Nonprofit, nonpartisan journalism. Supported by readers.


Whatever happened to the gay-marriage backlash?

MinnPost photo by Terry Gydesen
Capitol rally attendees celebrate in the rotunda following the passage of same-sex marriage in the Minnesota Senate.

Democratic Rep. Joe Radinovich was marching in the city of Aitkin’s famed Fish House Parade last November when he saw his Republican opponent’s truck roll past. Painted on the side of the vehicle: “Marriage = one man + one woman.”

Radinovich wasn’t terribly surprised. In May 2013, he had become the poster-child for tough calls when he voted to legalize gay marriage in Minnesota. That vote came despite the fact that, just seven months earlier, more than 60 percent of voters in his rural district cast ballots in favor of the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Republicans in the area tried to recall Radinovich from office over his vote, but the effort was struck down by the state Supreme Court.

Now, with primary season in full swing, incumbents like Radinovich — legislators who either bucked the views of the majority of their constituents or their own party to make Minnesota the 12th state to legalize gay marriage — are preparing to face voters for the first time since they cast their ballot on the issue.

Yet something unexpected has happened in the year since the issue became one of the state’s most high-profile and hotly debated topics: Outside of a handful of districts across the state, gay marriage has quietly faded into the background this campaign season. Statewide GOP candidates for governor and the U.S. Senate are talking about the economy, not social issues. Even DFL incumbents in rural districts say the issue doesn’t come up as much as they thought it would.

“I don’t think the issue is totally dead, but people have seen the sky isn’t falling,” said DFL Rep. Tim Faust, whose Hinckley-area district, like Radinovich’s, voted in favor of the ban while he voted in favor of legalization. “Massive amounts of people have not gotten divorced; it hasn’t been the disaster that was predicted by the other side. Things are changing across the country. With the courts overturning bans and Wisconsin next door legalizing gay marriage, people don’t look at the issue anymore and say, ‘I blame Tim Faust for this.’”

All quiet on the rural front

In all, 15 incumbent DFL House members voted in favor of gay marriage even though their districts voted for the ban. Radinovich is one of them, and he is facing an uphill battle for re-election. He secured his victory two years ago by only 323 votes, and House District 10B, which covers parts of Aitkin and Crow Wing counties in the north central part of the state, is dotted with small towns. In 2012, 54 percent of voters in his district favored Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over President Barack Obama.

Rep. Joe Radinovich
Rep. Joe Radinovich

But over the Fourth of July holiday weekend, Radinovich knocked on more than 150 doors  throughout his district. Just two people brought up his vote on gay marriage. “It’s come up a few times in my town halls, but I’ve found when I have an opportunity to speak to people about it, people may not agree with me, but they take me at my word that it’s something I thought about seriously and I did what I thought was right,” he said.

His Republican opponent Dale Lueck has also been knocking on doors. And he says he’s heard about gay marriage plenty, particularly from church-going voters over the age of 55. “I’ve seen people shaking fists and pointing figures and getting mad at the doorstep,” he said. “It happens as soon as they hear his name.”

Another DFL Representative, Roger Erickson, is just finishing his first term representing a district that covers the Northwest Angle, the northernmost part of Minnesota, and so far he’s also heard little about gay marriage on the campaign trail, despite the fact that his district supported the ban by 60 percent. There have been no ads pointing out his vote, and his opponent hasn’t made it a focus of the campaign. 

I’m not going to bring it up, I know that,” Erickson said. “Everybody knows my vote. It’s out there. I look across the country and constitutional laws are being taken down one after another. I expect more of that to happen and it’s just kind of a sign of the times, and people know that.”

GOP faces internal battles

Not surprisingly, the legislators facing the most contentious fights over the issue tend to be Republicans who voted in favor of legalization. Sen. Branden Petersen, who co-sponsored the gay marriage bill in the upper chamber, faced immediate backlash from his district and from national conservative groups. The National Organization for Marriage, a group that supports traditional marriage policies and politicians across the country, immediately promised to spend $500,000 against Petersen and any other Republican who voted in favor of legalization. As a senator, though, Petersen won’t be on the ballot until 2016. 

GOP Rep. Jenifer Loon is facing a primary challenger in her Eden Prairie district after she failed to win her local party’s endorsement this spring. Her opponent, Republican activist Sheila Kihne, argues that Loon isn’t conservative enough for her suburban district, despite the fact that only 40 percent of voters in the district favored the gay marriage ban in 2012. 

