Esme’s Blog: Gay Marriage: New York Vs. Minnesota

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — In a Republican controlled Senate, the controversial gay marriage bill was finally up for a vote.

With four Republicans breaking with their party the measure passed 33-29. But this was no constitutional ban on gay marriage. This was the Republican Senate in New York state passing a measure to legalize gay marriage.

New York is now the largest state by far to legalize same-sex unions. New York joins Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington D.C. to legalize gay marriage.

In Minnesota on the other hand, the legislature this year passed an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment that will be on the ballot in 2012. The amendment is the  signature measure of this legislative session that has brought the state to the brink of a government shutdown.

A recent Gallup poll found that 53 percent of Americans support gay marriage. That’s up from 44 percent just the year before.

Prominent Republicans including Dick Cheney, Michael Bloomberg, Laura Bush and  her daughter Barbara Bush all support same sex marriages. Republicans in Minnesota are counting on the constitutional amendment to drive up conservative turnout, to help them  sweep to victory in state house and senate races as they did in 2010.

But with polls showing public opinion shifting and the anger that will almost certainly implode if there is a shutdown, it is possible Minnesota’s anti-gay marriage amendment could well drive up turnout by those on the other side.

More from Esme Murphy
  • See BS

    The State Legislature passed the largest budget in Minnesota History. The “Government Shutdown” will be a result of a veto from Governor Dayton.

    Esme is stuck in the old days

    • ron sterzinger

      here is how it should go. givem civil unions, make it government protected. but let the chrurches decide on who they marry. and do not make clergy register for providing the ceremony, because it is a religious act, and government should keep out. either way, when the union breaks civil or religious, the divorce lawyers will figure it out…problem solved…saying the churches don’t have to marry them will bite the churches in the butt. it will be declared unconstitutional…simple..

  • Julie

    If anything, Pthe Citizens of Minnesota might just get more irritated that this topic gets more coverage than our budget.

    Let people marry whomever they want.
    It is NONE of ANYONIE’e business whom I marry.
    Especially the government.

    Allow Gay Marraige already and focus all on the budget

    • See BS

      It’s a fake narrative by the media, because “Civil Unions” are still perfectly legal for gay couples, and carry the same exact rights as Marraige.

      Gays have all the same rights and protection from our government.

      The word “Marraige” is being used to attack 1st Amendment rights to religious freedom and religious institutions with lawsuit abuse by gay activists.

      • Simon English

        Please….your separate, but equal stance is offensive! It’s actually is and always has been a religious attack on gays! Gays are the oppressed, not Christians….
        Religious institutions are not being made to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples….You are a ignorant bigot and part of whats wrong in America! Get over yourself….Lawsuit abuse….how about civil abuse by anti-gay Christians for the last 1000 years!! Shameful behavior on your behalf…..Gays do not have the same rights, if they have to do anything different than us, even use a different word for the same thing…..well that’s a right is not the same, it’s like saying blacks had the same rights as whites because we let them have their own drinking fountains, seats on the bus and schools….what was the big deal with segregation. Why are people like you not understanding how very powerful a word is!

        • Where did the old America go?

          It is wrong…a lifestyle choice that is morally wrong & degrading to our culture. People giving into temptation & living in sin, plain & simple. Simon what is right vs. wrong? Should a person who is tempted to look at porn give in to that? Or how about the husband who is tempted by satan to cheat? Or how about those who are tempted to hurt others? Attracted to minors?….should they just give in & choice a lifestyle of sin? They can, but no good will come from it. Marriage is between a man & a woman….two men & two women in a marriage is not how we were designed. Each brings something to the family structure that the other can’t. That is why children need both their mother & father….there is no argument you can make to that. Religious attack???? No it is called the church & those who follow the writings laid forth by our Lord in the bible calling a spade a spade. Sin is sin. Wrong is Wrong. You have been too influenced by culture.

          • markH

            @ Where did the old America go? I think you’re referring to the hateful, bigoted American that oppressed those who are different and justified itself with religious dogma? That America is being replaced by secularist, humanists, free-thinkers, and those who simply wish to be happy and peaceful. As far as “sin” is concerned, this is entirely a religious word with no objective definition outside of religious texts-so it has no application in our natural world. Peace.

            • Paul Revere

              The answer to where America has gone wrong is in both of what you said. We do not need religion telling people what to do. That BS was very oppressive for many years and thankfully it is losing its strength. On the other hand we definitely do not need people who use progressive words to push there agendas for there socialistic behaviors. EG:secularist, humanists. Maybe the US is to large of a country and the country should be split up in regions. Then the regions can call there own shots. I am sure people from Utah and Nevada and Texas do not want New Yorkers or New Jersey reps telling them how to live there lives. Also if the liberals want to push there policy they could in a certain region just like conservatives could do the same.

