Minnesota Gay Marriage Ban Passes House

[davidinalameda]

http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/04/040105minnBan.htm

After a passionate debate that stretched over three hours, the Minnesota House Thursday night voted 77-56 to put a gay marriage ban before voters next year.

The bill would ask voters to amend the state constitution to define marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. Supporters of the constitutional amendment said it would prevent courts from allowing same-sex marriages, even though state law already prohibits them.

"The only way to ensure that activist judges don't circumvent the will of the people is by allowing the people of Minnesota to have their voices heard,'' said Rep. Dan Severson, R-Sauk Rapids, the bill's sponsor. "That definition may stand in our books.''



and of course it doesn't matter one bit if the will of the Minnesota people is unconstitutional!

if this crap was going on back in the 50s and 60s, African-Americans still wouldn't have the vote and separate but equal would still be the law of the land

[Deja Q]

1. HAH! This EXCUSE of "allowing the people to have their voices heard" is

used by the repukes ONLY when repukes think they can benefit from it. This isn't democracy, this is puppetry.

Judges interpreted the law for blacks. Had civil rights been in the "voices of the people", the people of 1965 (such as Ronald Reagan) would have said NO EQUALITY.

How come misinformed "Joe 6-packs" get the power this time? Where are the judges? They're the ones who are supposed to look at the law.

[Scooter24]

2. I wonder what would happen

if the public votes down the amendment, would the legislature then pass a law legalize gay marriage and conferring all marital rights to homosexuals? Using the logic they insert here, if the people vote down the amendment, wouldn't that be interpreted as a de facto endorsement of gay marriage?