Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   While the anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota is polling even, Minnesota state law requires blank ballots to be counted as "No." Oops   (sos.state.mn.us) divider line 146
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

2586 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Sep 2012 at 9:56 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



146 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-18 12:13:14 AM  
This is bad news for the Lizard People.
 
2012-09-18 01:34:19 AM  
I don't live in Minnesota and am not following this issue there. Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality or for? In some cases the initiatives are worded in such a way as to make "No" mean "Yes". My state changed that so "no" means no and "yes" means yes.

Just asking.

//Stood in line at o'dark thirty to save a place for my cousin and her wife to get married in San Francisco when Mayor Newsom let everyone get married.
///They moved to Canada for work (my CIL is a Canuck) and got married again there just to make sure.
 
2012-09-18 02:07:11 AM  

teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality


Yes.
 
2012-09-18 08:10:07 AM  
I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.

And just so we're clear, a "blank" ballot is somebody who shows up for voting (or mails an absentee ballot) but just doesn't select an answer for that one issue. Not somebody who registers to vote, but doesn't show up, right? I don't think in the second case any ballot measures would ever be able to pass.
 
2012-09-18 08:16:11 AM  
 
2012-09-18 08:17:24 AM  
This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.
 
2012-09-18 08:19:55 AM  

cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


I don't get it
 
2012-09-18 08:23:41 AM  

Lor M. Ipsum: cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

I don't get it


i think it means that if you're voting in MN this november and you leave that particular part of the ballot blank (as many people do who don't study referenda and other non-candidate ballot initiatives), it is counted as a "no," meaning the anti-gay referendum will have a more difficult time passing.
 
2012-09-18 08:30:19 AM  

FlashHarry: Lor M. Ipsum: cretinbob: Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

I don't get it

i think it means that if you're voting in MN this november and you leave that particular part of the ballot blank (as many people do who don't study referenda and other non-candidate ballot initiatives), it is counted as a "no," meaning the anti-gay referendum will have a more difficult time passing.


Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.
 
2012-09-18 08:31:10 AM  
This is what's wrong with voting I guess. It's not a trick question.


Should marriage only be defined as being between a man and a woman? Yes or no?


That's the question. So by voting no, you kill the amendment to the constitution and leave things the way they are conserving (where the word conservative comes from btw) the status quo.
 
2012-09-18 08:33:57 AM  

Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.



Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.
 
2012-09-18 08:39:58 AM  
We're on a corner lot and have a Vote No sign on each street side of our house. Apparently the Vote Yes people have been going around stealing the Vote No signs which is really amusing as then they get replaced and the Vote No campaign gets another $10 in funds when we buy a new sign. Thanks stupid!
 
2012-09-18 08:45:39 AM  
The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit
 
2012-09-18 08:51:45 AM  
Duh, Any gay man will tell you that when straights say no, they really mean yes.
 
2012-09-18 08:59:44 AM  
This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.
 
2012-09-18 09:09:14 AM  
People should not be voting on human rights of minorities, ever. Government's job is to protect these rights, not subject them to majority rule.
 
2012-09-18 09:16:09 AM  
That's no "oops".
 
2012-09-18 09:17:41 AM  

impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.


Nice.
 
2012-09-18 09:29:07 AM  

Generation_D: People should not be voting on human rights of minorities, ever. Government's job is to protect these rights, not subject them to majority rule.


Majority will use every opportunity to suppress minorities until the courts finally stop it. Indians, Women, Blacks, Asians, Gays, Hispanics (also in that historical order for the US) all faced and face discrimination from people in power, usually white men.
 
2012-09-18 09:40:33 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


I guess you missed the 'against'
He was just as correct as you were.

/not helping clear up the confusion.
 
2012-09-18 09:58:50 AM  
Here's the breakdown. The text of the ballot says:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

1)Voting YES means that you want the Minnesota constitution to be amended to say that marriage is one man and one woman only.

2)Voting NO means that the constitution will not be amended.

3) Not voting either counts as a NO.

The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

Usually these ballot options are on the back of the ballot (Minnesota uses large sheets and they are fed through optical scanners). At the polls, people are reminded to look at both sides but that doesn't mean they'll remember. So, those who don't flip the sheet and vote on this ballot issue are having their votes count as NO. This is a GOOD THING.
 
