Connect with us

The Six Reasons Gays Cannot Have Marriage

Published

on

Minnesota For Marriage has been producing these weekly “marriage minutes” to totally spin their reasons why marriage must be reserved for “one man-one woman” only unions. This week, Kalley Yanta explains “How would redefining marriage impact your own marriage?” and gives the six simple (and stupid and bigoted and ignorant and false) reasons gay, lesbian, and bisexual couples cannot be allowed to have marriage:

 1. Sex between a man and a woman has the unique capacity to create a child.
2. Pregnancy can occur regardless of whether the couple intends to create a child
or not.
3. The new human life that is created is vulnerable and needs the protection of
adults.
4. The man and woman who created the new life typically have the most interest in
and are best at protecting and guiding that child.
5. They agree that they will both be legally responsible for any child conceived during
the marriage.
6. Couples must work for decades together to raise a child from conception to
adulthood.

See how easy and simple (and stupid and bigoted and ignorant and false) that is?

Here’s the video and the text from the weekly email newsletter:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=8dypMiXfWbY%3Fversion%3D3%26hl%3Den_US

The Question Is Not Whether A Definition Of Marriage Will Be Written Into The Minnesota Constitution. The Question Is Who Will Write It?
Which raises the question: “How would redefining marriage impact your own marriage?” which was the topic of last week’s Minnesota Marriage Minute.

CLICK HERE to view the video and share it with your family, friends and neighbors.

Marriage Is On Trial In Minnesota

As you may know, several bills have been introduced in the Minnesota legislature to redefine marriage. To read these bills click on HF 1710 and HF 1746.

More troubling, however, is a current lawsuit by three same-sex couples in Hennepin County District Court demanding that they be issued marriage licenses. The trial court properly dismissed the case, correctly ruling that the constitutionality of Minnesota’s definition of marriage had been decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court in Baker v. Nelson. The couples appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, and the three judges on that court overruled the decision and sent the case back for a trial.  Effectively putting marriage on trial in Minnesota.

Why Do We Have A Legal Definition Of Marriage?

Minnesota has a legal definition of marriage in recognition of society’s need to protect and promote the well being of children. Marriage as a social institution is found in all cultures and throughout history. It always provides recognition to a sexual union of a man and a woman directed toward the procreation and nurturing of children. Law is one way of stabilizing and protecting that social institution. The reasoning goes something like this:

1. Sex between a man and a woman has the unique capacity to create a child.
2. Pregnancy can occur regardless of whether the couple intends to create a child
or not.
3. The new human life that is created is vulnerable and needs the protection of
adults.
4. The man and woman who created the new life typically have the most interest in
and are best at protecting and guiding that child.
5. They agree that they will both be legally responsible for any child conceived during
the marriage.
6. Couples must work for decades together to raise a child from conception to
adulthood.

The short version of the argument can be summarized as: 1) Societies need babies; 2) Sex makes babies; 3) Babies need a mom and a dad; 4) Marriage is society’s attempt to insure babies have both a mom and a dad.

Please Make A Contribution!

Someone will define marriage. Please help us make sure it is decided by the people – not activist judges – by making a generous financial donation today. You can make a secure online contribution here.

Spread The Word

Redefining marriage will impact everyone. Please forward this email to all the people in your address book including friends, family, church members, neighbors and colleagues and ask them to sign up as a supporter of our campaign. It’s the quickest and easiest way to spread the word about the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment and ask them to get involved.

Remember To Check Out Our Website

Check out our website at www.MinnesotaForMarriage.com. You can find some great information – like the Minnesota Marriage Minute – to share with your friends and family about our campaign. While on the website, make sure to connect with us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, see our photo stream on Flickr, watch the Marriage Minute on YouTube and spread the word to your friends, and sign up to host a House Party to help recruit others to join the campaign.

Redefining marriage will impact all of Minnesota society because it will change the definition of marriage for everyone. Legal experts on both sides of the issue warn of an “immense volume of litigation” against individuals, small businesses and religious organizations. Please, don’t forget to spread the word about our efforts to your friends and make a generous donation to support our campaign!

May God richly bless you and your family.

Sincerely,

John Helmberger
Chairman

 

Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

RIGHT WING EXTREMISM

‘Thinly-Veiled Incitement to Violence and Overt Racism’: Trump’s Truth Social Post Sparks Outrage

Published

on

Donald Trump was permanently suspended from Twitter “due to the risk of further incitement of violence,” but on Friday night took his social media approach to his Truth Social website.

Trump accused Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of having a “death wish” after a government shutdown was averted.

“Must immediately seek help and advise (sic) from his China loving wife, Coco Chow!” he said of Elaine Chao, who served in his cabinet for four years as Secretary of Transportation.

Trump’s post generated outrage online.

“Nothing to see here,” conservative lawyer George Conway tweeted. “Just a former president of the United States seeking to incite violence against the minority leader of the United States Senate and launching a racist verbal attack on the leader’s wife.”

