stem the tide of discrimination in the United States.