2012-09-18 10:00:33 AM  

teto85: I don't live in Minnesota and am not following this issue there. Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality or for? In some cases the initiatives are worded in such a way as to make "No" mean "Yes". My state changed that so "no" means no and "yes" means yes.


The Amendment would define marriage as one man and one women only. A no vote just means that there would be no state constitutional amendment that would prevent legalizing gay marriage in the future. HTH.

i.ytimg.com
 
2012-09-18 10:03:59 AM  

stpauler: Here's the breakdown. The text of the ballot says:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

1)Voting YES means that you want the Minnesota constitution to be amended to say that marriage is one man and one woman only.

2)Voting NO means that the constitution will not be amended.

3) Not voting either counts as a NO.

The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

Usually these ballot options are on the back of the ballot (Minnesota uses large sheets and they are fed through optical scanners). At the polls, people are reminded to look at both sides but that doesn't mean they'll remember. So, those who don't flip the sheet and vote on this ballot issue are having their votes count as NO. This is a GOOD THING.


Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?
 
2012-09-18 10:04:55 AM  

jaylectricity: This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.


It is a constitutional amendment
 
2012-09-18 10:07:56 AM  
I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:29 AM  

Il Douchey: The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit




lol good one.
 
2012-09-18 10:09:46 AM  

stpauler: It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.


All legislation prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions is "mean-spirited". That is the fundamental motivation for such legislation.
 
2012-09-18 10:11:38 AM  
blank ballots are blank ballots. they mean neither yes nor no. dumsh*ts. a blank ballot should be ignored.
 
2012-09-18 10:11:48 AM  

jaylectricity: This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.


Yeah, but what about constitutional amendments?
 
2012-09-18 10:11:52 AM  

Cythraul: This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.


You can't really get around democracy. If we say that civil rights are sacred and not beholden to public opinion, then we will simply end up having a meta-argument about what does and does not constitute a "civil right." I understand your sentiment, but in practice, having 51% of the country support gay marriage is going to go a long way toward moving it along.
 
2012-09-18 10:12:55 AM  

Alphax: I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.


Snide and cynical strategy, but yeah... I could see that working.
 
2012-09-18 10:13:24 AM  

Tommy Moo: Cythraul: This is why you don't vote on popular referendum for civil rights.

You can't really get around democracy. If we say that civil rights are sacred and not beholden to public opinion, then we will simply end up having a meta-argument about what does and does not constitute a "civil right." I understand your sentiment, but in practice, having 51% of the country support gay marriage is going to go a long way toward moving it along.


There is a world of difference between having 51% support from the population, and 51% support among voters
 
2012-09-18 10:13:38 AM  

Alphax: I thought the purpose of putting amendments like that on the ballot was not to get them passed. It's to get the fundies to turn out to vote.


I'm sure they'd like to get their amendment passed and get the fundies out to vote, but this will be one of those issues where everyone out in the sticks votes "yes", everyone in the metro areas votes "no" and the final tally will be pretty close - until the Supreme Court renders the issue moot.
 
2012-09-18 10:13:52 AM  

impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.



yep. kinda' nifty, huh?
 
2012-09-18 10:14:29 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


You read Impaler's post wrong.
 
182
2012-09-18 10:14:46 AM  

Il Douchey: The first thing they teach you in rape class is that silence equals consent

/ Qui tacet consentit


did you pass?
 
2012-09-18 10:15:50 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.



true. voting 'no' is a vote for marriage equality. couldn't these goons come up with a better system than this? could be worded better too. not eveyone is a fookin' lawyer. thank god.
 
2012-09-18 10:16:58 AM  
Abortion: Cut it out!!!
 
2012-09-18 10:17:11 AM  
In the matter of conditional amendments, it is a good thing to have it pass based on a percentage of all voters rather than simply those who answered "yes" or "no" - amending the constitution should not be easy.

This shouldn't even be on the ballot, but since it is, I'll be voting "no." It is really a dick move initiative since gay marriage is already illegal in MN.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:26 AM  

serial_crusher: I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.


I've reviewed ballots before. A substantial number of people will vote for President if that's on the ballot, maybe Senator if it's been big in the news, then look over the dozens of judges and state reps and ballot issues and whatnot, and simply ignore the rest of the ballot. Hell, leave a lot of 'judge retentions' blank for lack of interest. In states where there's a "vote a party line" bubble, I'd bet that participation rates on non-party ballot issues is even lower. Even if it's just 5% or so, "no response = nay" is a huge hurdle.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:28 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


That is what he said, the other way around.

