Same-sex marriage in Minnesota: Your turn to speak up
CORBIS/Philip James Corwin
We've heard plenty from lawmakers in media coverage of the same-sex marriage ban; now it's your turn. There are few more bedrock issues in our lives than whom we choose to love and marry. Let's leave the stump speeches to the politicians and speak in nuanced and thoughtful terms about this issue — you are no doubt already doing this in your homes and with friends. This is an invitation to make that conversation public.
Please share this invitation with your friends, family and colleagues. I'll be reading what you write and pulling some of it up from the comments and into this post to create a living document of the same-sex marriage debate in Minnesota.
See also: Interactive map: Tracking marriage amendment votes
Your Voices
Note: What you see here are excerpts I've chosen from the discussion flourishing in the comments section. Click on a commenter's name and you'll be taken to their full comment. There is much more in the comments and I hope what I share here will only drive you there to read more and to add your voice. We're also sharing comments at our Tumbr blog.
"I see marriage as a civil union, as near as I can tell God doesn't require paper work. I think a good marriage is tough, it doesn't matter if your same gender or opposite genders. I think if two people are committed to making it this kind of commitment to each other then they should have all the tools available to them to forge a lasting link. That includes access to the benefits and obligation conferred by other civil documents on a spouse." - Jody Rooney
"Human beings are born seeking love and the chance to carry that love to another human being. If they are lucky they will find someone compatible and marry ... Same sex? Different sex? Love and commitment know no gender." - Tyra Wahman
"That we have the opportunity to vote on this issue is wrong. We should not have the opportunity to vote on whether people get basic rights. That it is illegal in MN in the first place is wrong." - Rachel Kahler
"The people of Minnesota will really only be deciding how illegal same-sex marriage should be. If the legislature really wanted to give people a choice, they would introduce an amendment that says, "Minnesota will recognize as a marriage a union between two persons without respect to gender." Then if we approve it, same-sex marriage is legal; if we don't, it's illegal. That would be a real choice." - Javen Swanson
"What this bill will do is harm people. It will hurt my family. It will hurt my children. Last night I had to tell my 8-year old that we will probably have to get ready to hear a lot of mean, ugly, hurtful things said about our family – a sustained barrage for the next 18 months." - Kim Klose
"I'm an Iowan by birth, Minnesotan by choice for about 5 years. Needless to say I was beyond proud when my home state took a big step in legalizing same sex marriage. And grossly saddened by the backlash that occured, as represented by the elections last fall. It was a bitter, ugly campaign where one man, Bob Van Der Plaats, took up the cause of banning same sex marriage and spent a lot of money (which was mostly from organizations outside of Iowa) to get rid of 3 judges. I don't want to see this happen in Minnesota. For crying out loud, Minneapolis was just named the most gay friendly city." - Kari Koehler
"I greatly hope that sooner or later somebody is fortunate enough to push a civil rights argument before the Supreme Court and we happen to have a receptive judiciary at the time. It would be nice to give this issue a final resting place beside other previously decided civil rights embarrassments in our past." - Robin Holt
"Yesterday, our state government crashed into my family. In the same day, the Senate voted 1) to put our civil rights up to a vote, inviting our fellow citizens to comment on the rights and limits and value of our relationship; and 2) to cut MinnesotaCare, a program that has made a huge, positive impact on my partner's health and wellbeing. If my partner loses MinnesotaCare, we don't have the options that married couples do when it comes to family health insurance; we'll be hemorrhaging money to ensure basic healthcare access and protection from calamity." - Abigail Henderson
"For me as a mother this debate tears at my heart every day. I want my children to have a beautiful life. I want them to have joy and love in that life. My gay son is nearly 30 now. He has worked tirelessly for equality. He should not have to debate his moral worth as a human being. This terrible amendment will bring that debate into every home in this state. When will my son be able to just live his life in equality?" A rainbow flag is flying in our yard today and will be there throughout this long campaign. May rainbows find their way to every street in this state. I want the young gay people who will feel the greatest burden of this debate to see there are loving and supportive families around them" - Randi Reitan
"We have a gay son ... If he has sex, the GOP would rather he have it outside the sanctity of marriage. Aren't they the party that advocates family values? ... We know what this is really all about: creating a diversionary issue and rallying the base. And for that they will deprive good people of their rights." - Doug Seitz
"I am a divorce attorney. Believe me when I say that straight people have not perfected this marriage thing. Actually, they have made a horrific mess of it. If same-sex couples want in on this messy, complicated, hard, albeit wonderful institution we call marriage, I’m all for it. There’s no way they could diminish the sanctity of marriage more than we straight people already have." - Elizabeth Drotning Hartwell
"My partner Linda and I have been together for almost 25 years. Two years ago we were legally married in Iowa with our sons by our sides. It was one of the most wonderful days of our lives. Our marital rights and responsibilities ended in the middle of a corn field as we crossed the Minnesota Border.