Rep. David FitzSimmons
Rep. David FitzSimmons

Republican Rep. David FitzSimmons, whose Wright County district is one of the most conservative in the state, became an unlikely player in the gay marriage debate in the last year when he offered a successful amendment to add the word “civil” in front of marriage. He then voted for the bill. As a result, he quickly earned himself a challenger, Dayton City Council member Eric Lucero, who hasn’t been coy about the fact that he was running because of his opposition to gay marriage.  “The family unit is the foundation of society and MUST be protected,” Lucero says on his website.

FitzSimmons opted to step down and retire rather than face Lucero in an endorsing or primary contest. “The biggest thing I have yet to see is what is the intent of candidates that are focusing in on this as an issue,” FitzSimmons said. “What do they want to about it or what are they proposing to change? What are people’s motivations? Is it that they want to see something different happen or is it seen as some kind of a punishment?”

Overall, however, most Republican candidates around Minnesota are focusing their message on the economy and the state’s troubled health insurance exchange this cycle, having lost control of both chambers of the Legislature the year the marriage amendment was on the ballot. “Do individual legislators’ votes always play a factor in an incumbents’ race? Of course they do, but we are going to be talking about those other issues that are facing Minnesotans at their kitchen table,” Republican Party of Minnesota Chair Keith Downey said. 

Galvanizing the base

Even if many voters are no longer passionate about it, the issue of gay marriage is still reshaping the state’s politics. What initially started as  an effort to alter the state’s Constitution to ban gay marriage turned into the largest grassroots campaign in the state’s history — for the other side. The anti-amendment campaign, Minnesotans United for all Families, was formed shortly after the 2011 vote in the Legislature that put the question on the ballot. The group rallied tends of thousands volunteers and raised more than $11 million dollars, and their efforts managed to help bring out metro-area voters in droves to cast ballots against the amendment, making Minnesota the first of 30 states to reject such a ban.

Monica Meyer
Monica Meyer

“If you look at how high the voter turnout was and the fact that people voted just on the amendment and skipped — in some cases — even the presidential race, it was just amazing,” said Monica Meyer, executive director of OutFront Minnesota, a pro-LGBT political advocacy organization. 

Two years after defeating the amendment, Democrats want to tap into that organizing force to help drag voters to the polls in a non-presidential election year, a time when many tend to stay home. Meyer is working on a get out the vote strategy that taps into the work Minnesotans United did in 2012 — visiting college campuses across the state, canvasing and knocking on doors.

After the Legislature voted to legalize marriage, Minnesotans United quickly formed a political action committee to defend the pro-gay marriage legislators — 15 targeted in all — who could be vulnerable because of their vote. The group has directed campaign donations from around the nation directly into the coffers of candidates like Radinovich, while raising their own money for get out of the vote efforts. DFL Gov. Mark Dayton also raised money at Minnesotans United’s recent Third Annual Pride reception.

As of the last campaign finance reporting period, the group had raised about $71,000. The largest sum of money came from Tim Gill, a Colorado-Based computer software entrepreneur who has been deeply involved in the issue in Minnesota. Most of their money so far has been spent on consulting and acquiring voter databases.

DFL Party Chair Ken Martin
DFL Party Chair Ken Martin

There’s still fear that gay marriage supporters will stay home now that the battle has been won. But DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin said Republican control of the House or the governor’s office could lead to future tweaks in the gay marriage law to add more religious exceptions. 

“There will be a significant push to make sure that supporters of marriage equality show up to the polls. It could be an issue in a couple of seats in greater Minnesota, but even there we’ve seen this issue has evolved so rapidly over the last six months,” DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin said. “People realized the day after it became legal that the state is no different than the day before. It didn’t impact their lives at all.”

Comments (68)

  1. Submitted by Jackson Cage on 07/14/2014 - 09:46 am.

    Given the views of SCOTUS

    I’m more worried that corporations will be given the right to marry. What a perfect way to avoid the usual anti-trust kerfuffle.

  2. Submitted by Beth-Ann Bloom on 07/14/2014 - 01:39 pm.

    Just another threat

    “The backlash” was a threat used to intimidate rural legislators and others in swing districts from voting their consciences. Luckily Minnesotans are aware that the freedom to marry resulted in no unfortunate consequences making the “backlash” just another lie told by opponents.

