Senate passes marriage equality; Ortman votes no

The Minnesota State Senate today passed the marriage equality bill by a vote of 37-30, following four hours of debate.  State Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) voted no on the issue.  Only one Republican, Senator Brandon Petersen, voted in favor of the bill, while three DFL Senators voted no (Dan Sparks, Leroy Stumpf, and Lyle Koenen).


Governor Mark Dayton has indicated he will sign the bill, and a signing ceremony is planned for 5 p.m. Tuesday afternoon on the South Side Capitol Steps.  Minnesota will be the 12th state to institute marriage equality.

Rumors were swirling before the vote that Ortman, who had been consistently opposed to marriage equality in recent sessions, may be reconsidering her position.  At times during the debate, she was spotted conferring with Senator Scott Dibble, the bill’s author.  Hanging over Ortman’s vote was the notion that she might be a candidate for higher office in 2014.  Recent speculation has indicated that she may be looking at the race for U.S. Senate against Al Franken.


The Republican base is strongly opposed to marriage equality.  Polling from January shows 79% disapproval among Republicans, which likely makes the path to endorsement difficult for a marriage equality supporter.


40 Responses to “Senate passes marriage equality; Ortman votes no”

  1. Minnesota, what a state. Equality for all. Let’ see if the sky falls or Michelle really will move.

  2. Stop calling it marriage equality, Mr. Olsen. Homosexual “marriage” will *never* be equal to normal marriage. Two homosexuals can never consummate a marriage, they cannot procreate, and they cannot bring the unique qualities a mother and a father have in raising their offspring.

    We’ve been lied to. This was never about “equality”. If tolerance were all [homosexuals – ed.] wanted, the contract clause would have been invoked a long time ago and homosexual couples would have civil unions. This disgrace was the expression of the animus, overt hatred, bigotry and aggression by the radleft, [homosexuals – ed.] and the DFL against Judeo-Christian moral standards.

    • Again, Nachman, your reply is more about forcing your religious views on others, and ignoring the evidence of such conduct, while hiding behind slander and accusations.

      It has been pointed out that many Christians and the vast majority of American Jews support marriage equality. Multiple sources were cited, including major polls from Gallup and others. While you may find such beliefs to be contrary to your faith, you cannot use government power to deny others the right to their own beliefs, and then offer the lie that you are trying to promote tolerance.

      You also rely on the sole definition of marriage as being to procreate, which is not the case under the law. If that was the case, fertility tests would be required before granting a marriage license, contraceptives and birth control would be disallowed for married couples, and the elderly would not be allowed to marry. None of those things occur; thus, forcing such standards on one part of the population while allowing heterosexuals to avoid such nonsensical standards is inherently unjust.

      Furthermore, this has no effect on your family, other than to allow people who are in a lawful, loving relationship to avoid being subject to your whims in order to determine if they have equal status under the law.

      Again, as the American Jewish Committee said: “Religious liberty, as the American Jewish Committee told the Supreme Court recently in a friend-of-the-court brief, does not give anyone the right to demand that someone else be deprived of the “right to live the most intimate portions of their lives according to their own deepest convictions.” That some religious groups regard same-sex marriage as an “abomination” does not authorize the government to ban such relationships. That is one price we all pay for protecting religious liberty.”

  3. “Again, Nachman, your reply is more about forcing your…views on others, and ignoring the evidence of such conduct, while hiding behind slander and accusations.”


    • Don’t waste your time with Drew. You can’t reason with DFL talking points. So don’t bother trying. That’s all he is. A litany of DFL gospel entries.

      • Actually, Mr. Brunette, I tend to quote other conservatives more than liberals, by far. So you can forward your lies all you wish, but they are just lies and cowardice, nothing more.

        Additionally, I tend to be more respectful of other opinions, even conservative ones, than you, Mr. Brunette, whereas anytime a conservative expresses an individual perspective or opinion you disagree with, you attack them personally, or dismiss their ideas and very existence, or declare them “dead” to you, in your own words. Such thuggery is a treason against true conservative foundations, which call for individuality and diversity of thought, and only harms the party and cause. Even the RNC report comes to similar conclusions, something you refuse to acknowledge. In short, you are a convenient conservative, and thus have no moral authority in this realm.