"My sons are two well-adjusted, kind-hearted, engaged Minnesota youth who are active in their church, school, and neighborhood. My oldest son Quintin, 15, watched the news segment from the Senate Judicial Committee on April 29. 2011. With a total look of shock on his face all he could say was 'why are they so mean?' For my family this is not simply a 'divisive issue' that deserves a people’s vote. It strikes to the core of our family, our lives, and our love. It puts our lives up for a vicious public relations campaign and places our access to rights up to a vote by the majority. How can this possibly be good for the Minnesota I love?" - Laura Smidzik
"There was never a more terrifying and humiliating moment in my life than the day before my breast cancer surgery, when I had to rush to update my last will and testament, sign over power of attorney to my partner, Cheryl, and then find a notary to sign it all.
"And there was never a more glorious day than that next afternoon when I woke up in the hospital with Cheryl at my side. This woman saved my life when she married me twenty years ago. She helped me build a home, a family and a business.
"Please vote against the amendment that would ban our chance at civil marriage." - Michele Harris
"I am a gay man who is in a relationship with a wonderful man. We are not among the wealthy. We are barely middle class. I am unable to work because I have Asperger's Syndrome. I am thankfully cared for with help from Hennepin County and my devoted partner who works so very hard at his job, and he is a part time student.
"We are already second class citizens in the sense that we cannot apply for assistance as a family. Because my partner makes too much money he cannot apply for assistance for himself. Yet in Hennepin County in order for me to qualify for a once a year help with paying our rent, I have to submit his income information as my "roommate" to show that he can pay the remainder of the rent for the month we receive help." - Philip Lowe, Jr.
"I feel very strongly that marriage is a social institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman. Please don't label all of us as bigoted conservatives if we don't agree with same sex marriage. I believe that more than anything the semantics of marriage confuse the debate. I am not against the civil rights or legal protections of any individual, rather it is the "tradition" (you don't have to remind me of how marriage has changed over the centuries) of that one man and one woman in which I feel marriage should be defined." - Karl Struck
"I am an ELCA pastor; take that as disclosure in weighing my comments. I do not speak for Christians in general. It's possible I don't speak for Lutherans in general, but I do speak for theologically trained Lutherans. In Lutheran theology marriage is a civic institution, governed by the state. The state determines who can, and who cannot, get married. Thus, in Lutheran theology, the question of same gender marriage is a civic discussion: how shall the state treat same sex couples? As a civic question, it is a question of civil rights. Is it right to deny the benefits awarded by the state to a minority?" - Mark Rittmann
"I am Ian. I am 6. I have 2 moms. I care about other people who have 2 moms or 2 dads, not just about myself. I care about other people! And the communities! We depend on other people. If we aren’t being a community it’s not going to be a country. It’s going to be a de-country. Being a community means help other people. If you aren’t being nice to people, they would be mad." - Ian Rosenburg-Scholl, 6, in a letter to Sen. Warren Limmer
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
27 comments
-
24 comments
-
22 comments
-
19 comments
-
18 comments
Comments (79)
The unanimous voice of the comments here demonstrates the left-leaning readership of MinnPost. It also pretty much guarantees that those social conservatives who do read the site will not offer their opinions here, as the highly charged emotional tone of many of the posters is a clear indication of the verbal assault they will receive if they do.
All we've gotten so far are the "stump speeches" the post's author asked readers to avoid. Unfortunately a reasoned, civilized debate can't take place under these circumstances. Mr. Guntzel will not get a "living document of the same-sex marriage debate in Minnesota." What we have here is an echo chamber.
I'm sad today.
My partner and I have been together for 13 years. She's my best friend and my partner in all things...much as your spouse is to you.
We pay our taxes willingly, vote in every election, mow our lawn, shovel our snow (and occasionally, that of our neighbor's), spend a large percentage of our time volunteering, work in human service-type professions and love one another.