    • Submitted by stan James on 08/04/2014 - 08:42 pm.

      IMO whats happening is that people are getting comfortable with the idea of SSex marriage and realize it doesnt hurt them but it adds to teh people supporting the institution of marriage, eg 2 loving people

      The big deal is to get people to realize that churches have the absolute right re who even steps on thier propterty , let alone who they do ceremonies for.

      there are btw about 20 denominations where some or all of their churches do SSM

      Briefly – United churches of christ, Episcopal, Presbyterian USA, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, even some menonite chruches, Jewish reform and conservative.

      Sure there are some dead enders who will never change their opinion, almost all are older folks

  3. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/14/2014 - 02:13 pm.

    Little early to start crowing, isn’t it? Plenty of DFL legislators in swing districts voted their conscience, instead of the wishes of their constituents. Let’s wait until after the election, shall we?

    • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/14/2014 - 03:06 pm.


      My thoughts exactly.

      • Submitted by jason myron on 07/14/2014 - 05:02 pm.

        Will there still be

        hypocrite busybodies pouting that someone is free to marry the person they love without their approval? Sure, but they find themselves on an ever shrinking island, increasingly marginalized by a progressive society. I’m sure that they still fume about whites and blacks marrying too.

        • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/14/2014 - 11:41 pm.

          apples and oranges

          I am certain you are correct that there are still folks that dislike mixed race relationships. However that situation will disappear as more people have mixed race children. At some point no one will be able to tell.

          On the other hand things like resistance to LGBT life styles, abortion and other issues will be with us forever. That is because no matter how many years pass, the same exact difference will be present.

          • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 08:52 am.

            You’ve correctly framed the difference between behavioral choice and innate characteristic.

          • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 07/15/2014 - 10:45 am.

            Apples and apples

            All one needs to do is look at the polling to see just how wrong you are. And the most telling part of the polling is how the support for gay marriage increases the younger someone is. As with interracial marriage, some people past a certain age will be unable to let go of their bigotry. But their numbers will dwindle and they will be looked upon with the same contempt as the racists are now.

            • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/15/2014 - 02:59 pm.

              Vote choice

              I am less interested in LGBT marriage and more interested in the concept of representative government. What should citizens do when their politician votes against their will.

              This is an excellent case study. These folks voted to make something illegal forever. Then their politician voted immediately to make it legal.

              Very interesting…

              • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 07/15/2014 - 11:31 pm.


                It will be the same as race – the people who voted not to discriminate in the face of electoral peril will be recognized for their courage, while those who supported bigotry will be remembered for their cowardice. The children and grandchildren of gay marriage opponents will someday be ashamed of their relatives if they aren’t already.

                Also, voting to restrict the rights of a minority group is beyond the scope of representative democracy. That’s why courts keep striking the laws down. Discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is un-American.

          • Submitted by David Wintheiser on 07/15/2014 - 11:13 am.

            Not exactly

            Someone in the 1930s might have noted, with just as much sincerity as you do, that “Prohibition may have been repealed, but the Temperance Movement will be with us forever.” Then look around and see how many places are selling alcohol these days and how much more alcohol they want to sell. Sure there’s still a nominal resistance, but nothing approaching the levels of Gilded Age-era Temperance warriors.

            Moral consensus changes very much like Max Planck noted that scientific consensus changes: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

            In 50 years, hardly anybody is going to have any issues with LGBT lifestyles — because there will be even stranger things out there for people to be concerned about. (Google ‘transhumanism’ if you want an early sample.)

          • Submitted by jason myron on 07/15/2014 - 12:06 pm.

            Just the fact

            that you equate gay marriage and abortion illustrates how out of touch you are with contemporary society.

            • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/15/2014 - 02:41 pm.


              Both have been encouraged by the Left.
              Both are a choice.
              Neither makes natural sense. (Ie perpetuate mankind)

              • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/15/2014 - 02:58 pm.

                Here’s why.

                1. Abortion is not ‘encouraged.’ Safe access to a legal medical procedure is.
                2. Sexual orientation is not a choice. It simply is.
                3. You are not the arbiter of ‘natural’ sense. Nature doesn’t care about your ideology. Or should two individuals who want to marry but NOT have children be denied that right?

                • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/15/2014 - 06:56 pm.

                  The Point is

                  The plumbing isn’t going to change no matter how much time passes.
                  Neither will the religious views of some groups.
                  This debate will be around for a long time as social values fluctuate.

                  • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 07/15/2014 - 11:38 pm.

                    Yes and no

                    There will always be a group of small-minded people who can’t let go of their bigotry, just like those who never got over the 60’s civil rights changes, but there won’t be a real debate. Young people don’t care, and when they see how little impact gay marriage has on their lives, older people won’t either.

                  • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/21/2014 - 09:09 am.

                    On “plumbing”

                    Yes, the “plumbing” does change over time. A person’s lifetime, to be exact. You’ve heard of things like prolapse, hysterectomies, prostate cancer, menopause, etc etc etc? All conditions that occur in the lifespan of an individual to change their “plumbing.”

                    Any important ‘debate’ on gay marriage will seem like ancient history in 10 years time. Probably less.

              • Submitted by Pat Berg on 07/15/2014 - 03:01 pm.

                That old meme again?

                It may be true that *marriage* is a choice. However, the specific person that one falls in love with and may wish to marry is not.

                Please don’t trot out that tired old “Being gay is a lifestyle choice” meme again.

                • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/15/2014 - 06:52 pm.

                  Gay Gene

                  I think last time we found 1 study that indicated a possible genetic predisposition in men. And nothing for women. Can we do better this time?

                  • Submitted by Dan Hintz on 07/15/2014 - 11:44 pm.


                    Can you choose to be gay, John? I couldn’t. Just like my gay and lesbian friends can’t choose to be straight. Does it matter why they are wired that way? Do we need to find the gene for why you are straight?

                  • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/16/2014 - 09:06 am.

                    What difference does it make?

                    Why is it any of the government’s concern that a person is gay or straight? Why, especially, would it matter to anyone who would espouse a “small government ideology?”

                    Falling back on the old “will of the people” meme isn’t going to work here.

                  • Submitted by jason myron on 07/16/2014 - 11:17 am.

                    No one has to “do better”

                    Your insistence and/or acceptance of a genetic disposition is irrelevant and unnecessary. What needs improvement is the ability of some people to keep their nose out of others personal lives.

                  • Submitted by stan James on 08/04/2014 - 08:48 pm.

                    genetic predisposition

                    N ope – I’v e been to iceland (gays marry 49 to 0 per their parliament, and Denmark – 85-22

                    There is no closet in these nations and 8 – 9% of both male and female admit they are gay

                    BTW in these nations there is almost no crime, no slums etc Very well educated, the govt pays almost all tuition for college up through graduate level.

                    Its generally the well educated people that support SSM and the poorly educated people oppose it

              • Submitted by Todd Hintz on 07/17/2014 - 07:47 am.


                Mankind has already been perpetuated enough. With seven billion people on the planet and the numbers quickly rising to nine billion, we need to instead concentrate sex education, family planning, easy access to contraceptives, and gender equality. All of those items have shown to not only reduce overpopulation, but abortions too.

                As far as homosexuality goes, it is not a choice. If it were you could go down to the nearest gay bar and choose to be gay for the next month as an experiment. I challenge you to do so.

                • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/17/2014 - 12:56 pm.


                  Should we all be allowed to behave in the way we are predisposed to?
                  Whether that predisposition comes from genetics or environment.
                  My other comments got mediated so I posted them on G2A.

                  • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/17/2014 - 02:15 pm.

                    Q: “Should we all be allowed to behave in the way we are predisposed to?”

                    A: As long as your behavior does not infringe upon someone else’s rights, then yes.

                  • Submitted by Pat Berg on 07/17/2014 - 02:18 pm.

                    Why not?

                    “Should we all be allowed to behave in the way we are predisposed to?”

                    As long as we’re not hurting anyone, why not?

                  • Submitted by jason myron on 07/17/2014 - 04:57 pm.

                    Comments posted on your blog, huh?

                    Good move …no one will think to look for them over there.

                    • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/17/2014 - 09:36 pm.

                      Going Well

                      We are having a nice discussion.
                      No insults, just discussions and debate.

                  • Submitted by E Gamauf on 08/26/2014 - 04:12 pm.

                    Predisposed to — what?

                    Predisposed to driving Edsels forever?
                    John, who is stopping you from behaving how you want, claim to be predisposed to act?