        Nachman – when presented with differing opinions from Jewish and Christian organizations and leaders, you condemn all other views as false or nonexistent, and insist that only your world view can be allowed. You then demand that all civil actions conform to such a view, and wallow in slander and accusations without substance when the fatal flaws in such a totalitarian view are brought to light. That isn’t a respect for others; in fact, your efforts would do far more to restrict religious discourse and freedom in America than any of the things you are protesting against.

        That is fact, as seen by your own words. After all, you are the one who throws around the victim card so recklessly as to actually imply that the majority of Israelis are anti-semites. That alone exposes your efforts as lacking any credible foundation.

        Again, I present facts, many of them from organizations that are not your typical liberal voices, and those facts discredit your arguments. Both of you may not like that, but your vitrolic and slanderous response only further erodes the standing of your position. So, gentlemen, if you are too weak to defend your beliefs on their merits and facts, then dismiss yourself, and spare us from such nonsense.

        • See end of house post for some of me “lies”. Bring a shine box.

          • Yes, you lied. You tried to rewrite your entire position after the fact, in a rather obvious fashion.

            And you denied ignoring and attacking other conservatives who undermined your arguments… until your own words were quoted back to you. You still refuse to be honest on this.

            That is reality.

          • However, again, I must thank you for one of the articles you referenced.

            After all, the author unequivocally declares a comparison between same-sex marriage equality and bestiality as ridiculous.

            And then, after a wandering intellectual analysis with some elements I question, comes around to say that it is the right of same-sex couples to pursue equality, and that polygamy is not a linked issue to that pursuit, that rejection of polygamy will remain because it is founded in legal and cultural standards on the nature of contracts and successful societies.

            Again, the relevant passage: “We absorb these norms, we learn to embrace them, we thrill to them from the age when we watch our first Disney film. Today, gay men and women want to have their sexual bonding embraced within the same norms, to achieve equality, and that’s their right. But my guess is that the real answer to the conservative question “why not more than two people, then?” is that we will stick to pairs because marriage is a creature of the state and pairs are the form that makes the state strongest.”

            No connection to your slippery slope argument, and a full-out rejection of your bestiality nonsense.

            The article basically discredits two of your previous arguments. So I trust you will not introduce such flawed claims again. Or is this author now “dead” to you, just like anyone else who disagrees?

        • There is no “same sex” or “genderless” marriage in halacha. It is unknown in Judaism. Reform and Conservative Judaism in Minnesota is the DFL and Green Party Jewish Auxiliaries and they advocate the violation of Jewish family morality and objective biological and cultural fact.

          Normal marriages are between a man and a woman to fulfill the biological imperative to start a family unit, consummate the marriage by engaging engaging in the procreative act, and raise the successive generation, with the father and mother brining their unique characteristics in the raising of their offspring.

          Homosexuals in “same sex” or “genderless” marriages are incapable of that.

          This was never about “equality”, since “same sex” marriages can *never* be equal to normal marriages. Homosexuals could have had their civil unions long ago if they invoked the Contract Clause in the Minnesota Constitution. Instead, because of their (and your) animus and bigotry against normative Judeo-Christian moral standards, you impose your beliefs on Minnesota.

          If one is a homophobe for opposing “same sex” marriage, then you are an anti-Semite and an anti-Christian bigot for opposing normative Judeo-Christian moral standards.

          • Ahhh, Nachman… it is most unfortunate that you repeated such arguments, since they’ve already been proven to be unfounded.

            While you may believe that the only purpose of marriage is to procreate, that is not a shared belief, and more importantly it is not a requirement under the law. That very point was presented the justices on the Supreme Court, who acknowledged that such a standard would open the doors for fertility tests in order to receive a marriage license, or prohibitions against married couples using birth control. Such things are not part of our legal standard; hence, placing such requirements on one segment of the population is not just under the law.

            Furthermore, according to your victim card that you waive so proudly, any government action that violates someone’s faith is an example of “bigotry.” Of course, that is utter nonsense. By that logic, St. Paul needs to be renamed, since many of the Protestant denominations of Christianity reject the concept of sainthood. And no businesses or government offices can be open on any day considered to be the Sabbath for any faith. Tattoo parlors and bars are out. No farmer can plant two different crops side by side. No TV show, movie, radio program, or band can use the Lord’s name in vain in their works.