Because of that love, we've spent years hearing from "loving" religious people how dangerous we are. Because of that love, her family has turned her out. Because of that love, we pay more financially for nearly everything: insurance, taxes, basic legal protection for our relationship, memberships, you name it. Because of that love, if one of us died, the other would pay estate taxes completely disproportionate to that of a straight couple. It has the potential to significantly impact our (theoretical) retirement.
Because of that love, we've had to fight for our relationship within our family, within our church body, at hospitals and in hundreds of small ways. We've had to hide it when we didn't want to. We've had to worry about where we go and whether or not it's safe to hold hands in public places.
We're both endeavoring to leave the world better than we found it. The prospect of listening to 18 months of pointed vitriol as a voter-turnout mechanism for the Republican party, as a distraction from lack of meaningful legislation from our state lecture...that's pretty hard to swallow.
Minnesota is better than this.
And, not incidentally, ask any California leader how that government-by-constitutional-amendment thing is working out for them. Ask anyone in ANY kind of minority how they feel about the precedent of the majority getting to vote on their civil rights. Seems pretty dangerous to me in both general and very personal terms.
This is a bad thing. I'm truly, deeply disappointed in my state.
Reading through the previous comments, I am humbled by the good will and generosity of some of my fellow Minnesotans. I agree with so many of you.
Legislators need to work through issues that are not up for a vote... budget, taxes, etc. How did marriage definition (one that excludes so many) become something that could even be considered being written into our CONSTITUTION? I guess someone in the crowd had way too much time and money to work with, and decided that spreading hate and discrimination was the way to go. So sad that those our taxes pay salaries for waste their time with such an inane concept. As if they are really hoping that Minnesotans are going to vote to support the ideal that I uphold that any two consenting adults be afforded the legal right to enter into a committed union of love to build a family and a future. If that is the goal, I'd support it all the way. But since many who represent an opposing view are sponsoring and supporting this idea, I see it as a tactic to spread hate, fear and waste a lot of taxpayer money. And isn't THAT one of the hotbutton issues this year, the BUDGET? I'd love for my legislators to justify how much time and effort they've spent on this. THAT would be some good information.
After all the comments have been made about same sex marriage, we should remember that a marriage in America is a legal process whereby two individuals get a license and an accredited pastor/preacher performs a celebration of the signing of this document the marriage is legal and both parties have rights as defined by law.
Depending on the culture of the two people, a marriage ceremony is conducted. These ceremonies range from the simple (like a "kegger") to a lavish, expensive event. With this in mind we should separate the legal process of getting married in the eyes of the law and if the participants want to have a celebratory party, then let the fun begin. The event of celebrating a marriage varies based on the culture of those involved. For whatever reason we mix the two parts together and forget the real reason for the marriage (because some involved get so drunk that they cannot remember even their own name or the names of those getting married.)
There are more pressing problems today than the worry about who marries who, so why not focus on the real problems we have today.
Would really like it if MN could be the state to really get the ball rolling on the gay marriage issue. Let's vote NO people and just let people love who they want to love and raise their kids in happy, healthy, protected homes.
Outlawing non-procreational marriage would seem a sensible solution. A good test for marriage eligibility then would be if you're already pregnant. If not, then just keep trying.
Civil unions would then be a good alternative for anyone who wishes to join in a loving relationship with another without bearing children.
Obviously this solution wouldn't help those who wish to decide for others what their sex lives should consist of. Maybe those people just have too much time on their hands.
Here's an idea, JOBS for everyone. Lets fix up the economy and employ those idle hands in something less distructive to the community.
The hypocrisy of the Republicans never ceases to amaze me. A cornerstone of the Republican platform is less government involvement in our lives. Yet, they strive to regulate the two most private things between people: marriage and abortion. I'm not trying to go down the abortion road here, which would take away from the focus of the gay marriage issue--it's just another example of the hypocrisy.
The proposed amendment protects absolutely no one. It does not create jobs or attract visitors and would be Minnesotans to our state. It does hurt, a lot, being vulnerable, unprotected. I can’t lie and say “please just leave us alone and let us live life as we have it now” because that is not what I want either. I wish it were enough.
It isn’t. I don’t have a gay agenda, I have a love agenda. I have a are-you-kidding-me-I-am-not-a-threat-to-your-marriage-agenda. I believe that by allowing Karen and I equal protection under the law, we can be more beneficial, more productive, more honest members of our community, our society and our world. May it be so.
read the whole thing here http://tinyurl.com/3dtegk7
Tony (#51), I know it's hard to do so, because it will challenge your assumptions, but I urge you to actually read these posts, rather than simply and inaccurately calling them "stump speeches." On the contrary, you will find that most of them tell very personal stories of people and families that will actually be impacted by this amendment, should it pass. Other posts raise very valid points regarding the ability of the majority to limit rights of a minority, the respective roles of church and state under our Constitution, and more. Open you heart and your mind, and you will find that these are your neighbors, not your enemies.