                    Surely, you don’t see yourself as an oppressed victim in this.

              • Submitted by Logan Foreman on 07/19/2014 - 10:18 pm.

                Not enough people on the planet

                For you yet? Remember also the right in this country chooses and loves to start worthless wars which make zero sense.

      • Submitted by Tom Anderson on 07/14/2014 - 06:35 pm.

        Pretty much mine too.

        I’ve also noticed that my Representative is touting many accomplishments from the past two years, but supporting gay marriage isn’t mentioned at all. Nor the raised taxes on businesses that had to be repealed or the anti-bullying law.

      • Submitted by Logan Foreman on 07/14/2014 - 10:00 pm.



    • Submitted by Kurt Nelson on 07/14/2014 - 06:05 pm.


      Do you really think that the state is going to reverse itself on this issue – if so, you truly are deluded (and I mean that in the pejorative). I guess now that 50 states allow for gay marriage (that’s all of them right) could mean that Minnesota will do a oops, didn’t mean it – I mean it could happen right.
      The bigots and homophobes lost – get over it or move, oh wait, where would you go to escape the insidious gay agenda.

      • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 08:32 am.

        ” I guess now that 50 states allow for gay marriage…”

        I guess, if you mean no one will stop you if you want to have a private event, that’s “allowing for it”, but the majority of states still won’t recognize it as anything other than that.

        “The bigots and homophobes” that believed the mendacious DFL representatives who assured them that a constitutional amendment was piling on an already iron clad law didn’t lose, they were duped, bamboozled, flim-flammed.

        It didn’t go without notice that the very first order of business for the newly installed DFL majority was pulling the rug out from under the people that gave them that majority. *That* is why I believe many, if not most outstate DFL incumbents are headed for the private sector. The fact that many Metro area leftists are still out there insulting them with childish name calling is just a fuel additive.

        But we’ll see.

  4. Submitted by Eric Snyder on 07/15/2014 - 10:05 am.

    Many still do actually

    According to this historical series of polls by Gallup, in 2011 almost a quarter of conservatives STILL had a problem with interracial marriage:

    Opposition from liberals was 5%.

    The debate over same sex marriage, whose social acceptance certainly lags that of interracial marriage, is nevertheless all but over. Those born after 1981 favor same sex marriage at 68%:

    That same cohort, the so-called Millenials, is perhaps the least religious in American history, with a quarter claiming no religion, and fewer than 10% claiming religion is important in their lives:

    Arguments based on variations of “The Bible says it’s wrong,” are, thank goodness, increasingly falling on indifferent ears.

    What matters this fall electorally is immaterial. Do conservatives think they have even the slightest chance of reversing same sex marriage in the state? The demographic tidal wave of liberalism coming up will bury in history the remaining opposition to same sex marriage.

  5. Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 06:36 am.

    I’m sure most Minnpost readers would rather forget the ugly truth, but SSM was foisted upon the state through the successful use of bait and switch. People were sold the idea an amendment was overkill, was “piling on”, because there was already a law on the books protecting the sanctity of marriage. Of course, that rug was pulled out from under in short order.

    The title should really be “What happened to the Lying Leftist Backlash”. We shall see.

    • Submitted by jason myron on 07/15/2014 - 11:51 am.

      Funny stuff…

      so those crafty “leftists” fooled the homophobes into thinking that their original attempt to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution wasn’t really needed….now they’re going to pout that their intolerance will have to be kept to message boards, letters to the editor, talk radio and yelling back at their TV…tragic.

      • Submitted by Eric Snyder on 07/15/2014 - 01:36 pm.

        Radical metros

        Ah yes, those far left metro Democrats and their metro values of far leftism in the metro. Who knew the metro-Maoists/Lutheran ministers had this much power in the state?

        Bakk voted his conscience, and it would be a pity if out of spite and irrational hostility to gays and lesbians he was voted out.

      • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 01:53 pm.

        Translated through the frustration belied by your childish name calling, I’d say you have it right in the first part, but I think that rather than “pouting”, greater Minnesota will make it’s disapproval felt at the ballot box, which will be tragic enough for the DFL.

        We’ll see soon enough.

        • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/15/2014 - 02:26 pm.