            Such a standard would lead to a grotesque intrusion on freedom of religion and expression, in contrast to your claims.

            Again, you have the right to your personal beliefs and faith. However, you do not have the right to demand that only your view be instituted in law. That is not bigotry; that is tolerance. Your standard fails on that count.

            • “when presented with differing opinions from Jewish…organizations and leaders, you condemn all other views as false or nonexistent, and insist that only your world view can be allowed.”

              It’s not “my world view” – it’s what is written in Torah. G-d is clear on this: homosexual behavior is an abomination. Reform and Conservative Judaism wish to follow a a modern equivalent of Hellenism. Perhaps they should forego the celebration of Chanukah altogether.

              Stating that supporters of “same sex” marriage are anti-Semites because of their open hostility to Judeo-Christian moral standards is an objective truth, not using an appeal to being a victim. Believe me, I am no victim. Unlike the Reformists, I am not so narcissistic that I would abrogate thousands of years of Torah, Jewish scholarship, culture, and experience because I want to be accepted by the DFL, the Green Party, or the left.

              “However, you do not have the right to demand that only your view be instituted in law.”

              Projection. Have a conversation with Senator Dibble, Minnesota United, the HRC, and yourself about “demanding rights” and “imposing beliefs on others”.

              Normal marriage has a secular purpose. You, however, don’t care. No matter. You have your own religious beliefs, such as it is, and it is irreconcilable with normal standards of behavior.

              • Not projection, but fact, Nachman; your conduct shows no tolerance for any other faith or philosophy, and no courage in discussion, just a need to falsely condemn. In that, you bear false witness against others who have no such malicious intent, and thus expose such arguments you offer as a fraud.

                You claim to be persecuted, when no one on this forum has done so, nor have any of us accused you of a hatred towards homosexuals, nor has anyone insisted on you abandoning your beliefs (and have, as a matter of fact, affirmed your right to such beliefs in your private and spiritual life). Yet you falsely offer such witness again and again, seeming to be blind to the fact that such a standard of lies is a sin in itself, as listed in the commandments. If your adherence to the faith is so selective, then your standard is a fraud.

                Which presents another problem you refuse to answer. You claim that any civil action that contradicts your faith is “bigotry”, waiving your victim card and demanding a literal reading of your faith be enshrined into law. And yet, I do not see you protesting against tattoo parlors, or alcohol, or different crops side by side, or sanctioning the execution of women who are not virgins when they marry, all of which are also in the scriptures. How convenient that you can choose which passages to follow for all of us, and how hypocritical. Such a standard would destroy all faiths by making the government a “thought police” censoring anything that could offend anyone; such a totalitarian concept is a blasphemy unto itself, and contrary to our American standards.

                And when presented with different interpretations from Christians and Jews on this matter, you assume a righteous indignation that would be humorous if it were not so vile and distasteful. For you deny their faith and grace and elevate your own to an extent that would silence theirs, thus committing the exact charge you level against others. As noted by the American Jewish Council, faith is an individual practice, sheltered from government intrusion – except in your false standard where the law must conform to your understandings, and yours alone. If the only way you can affirm your faith is to deny the same rights to others, then you have no faith or purpose, and any claim to the contrary is dismissed.

                As for your fixation on the purpose of marriage, I notice you purposely avoid the fact that such standards you seek to impose are not currently a part of marriage, nor have they ever been by a civil definition. The presence or absence of procreation, or the intent to do so, is not a requirement for marriage, particularly in the civil institution, which is the realm of a civil and secular government. Thus your claim has no factual basis, and is thus dismissed.

                Compare our standards. Yours offers false accusations and anger, while insisting that only your interpretation of faith can be followed, lest one be accused of “bigotry” and unjustly attacked. Mine allows you to raise your family and participate in worship as you see fit, but recognizes the same right for all others, and equal access to the civic institutions of America for all. Indeed, it is your standard that offers intolerance and interference, not mine.

      • Wearing the cop hat again. What a riot. Go get your shine box.

        • Again, Mr. Brunette, you retreat to insults… but cannot ignore the facts.

          Now, if I had presented a raving, liberal, nonsensical argument, then maybe you would have some foundation for such nonsense. But I didn’t.

          I quoted the Constitution, leading businesses, the RNC, conservative Supreme Court justices, Glenn Beck, and some of the founders of the Tea Party.