If this amendment should pass I wonder about the international treaty implications. Say a married same sex couple from Europe is here on Minnesota soil.
Then some mishap befalls one of them and they are hospitalized. With this law in place will the spouse be allowed decision making powers? Will treaty law trump state law? Is this same sex marriage issue ultimately a Federal point of law when it involves another Sovereign nations marriage laws?
Thinking out loud.
To make this an actual "debate" I will add a contrary opinion. Marriage was instituted to protect children, and pregnant and nursing mothers. It was never intended to protect the convenience of adults. Human children are different than animals. They need the male to stick around and be part of their upbringing. Because of children, marriage became necessary across the world, regardless of religion, lack of religion or culture.
This vote by the people of Minnesota will have no affect on gays who want to love and commit themselves to their partners. They still can, and probably always will.
But Minnesotans can't be forced to call a gay relationship a marriage, because it isn't.
An old Ole and Lena joke comes to mind on this subject. Ole in search of a wedding night hotel room is asked by the desk clerk if he'd like the bridal. Ole ponders this momentarily and responds "Nah, it's okay, I'll just hold her by the ears 'til she gets used to it."
We're just gonna' have to win this fight, and wait for the conservatives to "get used to it".
Go LIBERALS!
Marriage was a sacrament within the Roman Catholic Church long before it was regulated by civil law in this country. Maybe age for the sacrament of baptism should be regulated by the State as well! What's the difference?
Like baptism, marriage vows should be left to the church and/or individuals involved, leaving the State to regulate civil unions. Anything else crosses the line of separation between church and state.
To echo the words of former candidate for Texas Governor, Richard "Kinky" Friedman: I support gay marriage. I believe gay people have the right to be as happy (or miserable) as the rest of us.
This amendment is a cruel step backward from respect, humanity and equality for ALL. It doesn't help ANYONE. It only HURTS.
~Zack Farley
I would speculate that the GOP cares little if the amendment passes or fails on the ballot. These people realize the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on the side of civil rights. They may have their day for a while but eventually it goes away.
The real trick here is to get their base to the polls to vote on the fiscal amendments. The marriage amendment is just the flash paper of a magician. While watching the flash the other hand is up to no good. Nothing wrong with fighting them on the marriage amendment, but keep your eye(s) on the other hand, that is where the real trickery is occurring.
The votes they truly want are for their fiscal shenanigan ballots.
I feel very strongly that marriage is a social institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.
Please don't label all of us as bigoted conservatives if we don't agree with same sex marriage. I believe that more than anything the semantics of marriage confuse the debate. I am not against the civil rights or legal protections of any individual, rather it is the "tradition" (you don't have to remind me of how marriage has changed over the centuries) of that one man and one woman in which I feel marriage should be defined.
Although I have no supporting data, I find it hard to believe that the entire GOP caucus is bigoted and homophobic. Their monolithic vote on this issue leads me to suspect, like others have mentioned, that the GOP is using this as a diversionary tactic to take attention away from the budget battle that they appear to be losing. The fact that this will drive voter turnout toward their side in 2012 is an added benefit.
I hope that the Minnesota electorate is as repulsed by this cynical tactic as I am and votes accordingly.
A recent Star Tribune Counterpoint by Jeff Davis of the Minnesota Majority got me thinking. He stated, “It is in the state’s interest to channel the unique sexual energy of men and women into marriage so that any children produced by those sexual relationships have the best opportunity to be raised by a married mother and father.” He also explained some basic biology. Only a man and a woman can produce a child. By that logic, homosexuals’ “unique sexual energy” is not going to affect the state at all!
But seriously, there is a valid question here. What is the state’s interest in marriage? I can see insisting that marriage is a consensual arrangement, e.g. minimum age laws or no forced marriages. I can understand protecting the health of future children with laws against relatives marrying. If the state really wanted to join Mr. Davis and insure that children are raised by a married mother and father, the state could outlaw sex out of wedlock and ban divorce. The behavior of our politicians guarantees that will not happen.
