E-DEMOCRACY | Government love licenses?

From: Gail O'Hare Date: 00:53

I've received a hysterical message from Minnesota for Marriage all in a tizzy about a gay marriage bill coming to the floor soon. They want me to tell my legislators not to vote for it. They call it a "system of government love licenses," presumably meaning heterosexual marriage does not involve any messy love stuff.

I'm not at all sure this will come soon. Should it? What are the pros and cons of pushing this issue now, especially with related Supreme Court decisions coming in June?

Gail O'Hare
St. Paul

From: Mike Jones Date: 00:59

I'm totes applying for a "government love license."

Mike Jones
Uptown, Minneapolis

From: Diggitt Date: 02:10

I googled the phrase in your letter and didn't get anything relevant, although I did get an article from last October about the amendment. Did your communication give you bill numbers or actual names of the bill or its sponsors? Hard to know what to think about something that doesn't come up on google.

Diggitt McLaughlin
West Side

From: Gail O'Hare Date: 14:32

Here's the message. It is very long, so I won't copy it all. No bill numbers are referenced, although the newspaper stories do offer some specifics about who will write and carry legislation. This is obviously a fundraising tool but its tone suggests the kind of furor we are in for, which is why I raised the question.

>From Minnesota for Marriage email dated Januiary 16, 11:50 AM

{{{URGENT: Contact Your Legislator TODAY! Urgent Update – Contact Your Legislator and Tell Them You Don’t Want Marriage Redefined.
As you may know, the 2013 legislative session began on Tuesday, January 8th and gay “marriage” activists are already contacting their legislators and Governor Dayton and pressing them to legalize gay “marriage” this session. In fact, several media outlets reported that House leaders are predicting a floor vote on redefining marriage could happen at any time.
Here are a couple of examples:
Minnesota’s Marriage Showdown Takes Shape At The Capitol
Despite Budget Focus, DFL Legislative Leaders Will Face Hot-Button Issues
And, a “Freedom To Marry” demonstration and lobby day is scheduled on February 14th in the Capitol Rotunda.
There is no time to lose. The redefinition of marriage into a system of government love licenses could happen very soon, and it’s time for us to rise up and rejoin the battle today. Right now, legislators are receiving calls and visits from activists pressing them to legalize gay “marriage” this session. It is absolutely urgent that you contact your legislator and tell them that you don’t want marriage redefined.}}}

The message goes on with many bullet points too long to include here. Right now I can't email it to anyone as my outbox is hiccuping, but eventually I can send it whole to anyone who asks.

Gail O'Hare
St. Paul

From: Ron Leurquin Date: 18:04

Again, I really feel the need to ask why MN needs to define MARRIAGE at all. Let the religious groups do that in any way they chose, and trust me when I say there will end up being quite a few different deffinitions of marriage then. Let MN just grant civil unions to those that want some sort of legal recognition/protections to thier relationship, and only grant one civil union at a time to any given person, and only allow two persons to have a civil union at any given time.

Whats wrong with that?
Seems like some good separatation of church and state that way! MN has no need to recognize marriage at all that way.

Again, why does MN need to define marriage or recognize marriage at all?

Ron Leurquin
Richfield

From: Diggitt Date: 18:22

If we are going to get a variety of rights from the state--as married people--it makes sense that the state would want to "regulate" marriage, at least in the sense of licensing (making sure that the people who are entering into the contract are legally able to, for instance) and overseeing the process of dissolution.

Getting rights from "the state" includes the Social Security pension rights of widows and widowers and minor children, so its an issue that crosses into the federal realm. But rather than having the federal government also participate in defining and regulating marriage and divorce, it agrees to follow state guidelines, which seems thrifty--but which also means the federal government (as in Loving) has an interest in making sure those laws are fair.

In other words, if (say) Minnesota voters and/or officials decided that the state has no interest in defining marriage, and it should be self-regulating, there would be a huge increase in potential fraud in many ways. So one state can't go it alone; it would be grossly unfair to its residents because they'd be excluded from federal programs that depend on those definitions.

Diggitt

From: Jack Ferman Date: 19:36

Quite a few years ago I looked up Minnesota laws about 'common law marriage' and discovered that Minnesota prohibited recognition of such marriages. That would cast a bastard stain on all children of such arriages. That law should be repealed. In the genealogy of my ancestors there were several common law marriages.

Sent from my iPad
John Ferman Kingfield Neighborhood Minneapolis, MN

See thread here.

Free Speech Zone The Free Speech Zone offers a space for contributions from readers, without editing by the TC Daily Planet. This is an open forum for articles that otherwise might not find a place for publication, including news articles, opinion columns, announcements and even a few press releases. The opinions expressed in the Free Speech Zone and Neighborhood Notes, as well as the opinions of bloggers, are their own and not necessarily the opinion of the TC Daily Planet. E-Democracy forum posts are republished under license by Creative Commons with Attribution

    Our primary commenting system uses Facebook logins. If you wish to comment without having a Facebook account, please create an account on this site and log in first. If you are already a registered user, just scroll up to the log in box in the right hand column and log in.