          My arguments can be verified and confirmed, and incorporate a broad cross-section of American political thought.

          And even for the conservatives I quoted, your response was either to dismiss them, ignore reality, or attack the person and the ideas.

          That is the reality. Your own words prove that. So again, unless you wish to evolve into discussing matters in a substantive fashion, then dismiss yourself, and spare us and your party such foolishness.

          • I hear a siren…

            • And I see a coward, hiding from the truth of his own words, Mr. Brunette.

            • Perhaps coward is too harsh, and if so, I do apologize…

              What may be more accurate is that I see someone so zealous to defend his views that he demeans and attacks others, even his allies, in a reckless fashion that only does more harm than good.

            • When you understand one sentence I’ve ever written, I’ll give a damn what you think about it. Until then, you’re a useless partisan hack, who merely parrots the talking points of the DFL.

              I actually shook off my party platform and took on perspectives from gay men, and and you try to slap me for it. Who’s the zealot here? You are.

              How you assume anything I’ve said on this matter has anything to do with the GOP is beyond me. But then again, your track record for wild assumptions is nearly as impressive as it is incorrect, which hovers around 90% at a minimum.

              • I did quote the RNC report, and the founders of the Tea Party, and leading businesses, and conservative Supreme Court justices.

                Whereas the party platform and your conduct still reflect that toxic standard that demands uniformity, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

                So lie all you want, but you have yet to address the conservative, substantive arguments raised. As the RNC report stated plainly, such conduct only hurts the party. In that regard, Mr. Brunette, your standard is a failure, not because there aren’t some who agree with you, but because your conduct drives others away, and represents the GOP in a foolish and incompetent manner that reflects poorly on the diversity of conservative philosophy in America. If this is all you can do, Mr. Brunette, then save the party by sparing us from your ignorance.

      • You’re right, Mr. Brunette. It’s really not worth the time or effort to argue with people like Drew K. I am beginning to think his straw man arguments are deliberate after I make clear the context of my argument and statement of objective fact.

        • There is no element of that statement that is the truth, Nachman, and by perpetuating your false witness you further discredit your standard.

          I’ve presented clear evidence that your “procreation only” vision for marriage is not the legal standard, nor is it the cultural standard. The only recourse you offer is to return to petty and false accusations. You lack the courage to address truth objectively, and thus your standard has no honor.

          Furthermore, even the leadership of the Orthodox Jewish community rejects your vulgar and puerile tactics as harmful to the Jewish faith. While they reject the idea of same-sex marriage based on the Torah and other scripture, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde and Rabbi Shlomo Brody argued clearly that:

          “We support religious freedom for all, even as we are aware that some might use this freedom to violate Jewish or Noachide law. Similarly, it is wise to support workplace policies of non-discrimination based on sexual orientation, just as we support such non-discrimination based on religion, even though these laws equally protect, for example, pagans. Discrimination based on lifestyle choices may threaten our own liberties, including freedom of religious expression. This pragmatic argument remains true irrespective of one’s views on the philosophical claims for equal treatment in the workplace or entitlement to domestic partner benefits.

          A similarly balanced approach should be taken with regard to gay marriage. If… one views such a campaign [against gay marriage] as an infringement of civil liberties, or a potentially bad precedent that might endanger our interests in other areas of civil life, then one should not feel compelled to combat gay marriage.” (Broyde and Brody; Homosexuality and Halakha: In Tradition and Beyond)

          This from Orthodox Rabbi leaders who personally oppose marriage equality, but who also recognize that the civil protections that allow for religious liberty are essential to the survival of the Jewish faith, even when recognition of such liberty allows some to behave in ways that Orthodox teachings would reject.

          Yet you, Nachman, choose to ignore this wisdom and instead offer lies and false accusations without any basis in fact, in a way that would cause the very harm they warn of.

          In fact, the official statement from the Orthodox Jewish community against gay marriage in 2006 also repeats this same standard I quoted above. In their statement, they said:

          “Another complex issue that needs to be addressed is the degree to which this clear Jewish position should be translated into public policy in a pluralistic democratic society. Here, people of good will can debate the merits of whether any religion can urge its values upon the greater society… We can also debate the wisdom of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It can be argued that any tampering with the U.S. Constitution, a document that arguably has done more for the Jewish people than any other secular document in historical memory, is a risky proposition…”

          Again, from the official position of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America. They oppose marriage equality based on sexual orientation, but openly acknowledge that, in order to enjoy the religious protections of the Constitution, they are obliged to recognize other opinions in such civil matters as being from “people of good will.”