Impaler was correct.
 
2012-09-18 10:17:29 AM  

Linux_Yes: blank ballots are blank ballots. they mean neither yes nor no. dumsh*ts. a blank ballot should be ignored.


The Minnesota constitution says a majority of cast ballots must say "yes" in order to pass an amendment so that's just the way it goes. If anything, I'd prefer amendments to be even harder to pass to discourage legislators from stuffing the constitution with stuff like this that doesn't need to be there.
 
2012-09-18 10:18:08 AM  

Dimensio: stpauler: It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

All legislation prohibiting legal recognition of same-sex unions is "mean-spirited". That is the fundamental motivation for such legislation.


Also, a constitution is generally used to limit government power, not civil liberties.

I still have hope that MN gets this right. I am willing to stop saying that I am an economic refuge from WI if this gets shot down. However, I will NOT support the Vikings.
 
2012-09-18 10:18:20 AM  

Generation_D:
Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


Your question makes it sound like I'm advocating the amendment, which I'm obviously not. The title of the thread says "While the anti-gay marriage amendment in Minnesota is polling even, Minnesota state law requires blank ballots to be counted as "No." Oops" And THAT'S what makes the blank vote a good thing and not an "Oops".
 
2012-09-18 10:18:22 AM  
The best part of that is that the republicans are the ones who wrote the amendments (there is also a voter id amendment question on the ballot), so the confusing wording is on them. The sec of state tried to clear up the language and the republicans took him to court so it couldn't be changed. Keep digging guys, at this point, we might not even be able to throw you a rope long enough to climb out and live among people with a brain (and a concern for other human beings)

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/supreme-court-affirms - legislative-control-constitutional-amendment-process
 
2012-09-18 10:18:53 AM  
Yay marriage equality but this law seems a little off.
 
2012-09-18 10:19:11 AM  

cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.
 
2012-09-18 10:19:22 AM  

Generation_D:
Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


Try reading the thread, maybe. Or even just the posts you quoted. If you don't vote, you're effectively voting to leave the constitution as-is. This means if you're going to oppress minorities, you must at least be smart enough to flip the ballot over.
 
2012-09-18 10:20:23 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


Popular referendums are stupid. There's a reason why our government was structured the way it was.
 
2012-09-18 10:21:28 AM  
Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

I am in favor of marriage equality.

However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction. If I fail to vote for a president, then I expect that part of my ballot to be left blank, not to go to Mitt Romney (a NO vote if I ever saw one).
 
2012-09-18 10:21:45 AM  

Generation_D: Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


I think it's unfair that, in MD, I'll be asked if I want to allow people to marry within their sex, when I was never asked if I wanted to allow people to marry outside their sex.

The way I see it, heteros have farked up marriage enough that I think we should try a trial separation. Let the queers have marriage for a few years, and then we'll see if the heteros are ready to reaffirm their commitment to commitment.

// certainly, the gays can't fark up marriage worse than the straights have
 
2012-09-18 10:22:05 AM  

the_foo: Generation_D:
Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?

Try reading the thread, maybe. Or even just the posts you quoted. If you don't vote, you're effectively voting to leave the constitution as-is. This means if you're going to oppress minorities, you must at least be smart enough to flip the ballot over.


there's a hole somewhere in this post for me to insert my joke. I just can't quite get to it. Maybe if I flip it over.
 
2012-09-18 10:22:33 AM  
As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted. The fact that MN has a faction of bigots in their Republican party both shames me for living in MN and has forced me for the first time to vote for Democrats in the state elections.

If you live in MN:

Yes
= You are a bigot and don't want gays to marry.
No = You are not saying gays can marry, you just don't feel that a permanent amendment needs to be added to the constitution to block them from it in the future.
 
2012-09-18 10:22:37 AM  

Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.


Not really. The ballot is always to change something existing. Voting yes would change it. Voting no would leave X at the status quo. Absence of voting on that issue wouldn't mean approval of it necessarily, so the vote is counted as a no.
 
2012-09-18 10:23:09 AM  

Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.



They don't actually count it as a 'no' they simply count an abstention as 'not a yes', which is what it is.
 
2012-09-18 10:23:38 AM  

Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.


I don't think it's such a bad thing, when we are talking about a constitutional amendment. If you're talking about altering the founding documents of your state, you should make damn sure that most people are for it, not merely apathetic.