However, marriage laws also impact tax code, inheritance laws, child support, insurance coverage, immigration, veteran’s benefits, leasing contracts, pensions, social security, death benefits, next-of-kin status for healthcare visits and decision making, etc. It has been estimated there are over 1,000 legal benefits and obligations in a marriage.
So, some politicians are willing to consider civil unions in lieu of same-sex marriages to get around those issues. However, Mr. Davis worries about problems “ranging from religious liberty to individual expressions of faith.” There is the key – religion - but whose religion? We have no state authorized religion. Some religions presently require that a couple be of the same faith to be married and others prohibit divorce. The state does not support those religious beliefs by law. Other religions are willing to recognize same sex relationships. Whose religious beliefs does the state support?
The real debate is what interests belong to the state and what interests belong to the church? Perhaps the state should grant “civil unions” and leave the term “marriage” up to each religion to protect?
Another very legitimate debate is over how we value the state constitution. Should amendments be proposed every time the legislature and governor cannot agree, or compromise, on proposed legislation? It sounds so democratic to “let the people decide,” but isn’t that why we have elected representatives? Having lived in a state with the chaos of initiative and referendums, letting the people decide was a way for the government to pass the buck. Rather than work on tough issues, weigh various arguments, think through the consequences, and compromise, too many things got passed on to the voters with unforeseen results. With the Legacy Amendment, I hated being stuck with a yes or no question. There was no way to vote maybe, change a percentage, delete a sentence, or add an exception.
I have little faith that our politicians will have the courage to debate the big picture issues, so I pray that on this one issue of marriage they separate from their personal religious beliefs and honestly ask themselves, “What is the state’s interest?”
I am an ELCA pastor; take that as disclosure in weighing my comments.
I do not speak for Christians in general. It's possible I don't speak for Lutherans in general, but I do speak for theologically trained Lutherans.
In Lutheran theology marriage is a civic institution, governed by the state. The state determines who can, and who cannot, get married.
Thus, in Lutheran theology, the question of same gender marriage is a civic discussion: how shall the state treat same sex couples?
As a civic question, it is a question of civil rights. Is it right to deny the benefits awarded by the state to a minority?
In Lutheran theology, marriage is a religious question only within the context of who is to be blessed by the church.
Different church bodies have different answers to that question, and religious arguments for and against same sex marriage belong in the churches, not in the civic arena.
Should Muslim or atheist marriages be recognized by the state? Of course, it is a civil right. Should bi-racial marriages be recognized by the state? Again, of course.
Christian churches retain the right to not bless the marriages of those who do not follow their faith, or simply do not believe.
Should same sex marriage be recognized by the state? Of course, it is a civil right that same sex couples be treated as any other citizen.
Those Christian churches who do not believe in same sex marriages will retain the right to not bless same gender couples.
The state has no compelling interest to withhold this benefit from same sex couples; the argument that children deserve both a mother and a father is disingenuous and does not address the basic civic question.
So this is how the party of small government governs? By interfering in the lives and livelihoods of Minnesota families? It seems they want big government in our bedrooms, doctor's offices and schools, but small government for themselves and their supporters.
This is a distasteful political gimmick on the part of the GOP. It plays on the fears and prejudices of their base and gets them out voting, which is really what this is about. I don't think they even know or care what it does to Minnesota families. It's all about dividing us along cultural lines while they go about dismantling of our state and our communities.
I find the "save the children" argument particularly offensive. If my husband and I were childless, should our right to remain married have been put to a vote? My gay friends and neighbors have fostered and adopted more children than anyone I know. They have devoted their lives and much of their incomes to overcoming legal, cultural, and biological obstacles in order to become parents. I am humbled by the commitment they've made to forming beautiful, vibrant, loving partnerships (marriages) and families. They are more than worthy of the benefits and protections provided by marriage. It's a moral outrage that they even have to ask.
But hey, if we're going down the path of putting basic rights to a vote, I'd like a crack at deciding what rights our newly created "corporate persons" should and shouldn't have. Maybe the people who bailed them out, gay and straight, should have a say on what mergers they are allowed to form.
If the Republicans are really so concerned that all children should be raised by a mother and a father, why haven't they outlawed divorce if the parties have children? Perhaps because that would infringe on the rights of too many of their party members?
Putting the civil rights of citizens up for a vote, and then appealing to bigotry to make sure they are denied those rights, is the lowest form of political cynicism.
...
...
...
EQUALITY UNDER LAW
...
...
How backwards is this. Gay marriage proponents claim a "basic right" where there is none. They they claim we don't have the "right" to vote on something that is defined in the constitution as a right. Democrats cry against democracy because they're afraid of the will of the people. Amazing.
Mr. Jordan, you are in a dire need of a civics lesson. We live in a republic, not a democracy.
I am totally in favor of amending the state constitution to ban all forms of marriage or civil unions, whether heterosexual and homosexual. It's discrimination against the single and the unweddable you know.
Mark (#69), thank you for expressing you position with such clarity. I wish that proponents of the amendment would recognize that imposing a particular religion's definition of marriage on civil society not only harms the civil rights of many, but undermines the freedom of religions, including Christian denominations, to define marriage within the church according to their own beliefs. That is why, rather than supporting religion, this amendment has the effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, religious freedom. Those who wish to practice their religion without state interference should look long and hard at this amendment before they vote "yes".
We have a long, tragic history in the United States of denying rights to a succession of minorities. Honestly, in 2011, with awareness of how misguided we were in decades and centuries past, how can it seem ok to isolate a particular group for different treatment? Regardless of what you think about the meaning of marriage, isn't it clear that we have gone wrong when we start having to identify a certain group of Americans so that we can single them out and treat them differently?
Our founding fathers (sexist, slave-owning bastards that they were) saw the wisdom in protecting ourselves from the tyranny of the majority. And today, it remains just as wise to state that this is not an issue of electoral politics, nor is it a question of popular vote. This is a question of civil rights and common decency.
Marriage -- even same sex marriage -- might not be for me. But I have no right to deny it to others. Nor does the State of Minnesota, regardless of whether a majority of voters approves it in a popular vote. I don't want to live in a state where the majority of voters, just because they're the majority, get to single people out for official, state-sanctioned discrimination. It is not about what the majority prefers. It's about "liberty, and justice for all."
Karl (#66) says "[p]lease don't label all of us as bigoted conservatives if we don't agree with same sex marriage."
Sorry, Karl, but if you think that the law should discriminate against certain people because of their sexual orientation, that makes you a bigot. The fact that you believe "tradition" justifies your position doesn't change that fact. If you can read through all these heartfelt comments and still think that discrimination against gay and lesbian couples is acceptable, that's your right, but you can't have it both ways and claim that you aren't a bigot. Own up to it, Karl.
For my 6 1/2 year old son this has been a new experience. He is a kid who has always had 2 moms and he has never encountered homophobia in any big way before. He does not know there are organizations and people who devote their time to trying to be unfair to our families. So, when trying to explain to him what was going on at the capital and give him the information he needed, I was struck by his absolute disbelief that people would behave this way. He does not meet meanness in elected officials with a shrug and a feeling that this behavior is inevitable the way so many adults do. He saw the amendment for the bullying it is - no different than if some other random group was being picked on.
My wife and encouraged him to do something productive with his dismay by writing a letter to Senator Limmer, who was introducing the amendment at the time we were telling him about it. This is what he wrote:
"I am Ian. I am 6. I have 2 moms. I care about other people who have 2 moms or 2 dads, not just about myself. I care about other people! And the communities!
It’s not fair to other people. If I voted on it, I would say no. What I’m saying is people who have 2 moms or dads will be mad and also sad.
The Constitution says that everyone is equal. You are not being equal. You should know it’s unfair. You are not being nice to us or to other families with two dads or two moms. It would not be fair.
We depend on other people. If we aren’t being a community it’s not going to be a country. It’s going to be a de-country. Being a community means help other people. If you aren’t being nice to people, they would be mad.
My family depends on each other because we help each other. And we could not be fair if we were not a community that would help people. Like, someday things will be nicer and there won’t be war. Jews hope that someday there won’t be wars.
Help people who are homeless, who don’t have money, who don’t have shelter, who don’t have food. Who are standing on the street, looking for people to help them.
Ian"
While I am so proud of his reaction, I am also so sad that he had to be exposed to bigotry at such a young age.
I Personally am not Gay or Lesbian however I feel that 2 "People" who are involved and are committed to each other should be afforded the ability to make their union legal and be afforded all the protection and benefits that any other married couple enjoy. How can our government justify the millions of $$ that they have spent on behalf of the religious zealots and close minded individuals. To allow same sex marriage will improve the general health and wealth of these couples. This will also have a desired affect on the economy, people with more money saved in tax's and medical cost will now be able to add income back into their communities and generate revenue , jobs ..... stop spending the money that could be put to use elsewhere, elderly medication supplementation, education, housing and the general fund. lets concentrate on what truly is important.