          Nachman, compared to such a reasoned standard, your vile ignorance is a demonstration of debauchery, founded on lies and vilification, and constructed solely to destroy the very freedom the leaders of your faith defend as essential to the preservation of their beliefs. It is without merit or grace, and without factual foundation.

          Get thee gone, sir; your words are a lie, without honor or humility, and thus worthless.

        • He’s what is known as a useful idiot. I’ve come to see him as having crossed the line as a useless idiot.

          He still cannot even admit that i was right about what the law of the land is, today, right here in MN. I doubt he’s even from here, or even lives in Carver County.

          I quoted things gay men were saying against this change, and yet he still blames me for their own words. Because it didn’t show up anywhere on his DFL talking points, he still doesn’t know how to respond.

          Now that the terms have changed, as I said they should for legal purposes, he can’t admit that they have. Civil unions and civil marriage are the exact same thing. Exact. Same. Thing. Period.

          Since Drew cannot reconcile these two truths, there’s little point in discourse with him. It goes no where, because he can’t handle it without some talking point to direct him as to how to turn around his mistakes.

          • Really, Mr. Brunette… again, your version of history only works if you ignore the very things you said.

            Or the fact that you offered a version of the Constitution that your own party rejects, and would legalize polygamy. Your talk about the law is a lie, nothing more, for one who does not acknowledge the Constitution cannot claim to be following the rule of law.

            Or that you took the words of one neighbor, and tried to generalize them, even after both Sean and I pointed out how silly of an idea that was.

            Or how you quoted an article that actually proves two of your core arguments wrong.

            Or how you insisted that any use of the word “marriage” was a problem… again, you’re basically coming around to a point Sean and I made a long time ago.

            So if you don’t have the courage to actually debate substance, then don’t waste our time with your fictions and fantasies.

            • I did not offer up anything different from Constitution. I offered current law, bonehead. You know that.

              No article proved any of my points were wrong.

              I insisted the definition of the word marriage was a problem. There is a difference, but it’s not in your talking points.

              I did debate substance, and ended accurately describing the law as it is today, as well as what it should be, and now will be tomorrow. Get your shine box.

              • The only need for a shine box (and what a repetitive and oblivious example of an unused phrase) is to elevate your debate into the realm of reality and decency.

                The very article you cited dismissed your claim about polygamy and bestiality, as I quoted from the author himself. You have yet to address those quotes, Mr. Brunette.

                The very textual issues on the Constitution were supported by leading conservatives. Again, you refuse to address them.

                You insisted on any use of the word marriage, and offered ridiculous examples to the contrary.

                Again, your own words. It is not my fault that you do not have the fortitude to stand by your own comments. But stop wasting our time with such lies.

                • Your failure to understand has nothing to do with the truths I have offered. All because you can’t admit I was right. I guess being a bonehead is more important to you.

                  • Again, you can pretend this is a 2nd grade playground and offer insults and misdirection, or you can address substance.

                    You have never addressed the issues with the Constitution, as pointed out by conservatives.

                    You refuse to address the author’s direct words that openly dismiss your fixation on bestiality, and also offer a solid rejection of polygamy. When do you plan to actually answer that question?

                    You refuse to address substance, and thus discredit yourself. Pure and simple. Even other leading conservatives say so.

                • I’m guessing at this point, you have no idea what is meant by “get your shine box”. I can hardly wait for claims of racism or some other ridiculous rant.

                  • It’s like you went to Urban Dictionary, looked up one obscure phrase, and became fixated with it.

                    I’d rather hear you actually address how the Constitution, leading figures in the Tea Party, leading conservative justices, and other sources actually contradict your claims.

                    Again, substance, something you cannot seem to understand.

                    • John Brunette May 20, 2013 at 2:31 pm

                      It’s from the movie “Good Fellas”.

                      And I’ve addressed this about 40 times now. States have the right to prevent that which is illegal in their state from contractual transfer-ability from another state.