              • markH

                Secularism and Humanism can contain (but certainly is no part of )Socialism. In fact, neither Humanism nor Secularism makes any claims that could be construed with Socialist ideas. There is simply no correlation; it’s like comparing ice cream to the GOP-it makes no sense.I think you are misinformed here and should take the time to actually investigate ideas that separate morality from religious ideas. Peace.

              • Richard in Minneapolis

                We had our chance for regions 150 years ago, and we blew it.

                • Citizen

                  @Richard. No, we didn’t blow it. We took the Natives of America and put them on reservations where many still live today in a sovereign nation.

          • Michele

            “Where did the old America go?” You mean the one where men could beat their wives, or kill them, and get away with it because it was their right? The one where black people could be held as property, or the one where if you believed something different, you could be called a communist and your life destroyed? Or how about when Catholics were viewed with suspicion, and weren’t supposed to run for President? Here’s the thing – the churches that founded this country are NOT the churches you attend now. Move on.

          • Will Sawyer

            Under no obligation to follow you and your myth. He is your god, not mine. Keep him to yourself.

        • See BS

          Gays are not able to produce children, so technically hetero couples are not the same. anatomically gay and hetero couples are not the same.

          • Mary

            On the best of Ophra this week, a dude had his sperm frozen. Then, after he had the sex change, she fathered her own children with her girlfriend. Crazy isn’t it? Gay people producing children. And you didn’t think they could do it… but there they were – on Ophra.

      • Linda

        As is obvious from your ability to share your so-called ‘Christian’ views here, your freedom of speech has not been curbed. I may not like it, but I don’t try to interfere with you. Why can’t you just step back and let gays live their lives without YOUR interference.

      • Jade

        Wrong. There are over 500 laws, in Minnesota alone, that specifically grant rights to people/couples who are “married”. They do not cover “Civil Unions” and in some cases they even discriminate against “Civil Unions”. Our government does not grant the same rights and protections to those who are gay.
        Please learn your facts before you spout off information that is incorrect.

  • BS is right

    Wow!! She blatantly ignores the truth of Dayton’s veto of the largest budget in state history and instead paints conservatives as the bad guy. I’ll bet she even wonders why it’s called the “liberal media”.

  • Bill

    She doesn’t wonder why it’s called the Liberal Media, she wonders why Conservatives have a voice at all.

  • Victim Du Jour

    Gays are perfectly free to start their own religious institutions, community centers and scouting clubs.

    So essentially corporate run media is inciting civil unrest and disturbing the peace over a “word”

    I think heterosexuals will get “Civil Unions” in gay churches too, because many heterosexual couples are not bible bangers too.

    • Concerned for the country

      “Bible bangers”… Wow, unbelievable comment. I doubt you have ever read it. I truly hope that one day you open it, & discover for yourself the unbelievable truths & salvation that it brings. I know that until you do, you will never be fulfilled, you will always be missing something.

      • markH

        Have you read the Q’uran? Have you read the Pentatuch? Have you read the Book of Mormon? Perhaps THEY have the “truth” and you’re just misinformed. Or, more likely, all religions are FALSE and they are simply used on the credulous and ignorant to gain wealth and power. To me, this seems more plausible that considering that there is not only a god out there who takes a personal interest in me and my life, but leaves me to figure out (to my eternal peril) which one is the correct one. Peace.

        • Jack

          markH – When you’re searching for the answer to something, and you find it, do YOU keep searching for it? Why not? It could be in other places, too, couldn’t it? Of course not. It’s the same with Christianity. When the truth of the Bible is discovered and a person gives their lives to Jesus Christ, living by His Word, they know they have the truth. Why should we keep looking for it elsewhere?

          • Victim mentality

            Who said you find the truth. Sounds to me like it’s just YOUR truth.

            • Jack

              Truth, by definition, means the actual state of a matter. There is no such thing as “your truth” because truth is definite. What you’re describing is humanism, not truth.

  • Angus

    The religious right blames God destroying much of New Orleans via Katrina on their acceptance of gays in their midst. Then why is Arizona suffering from massive fires and North Dakota suffering from flooding? What did they do to get God angry?
    Ever notice how we were critical of the politburo in Russia voting the party line with no dissent? Ever notice how the Repulblicans vote the party line without dissent and the threats made when a Republican goes against the party?
    There is the theory that many anti-gays, particularly the most outspoken, are not certain of their orientation.
    If the conservatives had said, 10 years ago, we will agree to gays getting married to each other but use civil union, as in England, rather than marraige the gays would probably have agreed and we would not have the fighting and waste of time and money we have today. Hate is a terrible thing.

  • self made victims

    This is not about the religious right to marry. Being “married” in the eyes of the court offers substancial benefits from taxing laws and social security benefits, to hospital visitation policies. New York did a great job in passing this law. If *Iowa* can do the same, why does Minnesota have such an issue with it? I am amazed how bigoted Minnesotans are.

  • See BS

    Gays and some heterosexuals don’t like religion anyway, You would think people who are not religious will embrace “Civil Unions”, because it distances the people who don’t care about religion from religion.