Hell, I wish we had something along those lines in California. Or at least required a 2/3 majority. Or something more than a simple majority.
 
2012-09-18 10:23:51 AM  

Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.


Civil rights are sexist.

I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.
 
2012-09-18 10:25:39 AM  

Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted. The fact that MN has a faction of bigots in their Republican party both shames me for living in MN and has forced me for the first time to vote for Democrats in the state elections.

If you live in MN:

Yes = You are a bigot and don't want gays to marry.
No = You are not saying gays can marry, you just don't feel that a permanent amendment needs to be added to the constitution to block them from it in the future.


actually that does make sense. I think the wording has people off. It's not really a "no" vote it's actually just not counted as a "yes" vote.
 
2012-09-18 10:26:13 AM  

stpauler: Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.

Not really. The ballot is always to change something existing. Voting yes would change it. Voting no would leave X at the status quo. Absence of voting on that issue wouldn't mean approval of it necessarily, so the vote is counted as a no.


And this is an especially important distinction when you're amending a Constitution.
 
2012-09-18 10:26:44 AM  

Selena Luna: However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction. If I fail to vote for a president, then I expect that part of my ballot to be left blank, not to go to Mitt Romney (a NO vote if I ever saw one).



They are counting it as nothing, and in this case it is effectively a 'no' because without a positive response they won't alter their constitution.
 
2012-09-18 10:26:49 AM  
This thread:

"gay marriage good"
"all government marriage bad"
"minn law good"
"no it bad because it still a vote"
"everything bad"
"no law is good because it helps us"
"yes but law is stupid"
"everyone that disagrees with me is stupid"

Derpty derpty derpity derp
 
2012-09-18 10:28:48 AM  
As someone who will be an election judge in Ramsey county this election, I'm getting a kick, etc etc.
 
2012-09-18 10:28:51 AM  

Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.


Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.
 
2012-09-18 10:30:58 AM  
All votes are equal, except "yes" votes.
 
2012-09-18 10:32:58 AM  

stpauler: Absence of voting on that issue wouldn't mean approval of it necessarily, so the vote is counted as a no.


Absence of voting doesn't mean disapproval either. How are the votes of registered voters who don't show up to the polls counted?
 
2012-09-18 10:33:43 AM  

cretinbob: Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.


Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.


When we got married my wife was Lutheran and I was Catholic. Held it in a Catholic church with both priests there. Aside from no Communion, it was a pretty typical ceremony. Didn't even have to swear on penalty of H-E-double-hockey-sticks that our kids would be raised Catholic.

We're both Episcopal now, as is our daughter. Go figure.
 
2012-09-18 10:34:16 AM  

Muta: Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.

Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.



If you submit a ballot you are a voter. If you don't check 'yes' on that question you haven't given consent. Without the consent of the governed a state shouldn't alter it's constitution.

If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.
 
2012-09-18 10:34:47 AM  

Muta: stpauler: Absence of voting on that issue wouldn't mean approval of it necessarily, so the vote is counted as a no.

Absence of voting doesn't mean disapproval either. How are the votes of registered voters who don't show up to the polls counted?


the state constitution requires a majority of voters who vote on election day to vote in favor of the amendment. It doesn't mention registered voters. If you leave it blank, you are not voting in favor of the amendment.
 
2012-09-18 10:35:08 AM  

sprawl15: Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

Civil rights are sexist.

I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.


I think there are people working on that, but it is completely off topic.
 
2012-09-18 10:38:46 AM  

Selena Luna: sprawl15: Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

Civil rights are sexist.

I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.

I think there are people working on that, but it is completely off topic.


Oh, sure, my rights aren't worth talking about because they're 'off topic'. I disagree. Maybe there should be a way that we could arbitrate if it's off topic or not?
 
2012-09-18 10:39:09 AM  

sprawl15: I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.



You are confusing 'right' and 'ability'. If you were to come into a situation where you were carrying a fetus, the government can't make a law requiring you to abort it, so yes you have that right.
 
2012-09-18 10:39:28 AM  

Muta: Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.

Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.


I might have agreed with you; except that MN law clearly defines a voter as someone who votes on ANY of the other ballot measures. If you only check the box for the President, but nothing else on the ballot, you're a "voter" and get counted in the denominator for constitutional referendums.