Former federal prosecutor Shanlon Wu wrote, “Donald Trump using blatant racist tactics in his desperate attacks on McConnell by trying to ridicule Asian American former Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao’s name calling her ‘Coco Chow’ — [McConnell] and [GOP] should call him out and reject his racist hate — will they do it?”

“Hardly shocking that Trump would threaten Mitch McConnell by capitalizing the words ‘death wish’ — dog whistle invitation to Trump’s extremist supporters — same Trump who believed his own VP Pence deserved to be lynched by the angry Jan. 6 mob Trump incited to violence,” Wu added.

Janai Nelson, the president of the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, wrote, “I double dare all major media outlets to call this what it is: thinly-veiled incitement to violence and overt racism.”

Podcaster Fred Wellman said, “Elaine Chao was Trump’s Secretary of Transportation for 4 years and he just called her the ridiculously racist nickname ‘Coco Chow.’ Yes…you are a racist if you still support this broken *sshole.”

Jonah Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Dispatch, wrote, “Look, I think the gross bigotry, stupidity, dishonesty, and demagoguery of this is obvious on so many levels and I’m embarrassed for the country. But, because no one else will, I feel I have to point out he also misspelled advice.”

 

Continue Reading

News

Republicans suggest defunding Veteran Affairs even though it helps 9 million vets

Published

on

Republican legislators are starting to suggest defunding the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), the office founded in 1989 to assist with veteran needs. The VA assists with getting veterans mental and physical healthcare, educational opportunities, community support, and other everyday housing and living needs.

An Arizona legislator, captured on video participating in a mock congressional hearing, said he supported shutting down the department.

“That’s sort of what I’m thinking because … I hear no good stories. I had zero in my district,” the legislator said in a video posted by the far-right watchdog group Patriot Takes. “So I guess it’s a matter of us leading the fight to defund it.”

A second video, posted by the same account, showed Republican Florida Representative Matt Gaetz advocating for defunding the VA while speaking at an event held by FreedomWorks, a conservative and libertarian advocacy group.

“This is my question to the group. Is it savable? Why not abolish the VA, take all of the money that we are otherwise spending and go to an any willing provider system inside of our communities?” Gaetz says in the video. “And then, if people get bad care, they can vote with their feet and you don’t have a two-tier system of healthcare in this country with our veterans and then with everyone else.”

Generally speaking, Republican policies favor the privatization of all government functions, thinking that a “small government,” “free-market,” “for-profit” privatization provided by a corporation can solve any market ill.

In reality, if entire communities are deprived of VA access, U.S. military veterans will be left largely on their own to get their life needs met after militaries service. Those who lack money or transportation won’t be able to “vote with their feet” and find a local care provider to handle their specific issues… they’ll either have to spend massive amounts to get such essential care or just go without.

In late July, 41 Senate Republicans voted against a bill aimed at protecting veterans exposed to toxic materials during their military service. The legislation would have expanded care to 3.5 million veterans exposed to toxic burn pits. It would have also added 23 toxic and burn pit exposure-related illnesses to the VA database, Newsweek reported.

After massive blowback, Senate Republicans re-voted on the bill and helped it pass.

Patriot Takes posted the video hoping that it would encourage veterans and military members to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections.

Continue Reading

'PRIORITIES'

Red states are lining up to stop Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan

Published

on

Six red states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Carolina — are suing the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden over Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for individuals making less than $125,000 a year.

The Biden administration based its plan on a 2003 law. According to the Justice Department, the law, initially meant to help military members, says that Biden can reduce or erase student loan debts during times of national emergency.

The red states’ lawsuit, filed Thursday in Missouri, said that Biden’s plan was “not remotely tailored to address the effects of the pandemic on federal student loan borrowers.” The lawsuit adds that, since Biden recently declared the COVID-19 pandemic as over, he can’t use it as a justification for his wide-scale debt relief plan, ABC News reported.

“It’s patently unfair to saddle hard-working Americans with the loan debt of those who chose to go to college,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said of her state’s lawsuit. “The Department of Education is required, under the law, to collect the balance due on loans. And President Biden does not have the authority to override that.”

The states argued that Biden’s plan inflicted a “number of ongoing financial harms” to student loan providers and also “will ultimately disrupt revenue to state coffers.” They also argued that Biden’s plan violates the Administrative Procedure Act, a law regulating how federal agencies ensure that presidential policies are well-reasoned and explained, the aforementioned publication reported.

Despite these claims, the White House has said it will continue with its plan, confident it can survive a court challenge.

“Republican officials from these six states are standing with special interests, and fighting to stop relief for borrowers buried under mountains of debt,” White House spokesman Abdullah Hasan said Thursday. “The president and his administration are lawfully giving working and middle class families breathing room as they recover from the pandemic and prepare to resume loan payments in January.”

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.