    I know a couple who had a “Civil Union” in the 60’s and was treated as the same exact thing as “Marraige” by the State of Minnesota during the late 70’s when they divorced.

    “Marraige amendments” don’t strip domestic partnership rights from gays.

    • BettyC

      Gays are not anti religion
      and Gays don’t have any domestic partner rights in law. In fact many laws strip them of rights.

    • Zeek

      What are you? 90 years old? Were you sitting in your rocking chair last month waiting for the rapture?

    • Michele

      “Gays and some heterosexuals don’t like religion anyway”

      What? Who are you to deny gays their right to God’s comfort? And WHERE do you come up with this idea?

  • self made victims

    Aw hell – let’s just call it all civil unions. Marriage can be a church thing for those who need that dogma – kinda like a Hmong marriage isn’t really “legal” – or at least isn’t in many cases. If folks want Big Daddy, Junior and the Spook blessing their lives and making them feel special, so be it. But let’s give everyone the legal right to be just as legally miserable as us hetero folks.

  • Gay is not choice

    Being gay is not a choice – gays are born that way. Do you really think all of them actually want to be gay and be discriminated against? When you start to realize that, perhaps some of you will see how bigoted you’re being. It’s like being male or female is a lifestyle choice… Religion is a choice. Being gay is not.

    • Jack

      Your comment is hypocritical. You’re calling people against gay marriage “bigots” but you condemn people’s religion. You do realize that THAT is bigotry, don’t you? You’re discriminating against people of faith and interfering with their freedom of religion, which is in the Bill of Rights. Marriage isn’t.

      If gays want their lifestyle respected, then they need to respect the lifestyle of those who are religious. That also goes both ways.

  • Jack

    To those who are saying that the MN govt should just let gays marry so they can focus on the budget — that’s ridiculous.

    It’s not an either/or situation. They can concentrate on quite a few issues at the same time. Imagine that! They don’t just sit there on one issue until it’s resolved and move on to the next one. If they did, nothing would ever get done.

  • Bill

    “The amendment is the signature measure of this legislative session that has brought the state to the brink of a government shutdown.”

    No. Wrong, the bill has nothing to do with the state shut down. How could you be so wrong?

    Gays can pretend to be married if they want. But this is about money and spousal benefits. The greedy little pigs want money they are not entitled to.

    Even Obama is against gay marriage:

    • Zeek

      Am I reading that correctly, Bill? You’re referring to gay people as “greedy little pigs”? Or are you talking about the government. I just want to you to be clear on this point, because it looks like you’re referring to gay people. And that wouldn’t be a very nice thing to say.

      • Bill

        That’s too bad.

        • Zeek

          So those heterosexuals, who are already married, must be “greedier little pigs”. They are already getting this “money and spousal benefits” you speak of.

    • Michele

      The “greedy little pigs” are American citizens. They are ENTITLED to these rights.

  • Dustie

    The Minnesota Republican legislature is more interested in sticking their nose into people’s personal lives and discriminating than they have been focused on the budget. In California, legislators do NOT get paid for days they don’t do their job. At present in California, they are losing this daily pay as they haven’t balanced a budget yet and they never have a chance of recouping the lost salary. We need a rule like this in Minnesota and we need EQUALITY for all Minnesotans, including marriage equality.

  • Allie

    What is missing in all of this is “procreation”. What word or custom or law term should we use to support the fact that it takes a human male and female to produce and birth another human?

    If people who want to share their lives together want to usurp the word “marriage” we still face the fact that while they can “raise” a child, they cannot produce one.

    Don’t you think there should be a legal acknowlegement of the difference and some credit given to the human producers? Following that with the fact that children from birth parent families statistically develop and succeed better than others it is reasonable to provide some rights and privileges to the “producers” that non-producers do not have. We are not talking about inheritance, tax and medical sharing, and other issues of shared life which make sense – here we need to consider the the little one left out of the equation and his/her rights to be born and grow up with a future in sight.

    • Citizen

      @Allie. I find it disingenuous to believe that hetero birth couples have cornered the market on quality parenting. Seems to me, there is plenty of bad parenting going on in all couples of all kinds. As well as good parenting in all types of couples. Besides, how did your statistical sampling of birth parent families DEFINE “developing and succeeding better.” I really question your hypothesis. In a world with 7 billion human beings, rapidly becoming a human feedlot, I find any sanctity imbued to procreation to be somewhat bogus. In fact, the word procreate, I believe, means “in place of God creating a human from dust.” Otherwise, human reproduction is the same as most other living things–neither good, nor bad. It is what it is. Creating more life on planet earth.

  • Zeek

    I don’t understand how human reproduction even comes into play here. There are plenty of sterile heteros and couples who choose not to reproduce. Should these people also be denied legal marriage because no children will be biologically produced? Interpreting some warped thinking – that I have read here – marriage should be reserved only for people who can potentially and willingly reproduce – Everyone else, tough bounce.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live