Just a guess, but I think the original intent was to make it harder for people to be confused with amendments, so if you didn't understand it, you could leave it blank and make it more difficult to pass.
 
2012-09-18 10:41:15 AM  
People in USA voting to give second-class citizens equal rights. This is not a repeat from 1964.
 
2012-09-18 10:41:21 AM  
This seems terribly wrong, frankly. Having a blank ballot space count for anything in determining the issue is intuitively flawed.

But at least it counts in the right direction. This time.
 
2012-09-18 10:41:29 AM  

fracto: If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.


When I give a training class, I always ask at the section, "Can we move to the next topic?" 90% of the time, I get no response. Should I just stand there until someone says 'yes'?
 
2012-09-18 10:42:21 AM  

fracto: You are confusing 'right' and 'ability'. If you were to come into a situation where you were carrying a fetus, the government can't make a law requiring you to abort it, so yes you have that right.


Not yet.

And not if Mitt Romney has anything to say about it.
 
2012-09-18 10:44:54 AM  
Rednecks of Minnesota, the elitist liberal forces of socialism are trying to trick you with all their fancy words. Resist the Marxist takeover by ignoring them and leaving the ballot blank.
 
2012-09-18 10:45:00 AM  

AKTurkey: This thread:

"gay marriage good"
"all government marriage bad"
"minn law good"
"no it bad because it still a vote"
"everything bad"
"no law is good because it helps us"
"yes but law is stupid"
"everyone that disagrees with me is stupid"

Derpty derpty derpity derp


If you can find another relevant position than any you've derided, by all means offer it.

Otherwise, STFU and go back to navel-gazing. No sense participating in a discussion you find stupid, is there? Like voting - either you participate or leave us the hell alone. Bomb-throwing from the sidelines is as annoying and pointless as a Snookie/Honey Boo Boo retelling of the Star Wars Holiday Special.
 
2012-09-18 10:46:19 AM  
It's been said a number of times already in this thread, but the MN constitution is written this way for a reason. The underlying idea is that constitutional amendments are not to be entered into lightly. Thus the majority of ballots cast must actually be affirmative to the change.
 
2012-09-18 10:47:19 AM  

Muta: Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted.

Set aside the specific issue, if you don't vote on the issue then you are not a voter.


I disagree, you've obviously cast a ballot for a local/state/federal election. You are a voter. Your abstinence on a specific issue means that you are not for changing the state constitution.

More importantly, gay couples cannot legally marry in MN. In order to do so a law would have to be passed allowing them to. Therefore this specific amendment is nothing more than religious bigots attempting to make the marriage equality more difficult because removing an amendment is just as hard as adding one. Basically this is an unnecessary and discriminatory amendment based out of spite.

People who want to ban gay marriage do so because of their religion.....guess what? If your church won't marry gay couples then STFU and leave other people alone. It does not detract from your faith.
 
2012-09-18 10:48:10 AM  

imontheinternet: Rednecks of Minnesota, the elitist liberal forces of socialism are trying to trick you with all their fancy words. Resist the Marxist takeover by ignoring them and leaving the ballot blank.


Vote Herman Kane!
 
2012-09-18 10:50:13 AM  

Muta: fracto: If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.

When I give a training class, I always ask at the section, "Can we move to the next topic?" 90% of the time, I get no response. Should I just stand there until someone says 'yes'?



That depends what you are training. If it is something life or death I would say yes. Especially if that is the only time you see if they understand what you covered.
 
2012-09-18 10:53:38 AM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


WTF am I reading? The amendment would make gay marriage illegal. A yes vote is against equality, a no vote is for it, which is what Impaler said.

impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.


You both agree but are just coming at this issue in opposite ways.

Everyone drink more coffee.
 
2012-09-18 10:55:01 AM  
I wonder what happens if instead of voting Yes/No on that issue if you write in RON PAUL instead?
 
2012-09-18 10:55:44 AM  
Living in a heavily Republican district in Minnesota, I can honestly say that I've only seen one lawn sign in support of this travesty of an amendment. Meanwhile, there is "Vote NO" stickers and lawn signs EVERYWHERE. I've seen quite a few people even wearing Vote NO t-shirts. It's not fashionable, at least here in the heavily Republican suburbs, to be voicing support for this POS.
 
2012-09-18 10:56:02 AM  

Citrate1007: I wonder what happens if instead of voting Yes/No on that issue if you write in RON PAUL instead?