                      I cannot purchase pot from Colorado and have it shipped here. I can’t even purchase beer from CA and have it shipped here. But more importantly, I can have my medical marijuana and my prescription that was filled in CA, but I cannot bring it here, legally anyway.

                      It’s called the law, Drew. Gay marriage, today, in this state, is illegal. That means recognition of the contract by this state is not transferable. Jeez. One minute you’re arguing for state’s rights, and the next you want them destroyed. DOMA and our existing state laws enforce our state’s rights. If I have to explain it again, you will be ignored, forever.

                      It’s not un-Consitutional. It’s not un-conservative. It’s not un-RNC. And it’s not un-Tea Party. Put the talking points, and the pipe away.

                      I’ve explained this over and over again, and this is the current law, which is exactly what I said it is.

                    • You are conflating two different examples, Mr. Brunette. The examples you are offering all deal with the actual conduct or commission of illegal actions, not of contracts.

                      Whereas even though Minnesota does not allow cousins to marry, it does recognize marriages between cousins from other states under the Full Faith and Credit clause. Now, if sexual intercourse between cousins is illegal, then they could face charges if evidence of such behavior was proven; however, according to the professional legal organization in this state, such a marriage is recognized here, even though it could not be initiated here, per the Constitution.

                      Again, I’ve presented the sources, from both the MSBA and other conservatives who make the same observation. It is a key premise to actually upholding state rulings and protecting interstate commerce.

                      You are comparing apples and oranges, and have yet to address the reality that the MSBA and the actual application of law rejects such arguments you offer. Thus, your standard lacks legal foundation in fact.

          • As far as the law goes, let’s see if you’re actually willing to address substance for once:

            You claimed that states do not have to recognize marriages from other states. Yet the Minnesota State Bar Association says that they do, as does the Constitution of the United States of America. Is that not fact?

            You argued that legal proceedings are not recognized between states. Yet the MSBA, leading conservatives, and the laws of multiple states directly and plainly state that they are recognized. Is that not fact?

            You created an interpretation of the laws that would allow for polygamy to be legal, in contrast to the reality of our laws and the preservation of marriage you claimed to be fighting for. Is that not fact?

            You ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, which conservative Supreme Court justices and Tea Party founders use to reject DOMA legislation. Is that not fact?

            You falsely claim a denial of an awareness of current law on my part, even though I’ve stated on four separate occasions that, under current law, states have the ability to grant or deny the right to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. You do so because I also insist on upholding the Constitution and its standards, which you seem to discard whenever it is convenient. You have had to lie to manufacture a way around that reality. Is that not fact?

            You see, Mr. Brunette, that I’ve laid out a rational and conservative argument, based in the law itself, not random stories without substance. If you cannot do the same, then spare us from your lesser standard.

            • I claimed that MN law states that in order for marriage to be recognized by the state of MN, that it has to be between and man and a woman. I was accurate. Gay marriage is illegal in MN.

              I claimed that the laws of one state do not transfer to another when the activity breaks the law of that state. That it’s up to each state to decide which laws from another state it is willing to accept, when that law breaks local law.

              As to polygamy, I stated, numerous times to avail with your level of density, that a modification of one parameter opens the door for modifications of the others parameters, of which we’ve recently read in The Economist, by those in favor of polygamy. I don’t advocate polygamy, but those folks who wish for it certainly have a case to be heard, especially here in MN now that we’ve modified the gender parameter for civil unions. Maybe the law should have been changed to civil pairings to prevent the discrimination of polygamists?

              I haven’t lied about a single thing.

              • The Economist article clearly and deliberately, after detailed analysis, rejects your slippery slope argument. I’ve already quoted that rejection by the author, which is straightforward, especially when it comes to your nonsensical standard on bestiality.

                Again, from the author:

                “We absorb these norms, we learn to embrace them, we thrill to them from the age when we watch our first Disney film. Today, gay men and women want to have their sexual bonding embraced within the same norms, to achieve equality, and that’s their right. But my guess is that the real answer to the conservative question “why not more than two people, then?” is that we will stick to pairs because marriage is a creature of the state and pairs are the form that makes the state strongest.”

                Not the exact argument I would use, but clearly a separation and rejection of the polygamy argument in our society, not linked to marriage equality. Again, you cite an argument that actually discredits your words, as you’ve been known to do.

