Index of SPPS Budget Discussion http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/spps-posts.html _________________________________________
----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Swift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Chuck Repke writes: > > [CR] All gay couples are asking for is the same > contractual relationships that hetro couples are able > to enjoy given to them by the state. > > [TS] Every adult man and woman in the state of > Minnesota enjoys the exact same rights to the exact > same contractual relationships and lives with the > exact same prohibitions. Homosexuals are demanding we > draw completely new contracts with new rights to > accommodate their *behavioral choices*. This isn't about "homosexuals demanding"; there are plenty of gay and lesbians who don't believe in gay marriage. It's about what your courts are telling you. Your jurists are telling you that the terms of the marriage contract are, in fact, unchanged, and that the constitutional question is solely with regard to *whom* those previously set terms may be applied with respect to gender. The courts don't care whether it's two *heterosexual* men who want to marry or whether a homosexual man wants to marry a lesbian woman or what kind of "behavioral choices" they may make before or after. It's about WHO can be recognized as married, not which of the benefits of marriage accrue. > Guy Western says: > > It took the courage and dedication to duty of 300 > *federal* marshals, 160 of whom were injured holding > the campus of the University of Mississippi on the > night of Sept. 30, 1962, against a diverse mob of > segregationists who assaulted those federal marshals > again and again that night and into the wee hours of > the morning under the battle flag of the Confederate > States of America. > > [TS] From today's Star Tribune: > > "Said Blois Olson, co-publisher of the Web site > MNPolitics.com: "My gut is telling me that if you talk > about jobs, education, and health care, you're doing > pretty well. But if you get into a battle over this > issue, then you might have a little trouble. Then you > are fighting on grounds that are very polarizing." > > "Olson said one way of deflecting potential attacks > may be to couch the debate as one involving civil > rights." > > Couch away Guy. > > As I said yesterday, black Minnesotan's were well > represented yesterday at the Capital rally and several > made a point of expressing their extreme anger at the > gay lobby's use of their struggle. BTW, while not > pertinent my argument per se, I'd like to point out > that while I'm fully aware that some prominent black > leaders have come out in support of homosexual unions; > consider what dividing the black vote further will do > to the make-up of our legislature to say nothing of > Savannah, GA. The constitution says nothing about marriage or sex. It says everything about freedom and equality. If this were mere "couching", and not a real issue of civil rights, you and your supporters wouldn't be clamoring for *constitutional* change. You picked the couch, now lay in it. Attempting to rationalize discrimination against one minority by claiming the support of other minorities would be an unconscionable demonstration of bigotry. I hope this isn't what you're trying to do. The point of my reference to James Meredith, which I emphasized ad nauseam, was that freedom, equality and civil rights in the United States of America are FEDERAL questions, not, as you plead, a matter of states' rights, which has proven to be the blanket under which the obscenity of discrimination of all kinds perennially seeks to justify itself. Guy Western the West Side _____________________________________________ 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/