          Ah, yes, because Thomas Swift would never resort to such things. Name-calling is exclusively the domain of the mendacious, feckless, lying-leftist collectivist, unionist, judicial activist and progressivist sheeple-class, drumming the beat of pro-gay, anti-christian, pro-marxist sand-is-food ideology.

          I’ve got a kettle you should meet.

        • Submitted by Tim Walker on 07/17/2014 - 08:49 am.

          And your track record on predicting election outcomes …

          … is really, really good, right?

          Anyway, why doesn’t President Romney just push a bill through the GOP-controlled Congress that outlaws gay marriage, eh?

          Is he afraid of backlash, too?

    • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 07/17/2014 - 01:13 pm.

      Not a bait and switch

      Although I do agree that the old law was not going to stand forever, it would well have been possible that you would have died in a state that didn’t allow gay marriage had your party not decided to push for a constitutional amendment, Tom.

      However, the thought that our legislature had nothing better to do than embed such a law into stone, against the general culture of the state (including the many businesses that rely on our open culture), ticked off enough people who would have otherwise not thought about it. The rubber band effect nearly twisted off the heads off the right wing pushers of discrimination. As a result, there were a handful of Republicans that knew that the social conservatives were marching right off a cliff, and voted their conscience rather than following the lemmings. It would be a shame if they were voted out by their constituents for THAT.

      We saw a similar effect on the push to discriminate at the polls. As a result, we now have no excuse absentee voting.

      Unintended consequences are a bugger, aren’t they?

  6. Submitted by Eric Snyder on 07/15/2014 - 09:42 am.

    There is another interpretation

    It observes that the public was disturbed enough by the GOP’s overreach with the marriage amendment such that it provoked its own backlash: The largest activist mobilization in state history, the sweeping from office of many Republicans (the voter ID amendment didn’t help their case either) and widespread pressure on state legislators to end legal discrimination against same sex couples.

    • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 10:23 am.

      “widespread pressure on state legislators to end legal discrimination against same sex couples.”

      You seem to forget that while 1.5 million Minnesotans voted against the marriage amendment, 1.4 million voted yes. And let us not forget, a blank, or “no vote” was counted as a “no”.

      The pressure was brought entirely by far left, metro Democrats. Bakk didn’t want any part of it. We’ll see shortly whether he had the pulse of his constituency, or not.

  7. Submitted by Joel Fischer on 07/15/2014 - 09:43 am.

    It’s always fun to listen to the bigots cry and moan about no longer being allowed to discriminate against their fellow Americans by enshrining their religious beliefs into state and federal law.

    It takes a lot of nerve to proudly proclaim one’s ignorance. For that, I salute you. It simply makes it easier to point out the lunacy of a position that screams, “Constitution, be damned!”

  8. Submitted by Bill Gleason on 07/15/2014 - 12:45 pm.

    Mr Swift’s comment that the majority of states don’t

    recognize same sex marriage is basically irrelevant.

    In state after state – most recently Colorado and Utah – federal judges are ruling that the earlier decision by the Supreme Court, to strike down a part of the Defense of Marriage act, effectively means that states cannot deprive citizens of the right to marry, simply because the partners they choose are of the same sex.

    The reason there is so little backlash on this matter is that most people, unlike Mr. Swift, realize the inevitability and the rightness of this development.

    • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/15/2014 - 01:21 pm.

      Well of course it’s irrelevant, Bill; it disrupts the talking points. But it corrects a flawed comment, which was it’s only purpose.

      There’s no denying that leftist judges have used their authority to move the gay agenda forward, but that too will be irrelevant once it gets to the SCOTUS.

      The Roberts court will not stand for the lower courts clearly violating the 10th amendment, to say nothing of the will of the people as expressed, overwhelmingly, at the ballot box.

      • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/15/2014 - 02:00 pm.

        The contradictions in this single post boggle the mind, but complaining about activist judges while praising a rampantly ideologically conservative SCOTUS kind of takes the cake.

        • Submitted by jason myron on 07/15/2014 - 03:13 pm.


          my hypocrisy meter red lined when he complained of “childish name calling,” but after this post, it just blew up.

      • Submitted by Jacob Grippen on 07/15/2014 - 02:29 pm.

        It was this US Supreme Court that made the decisions that have allowed lower courts to rule the way they are ruling.

      • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 07/15/2014 - 03:14 pm.

        You’ve misunderstood where the Roberts court stands

        on gay marriage, sir.