                As for the other arguments, you continue to babble about how “in order for marriage to be recognized by the state of MN, that it has to be between and man and a woman.” Yet you ignore the Tea Party and conservative justices who point out how that contradicts the literal text of the Constitution, which is the higher law. They note, as I do, that while a state may limit actions and licensing through its institutions, the very functioning of our laws and economy require full faith and credit for proceedings from other states (the outcome, and not necessarily the variants in statute, which is where the difference lies). The Constitution is the foundation of the republic; if you are willing to ignore that, then you have no respect for the rule of law. You’re just one of those convenient conservatives that frustrate the Tea Party.

                As for your example of your friend/relative, you’re revising history again. Your exact initial claim was that he was free to apply for a license in Wisconsin (or Illinois) even after his license expired here, and that this was an example of how Full Faith and Credit didn’t apply, and that his actions were legal (something you abandoned later on, shortly before you referred to this “close” friend/relative as a “perp”). It took less than five minutes to discredit that idea in the laws of all of the involved states. It took two more minutes to discredit that argument when it comes to marriage, with a source from the MSBA itself. You still refuse to acknowledge their direct quote, Mr. Brunette. Even those who practice the law in this state say you are wrong.

                So every time you refuse to address those specific and sourced objections and instead repeat your false claims, you are lying through deliberate avoidance and misinformation. It’s that simple.

                • You should probably read the whole article, not just that one paragraph. I know full well why most people are against polygamy. I’m not for it. I’m not suggesting it should be allowed. But we did just make an adjustment and removed one of the three parameters for civil unions.

                  • I did read the whole article; the author starts by exploring the arguments made that, by changing part of the definition, you open up the argument for polygamy (he immediately dismissed the bestiality argument you offered as completely unfounded).

                    However, he then turns to historical perspective and studies to show how our culture differs from others where polygamy is accepted, based on the observation that such an approach is beneficial to societal stability according to observation. This concludes with a separation of polygamy from the issue of same-sex marriage (which the author affirms as a right to be pursued), and a separate rejection of polygamy on civil and societal reasons by the author.

                    Thus, the author substantiates the point I’ve been making all along. Same-sex marriage equality as a civil action is not a gateway to polygamy, because the underlying issues behind each point are divergent, as the author states.

                    • John Brunette May 20, 2013 at 3:27 pm

                      You still don’t get after I’ve explained dozens times. Bestiality argument was a parameter based argument. And it was mentioned for that very same reason in the articles I presented. Of course it was dismissed, you buffoon. Did you really think that bestiality was part of the argument? Are you really that stupid?

                      The argument I was making, which I’ve made, what 400 times now, is that marriage, as defined today, again, here, right frigging now, in Minnesota, of the US OF Frigging A, has 3 parameters. 1 gender. 2 quantity, and 3 species.

                      The entire point was about the definition AS IT EXISTS TODAY YOU OBTUSE MORON!!

                      There aren’t enough bricks to smash this point into your thick skull. And you are dismissed. Only to be mentioned from here forward as point of reference to the clinically insane.

                    • Good lord, Mr. Brunette… perhaps you should breathe a little slowly, and then read back through your statements, and see how they lead one to the conclusions I have made.

                      You cannot make the argument that changing a parameter opens up all of the other parameters, while deliberately referencing species in a rather vulgar fashion, and then claim not to be presenting an argument on bestiality. Either you are making such a correlation through your argument on parameters, or you are trying to be ridiculous; trying to argue both sides just looks foolish. While your point on bestiality was a deliberately ridiculous and prurient argument, even the standard behind it lacked credibility, as Sean instantly pointed out.

                      And back to the substance, which you avoided, again: the author of the article you cited specifically goes through such logic, and offers a substantive argument that dismisses that standard. They separate out the bestiality and polygamy standards and show how they do not correlate with same-sex marriage, and how the civil recognition of marriage equality is a right to be pursued, which was my point all along. I’ve even quoted and referenced the full article, something you refuse to address. You only look at the first half, not the full intent; such selective editing is inherently disingenuous.

                      So if you want to turn red in the face and run away, then do so. However, on substance, my points stand.


  1. Ortman's long position on equality. - LeftMN - August 6, 2013

    […] The MN Senate 2013 Marriage Equality vote board […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: