Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
As I undertand it after speaking with Dave Thune, the resolution is not IN FAVOR of anything, it is an expression AGAINST efforts to write discrimination into the Minnesota constitution. So no, bigamy and polygamy will not be "accepted" by the resolution because the resolution is not aimed at sanctioning any form of relationship -- it's aimed simply, as I understand it, at keeping reactionary, wedge issue, election-year politics out of our constitution. --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Index of SPPS Budget Discussion > http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html > _________________________________________ > > > Councilman Thune - > > It may surprise some who know me to hear that I > have some > questions about the same-sex marriage resolution. > My questions > actually do not deal with homosexuality, but with > some other sex > and marriage laws, namely the sodomy laws and the > bigamy laws > that are on the books in Minnesota. I expect there > are at least a > few guys sitting in jail for both. And what we call > bigamy is > expressly accepted in the Koran and the Book of > Mormon. > "Handmaidens" and multiple wives are also described > as part of the > Old Testament, yet we have legislated against it. > > Many bigamy laws were originally aimed at the > Mormons, because > the idea polygamy did not square with how the way a > bunch of angry, > Bible beating Eastern US Christians wanted everyone > to live. In > Missouri it was legal to shoot a Mormon on sight and > the law stayed > on the books until around 1995, I think. The Koran > also allows some > sorts of homosexual activity with young boys, as > long as you don't > enjoy it and keep your mind on Allah. > > What sorts of sexual activity will be accepted > with the resolution? > Is it limited to men with men and women with women? > What about a > man and two women (some people I am acquainted with) > who are in a > tight group marriage? What about three men who have > lived together > for several years? Can the three of them get > married? > > Some other types of marriages are actually > practiced [yes, even here > in Minnesota] such as group marriages that are not > tight. What happens > when one person from a group marriage takes a > partner from another > group marriage? Would everyone have some legal > standing before the > law? What would the limitations on such a > partnership be for issues > such as health insurance? > > Which brings us to non-sexual partnerships. > Could the people > involved be underage? In Kansas, for example, a 12 > year old female > (14 for males) can marry with either parental > consent or the consent > of a judge, which is almost automatic if the female > is pregnant. In > New Hampshire it is 14 years for a male, 13 for a > female. In > Mississippi there are no age limits, with consent, > 17 for males and > 15 for females, without consent from anyone. The > same is true in > California, though some other statutes may apply. > Utah, 14. Texas, > 14. So, if one of your neighbors kids needs medical > help and we have > loosened the marriage contracts enough, a person > could just marry > the kid and get them all the medical help they need, > even if you are > already married (in a gay relationship, in a group > marriage, et. al). > Would this be acceptable? How do you think the > insurance companies > would react to this turn of events? [I suspect our > rates would skyrocket.] > > What about the elderly? Can the one elderly > person who is working > and gets excellent health coverage -- like the > package our bus drivers > are currently signed on to and striking to retain -- > be able to marry > twenty or thirty of their friends and get everyone > some really > awesome medical coverage? [Personally, I think this > sounds kind of > funny and cool at the same time, but I doubt the > insurance company > would like it.] > > In Minnesota, we have some laws on the books > about sodomy, or at > least we used to. So, even a married couple would > have to watch it to > make sure that they did not break any "laws of > nature" and so forth. Are > we going to ignore these laws now? What about > people who may be > sitting in jail right now because of them? What > about the Defense of > Marriage act? It's a federal law, Councilman Thune, > are you willing to > sign off on engaging in civil disobedience to thwart > this act? While I > doubt the authorities will do anything about a city > resolution, they might > just decide that what you are proposing is a form of > terrorism and is > covered by the Patriot Act. Are you willing to go > that far? Do you think > you should encourage your friends on the city > council to support you in > this? Such a thing will very likely cost the city > federal dollars if the > current congressional oversight committees decide > that Saint Paul is > being a problem. How much is this resolution worth > to the city? > $5,000,000? $10,000,000. Or let's say its worth > just $50,000 -- > just one school teacher. If you think this is > overstated, just remember > that Jose Pidello (sp), a US citizen, has been > jailed as a terrorist -- > without council, trial, charge or bail -- for about > 2 1/2 years now, just > for looking at legal websites. > > As a rule, I honestly think we need to get the > government out of our > bedrooms. However, I would like to have some > answers before I sign > off on some broad resolution to change the existing > marriage laws. > > Some might say that all this couldn't happen. > That no one would > allow it. I think that's what they said a few years > ago about gay > marriage. The only thing that constrains the > marriage laws now are a > handful of generally accepted practices that are > based more on English > common law than on the Bible or anything else. I > hope Councilman > Thune can answer these questions, since he has said > he plans to author > a resolution about it. > > And one last question, councilman. Exactly what > will your > resolution say? > > Brett Sprangel > East Side > > In a message dated 3/21/4 23:08:11, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << Okay, we'll make it official. > It has been suggested that the St. Paul City Council > go on record opposing > the anti-family legislation masquerading as the > anti-gay marriage ammendment. > > I'll author it, who wants to talk about it? > > dave > st. Paul city council ward 2 >> > _____________________________________________ > SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 > Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ > _____________________________________________ > NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your > password - visit: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul > > Archive Address: > http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/ _____________________________________________ SPPS Budget Reduction Forum - Feb. 23-27 Co-Sponsored By NEAT: http://www.stpaulneat.org/ _____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