        ” in striking down a key part of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the court declared that gay couples married in states where it is legal must receive the same federal health, tax, Social Security and other benefits that heterosexual couples receive.”

        “In turning away a case involving California’s prohibition of same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8, the justices left in place a lower court’s decision that the ban is unconstitutional. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said he would order same-sex marriages to resume as quickly as possible.”

        Supreme Court strikes down key part of Defense of Marriage Act

        Let me repeat that for emphasis: “the justices left in place a lower court’s decision that the ban is unconstitutional”

        • Submitted by Thomas Swift on 07/16/2014 - 07:48 am.

          The SCOTUS invalidated DOMA because it violated the 10th amendment. It is the same reason they will smack down these lower court decisions.

          Let me repeat for emphasis; the Roberts court doesn’t condone federal meddling in issues that are clearly in the state’s purview.

          • Submitted by Bill Gleason on 07/16/2014 - 09:19 am.

            You are a little confused Mr. Swift

            The DOMA decision was separate from the Court’s refusal to interfere in a lower court decision that California’s ban on gay marriage (Proposition 8) was unconstitutional.

            Check the link.

  9. Submitted by Jeff Alerex on 07/18/2014 - 07:23 pm.

    Careful What You Wish For

    About 50% of marriages end in divorce. How many of those that stay married are unhappy or downright miserable?


    • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/21/2014 - 12:46 pm.

      Excellent point

      Here is how I said it on G2A.

      “In ways I agree with both of you and as I have said many times before, I am okay with gay marriage. If another group of people want the joys, financial benefits, financial costs and pains that come with that legally binding contract… More power to them.”

    • Submitted by Jonathan Ecklund on 07/21/2014 - 01:55 pm.

      I would be willing to bet that same-sex couples will have much lower rates of divorce, at least for the next 15-25 years.

      For a long time in this country, you’ve had to be VERY comfortable and honest with yourself about who you are to come out and live out in society, which means you’ve probably already done a lot of soul-searching and spent much time determining what is really important in your life, and are also very up-front and honest with your partner because of it. In my experience, the couples who endure are the couples who are the most honest with each other, both before and AFTER they marry.

      I am very sorry if you are miserable in your marriage. There should be no shame in needing a divorce, if that’s the case. No-one should stay in an unhappy marriage unwillingly.

    • Submitted by RB Holbrook on 07/21/2014 - 02:58 pm.

      Is that supposed to be funny?

      The question of who is allowed to marry whom touches on a fundamental human right. I don’t see it as an occasion for bitter wisecracks.

      • Submitted by John Appelen on 07/21/2014 - 05:17 pm.

        I thought it was Funny

        I don’t think it is bitter. It is just very factual. Divorces and angst are part of Marriage in the USA. Just as are joy, love, etc.

        Speaking of fundamental human rights.
        Should a brother and sister be able to marry if they are in love then?

        • Submitted by Rachel Kahler on 07/23/2014 - 02:22 pm.

          Good question

          As much as it skeeves me out, the main problem with sibling marriages is incest/biological children. If biological children aren’t a possibility (and both parties are consenting adults), then it’s possible that such an arrangement could be legally acceptable. There was a time and a place where such arrangements weren’t uncommon amongst people who had property and titles to protect. And, since legal marriage is truly about property (and not biological children or sex, as some would argue), then a legal contract between siblings that protects property in the same way as marriage seems to be reasonable. That being said, I don’t think that it’s a great idea since it would otherwise complicate property that would otherwise be attached (e.g., via inheritance) to biological children. Also, tax and other financial code would need to be revamped to prevent undue advantage of a marriage like this. That is, you shouldn’t get the advantage of a property protection marriage (e.g., between siblings) and a child producing marriage (e.g., between unrelated individuals). But, perhaps, you should be able to give the same property protections to an adopted child in a property protection marriage as in a child producing marriage. The same holds true of plural marriages, and the same complications (as well as others) are a good reason to avoid them.

          The thing is, gay marriage isn’t complicated as compared to sibling or plural marriages, and no more complicated than “traditional” marriage (as defined by US tradition, if you ignore history and Mormonism). It doesn’t have any effects on heterosexual marriages, and provides property and legal rights to spouses and children of such unions without any undue advantages. The slippery slope simply isn’t there.

Leave a Reply