Voting for RONPAUL is not in the Constitution, so your vote is thrown out.
 
2012-09-18 10:57:21 AM  

Cletus C.: This seems terribly wrong, frankly. Having a blank ballot space count for anything in determining the issue is intuitively flawed.

But at least it counts in the right direction. This time.


that's the point. The blank ballot does NOT count for anything. That's why it is effectively a "no" vote
 
2012-09-18 10:58:07 AM  
Boils down to this: why should folks care about what other folks do in their own damn bedrooms? Why should folks care about what other people do in their own churches and ministries?

Marriage equality boils down to equality under the law, privacy, and religious freedom. Not necessarily in that order, but all of these factor in.

If you like the Constitution, freedom of religion, privacy, and equality under the law, then this is a no brainer. Plain and simple. Don't like it? Don't eat it. But never mind what other people have on their plates...
 
2012-09-18 10:59:18 AM  

Generation_D: stpauler: Here's the breakdown. The text of the ballot says:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

1)Voting YES means that you want the Minnesota constitution to be amended to say that marriage is one man and one woman only.

2)Voting NO means that the constitution will not be amended.

3) Not voting either counts as a NO.

The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.

Usually these ballot options are on the back of the ballot (Minnesota uses large sheets and they are fed through optical scanners). At the polls, people are reminded to look at both sides but that doesn't mean they'll remember. So, those who don't flip the sheet and vote on this ballot issue are having their votes count as NO. This is a GOOD THING.

Why is subjecting a minority's right to be married due to the whim of some guy that can't read the back of a ballot a "good thing" ?


It's shiatty that this is even up for a vote but you have to make it very farking clear you support this thing for your vote to count for it; most knuckledraggers who support stripping people of rights (or in this case clearly defining people don't have a certain right) probably would forget about the other side of the ballot.

I think putting this up for referendum is pretty asinine in the first place, but I'm happy that most of the supporters probably aren't likely voters anyway as far as I can tell.
 
2012-09-18 10:59:27 AM  

sprawl15: I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.


I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?
 
2012-09-18 11:01:27 AM  

Linux_Yes: cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.


true. voting 'no' is a vote for marriage equality. couldn't these goons come up with a better system than this? could be worded better too. not eveyone is a fookin' lawyer. thank god.


I don't think you'd need a law talking degree to understand the language on the ballot.
 
2012-09-18 11:03:48 AM  

Linux_Yes: blank ballots are blank ballots. they mean neither yes nor no. dumsh*ts. a blank ballot should be ignored.


In Minnesota you have to actively support an amendment to change our Constitution, and we like it this way. Shoehorn your dickery into law another way (until the Supreme Court kicks you down that is).
 
2012-09-18 11:06:42 AM  

PirateKing: sprawl15: I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.

I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the fetus gonna gestate? You gonna keep it in a box?


Hey - he poked air holes in it!
 
2012-09-18 11:06:46 AM  

hubiestubert: Boils down to this: why should folks care about what other folks do in their own damn bedrooms? Why should folks care about what other people do in their own churches and ministries?

Marriage equality boils down to equality under the law, privacy, and religious freedom. Not necessarily in that order, but all of these factor in.


What's interesting is that gay marriage was already illegal under the law passed by the GOP legislature, and nobody paid much attention to it at the time. Now that they're trying to permanently enshrine it in the constitution, a lot of cities and big businesses are coming out in favor of gay marriage instead. So if this amendment is shot down, and the DFL retakes control of the legislature, this may pave the way for the exact opposite effect of what the Republicans had intended.
 
2012-09-18 11:06:46 AM  

Muta: fracto: If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.

When I give a training class, I always ask at the section, "Can we move to the next topic?" 90% of the time, I get no response. Should I just stand there until someone says 'yes'?


If you're teaching a class you don't need consent from the students to teach your class; consent is implied by them being there.
 
2012-09-18 11:21:45 AM  

Citrate1007: As it should be. In order to amend the constitution you need a majority of voters to actually want the change. People who leave it blank are not for the amendment therefore it should not be enacted. The fact that MN has a faction of bigots in their Republican party both shames me for living in MN and has forced me for the first time to vote for Democrats in the state elections.

If you live in MN:

Yes = You are a bigot and don't want gays to marry.
No = You are not saying gays can marry, you just don't feel that a permanent amendment needs to be added to the constitution to block them from it in the future.

 

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-18 11:26:25 AM  

lemurs: hubiestubert: Boils down to this: why should folks care about what other folks do in their own damn bedrooms? Why should folks care about what other people do in their own churches and ministries?

Marriage equality boils down to equality under the law, privacy, and religious freedom. Not necessarily in that order, but all of these factor in.

What's interesting is that gay marriage was already illegal under the law passed by the GOP legislature, and nobody paid much attention to it at the time. Now that they're trying to permanently enshrine it in the constitution, a lot of cities and big businesses are coming out in favor of gay marriage instead. So if this amendment is shot down, and the DFL retakes control of the legislature, this may pave the way for the exact opposite effect of what the Republicans had intended.


I think it has come up in Minnesota because we're "next". Thirty-one states have passed an amendment so they're shooting for the bluer states next. I agree it could backfire. If it goes down, it says to the legislature: "this is what Minnesotans believe: pass marriage equality." If it succeeds however, they're hamstringing future legislatures from legislating on the topic, which is their hope: they know public opinion is changing. It's a petty gamble.
 
2012-09-18 11:36:57 AM  

sprawl15: Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

Civil rights are sexist.

I don't have the right to carry a fetus to term.


You have every right to do so. You may lack the ability to use that right, but that is a different issue.


Muta: fracto: If you ask the question and don't get a response you don't have consent. I hope for your sake, and for the sake of those who date you, that you understand that.

When I give a training class, I always ask at the section, "Can we move to the next topic?" 90% of the time, I get no response. Should I just stand there until someone says 'yes'?


Different situations are different. As recognized by the State of Minnesota, in some situations (constitutional amendments) you want positive affirmations and others (everything else) you don't.
 
2012-09-18 11:37:38 AM  

serial_crusher: I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.


Because the people who don't care and therefore don't make a selection on that issue count as "No".

stpauler: The Minnesota Supreme court already ruled on this back in the 1970s and the people suing used pretty much all of the best arguments thus making it impossible for it to get back up there any time with those points. Thus making it impossible unless marriage is amended to INCLUDED gays in the Minnesota constitution. It's a mean-spirited and worthless amendment as it would change nothing.


It won't have a real change, but there are four things it does if it passes:
1) It makes it harder to establish same-sex marriage in the future. As the opponents see the writing on the wall they are trying to create a further delaying action by requiring a constitutional amendment to establish gay marriage. If this passes, the only other way to get the law changed would be it being ruled a violation of the US Constitution. Right now other court decisions or any legislation could change the law. The blank=no actually benefits them if this passes.
2) It provides extra motivation to get their side out to vote on other issues/campaigns.
3) It provides another example of "nobody wants gay marriage, see democracy in action has always voted against it"
4) It spites the gays.

Siochain: The best part of that is that the republicans are the ones who wrote the amendments (there is also a voter id amendment question on the ballot), so the confusing wording is on them. The sec of state tried to clear up the language and the republicans took him to court so it couldn't be changed. Keep digging guys, at this point, we might not even be able to throw you a rope long enough to climb out and live among people with a brain (and a concern for other human beings)

http://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2012/08/supreme-court-affirms - legislative-control-constitutional-amendment-process


How is the wording confusing? The lawsuit you linked to was simply regarding differences between the legislation and the ballot. And as for the topic, you can't rephrase the question to make the "No" cote oppose gay marriage because a "No" vote always means there is no amendment.
 
2012-09-18 11:52:24 AM  
My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.

/quite a few Obama
//one Mitt Romney
/// If this passes, do not blame the Twin Cities.
 
2012-09-18 11:52:51 AM  

serial_crusher: I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.

And just so we're clear, a "blank" ballot is somebody who shows up for voting (or mails an absentee ballot) but just doesn't select an answer for that one issue. Not somebody who registers to vote, but doesn't show up, right? I don't think in the second case any ballot measures would ever be able to pass.


A lot of people don't bother to read ballot initiatives and so don't vote on it. That laziness will help keep the ballot from passing.
 
2012-09-18 11:52:55 AM  

Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.


Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto

/durr de durr durp
 
2012-09-18 12:02:24 PM  
I agree that it's pretty messed up that not making a choice results in one being made for you, but so long as every ballot initiative is set up the same, so that "Yes" means change/action and "No" means status quo/inaction, it's not that big of a problem.
 
2012-09-18 12:05:45 PM  

Flaming Yawn: Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.

Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto


And you'll be wetting yourself in the next election when they learn their lesson and turn the question around so a 'no' vote makes same sex marriage unconstitutional.
 
2012-09-18 12:12:09 PM  

Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.


I think I've seen a couple of "Vote Yes" lawn signs in an older suburb on the north side of town, but they've got some small light green text on a bright background that makes them nearly illegible at any sort of speed. One might see a better showing outside of town, but who's going to notice them until the deer hunting opener or ice fishing season?
 
2012-09-18 12:18:07 PM  

Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.

/quite a few Obama
//one Mitt Romney
/// If this passes, do not blame the Twin Cities.


I've seen a few Yes signs in Frogtown, near where I work, but many more No.
 
2012-09-18 12:19:27 PM  

swahnhennessy: I agree that it's pretty messed up that not making a choice results in one being made for you, but so long as every ballot initiative is set up the same, so that "Yes" means change/action and "No" means status quo/inaction, it's not that big of a problem.



A choice isn't being made for you. You chose not to vote yes, so you don't count as a yes vote. The only thing that matters here is the % of yes votes.
 
2012-09-18 12:24:52 PM  
So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.
 
2012-09-18 12:26:45 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


You know what else doesn't seem fair? Having the majority decide on the rights of a minority.
 
2012-09-18 12:29:33 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
 
2012-09-18 12:31:23 PM  

lemurs: Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.


I will choose free will.
 
2012-09-18 12:32:56 PM  

Pincy: So if you just want to vote for President and you leave everything else on your ballot blank then all those blanks are counted as "NO" votes? So basically they are deciding your vote for you. That doesn't seem fair.


What matters is the % of people who say yes........it's changing the state's farking constitution. It isn't supposed to happen all willy nilly. Enough people have to actually want it enough to check a farking box. If they can't do that they then it isn't important enough to change a farking constitution.
 
2012-09-18 12:38:53 PM  

skullkrusher: Cletus C.: This seems terribly wrong, frankly. Having a blank ballot space count for anything in determining the issue is intuitively flawed.

But at least it counts in the right direction. This time.

that's the point. The blank ballot does NOT count for anything. That's why it is effectively a "no" vote


It does count. Simply put. 10 people vote in the election. Only 6 of those 10 fill in yes or no on a measure to put gays in stocks in public squares. Five of the six vote yes. Hell yah, they say.

It would appear the measure passes and we can start rounding up the geys. But no, because there were 10 people who voted that day you need 6 "yes" votes to pass the measure. So, despite 5 of 6 people voting in favor, the geys are still allowed to roam free.

Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.
 
2012-09-18 12:41:40 PM  

Cletus C.: Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


Same idea. A majority of voters need to vote in favor of it. Not voting is not voting in favor. It makes sense. It's a constitutional amendment, after all.
 
2012-09-18 12:43:08 PM  

Cletus C.: Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


It's a vote to amend the constitution, so you can't really flip the question around to make not amending the constitution count for anything by voting "no". That just wouldn't make any sense.
 
2012-09-18 12:52:05 PM  

Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

I am in favor of marriage equality.

However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction.


"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )
 
2012-09-18 01:21:42 PM  

dywed88: serial_crusher: I must have missed something. Why does that matter? Are there lots of people who are actually in favor of the bill planning on abstaining from voting on it for some reason? Because that would be silly.

Because the people who don't care and therefore don't make a selection on that issue count as "No".


See, and that's an "as it should be" thing for constitutional ballot initiatives. Unless a majority of people ask for something to change, don't change it. Shouldn't work that way for elected positions, since we have to have somebody head up the railroad commission, even if only a few people care who does it.

All I'm saying is, I don't get why we have a thread about it. I'm going to submit something like "hey guys, did you know that there's an election coming up in November?" because evidently we're greenlighting obvious shiat these days.

/Though, now I am interested to see if Texas counts an abstaining vote as a "no" or just doesn't count.
 
2012-09-18 01:24:33 PM  

nobodyUwannaknow: Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

I am in favor of marriage equality.

However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )


I get that. I guess I've just had bad experiences with this in the past, though with a person, at a school election, and not with a state amendment.
 
2012-09-18 01:26:22 PM  

Selena Luna: nobodyUwannaknow: Selena Luna: Okay. civil rights should not be up for a vote, period.

I am in favor of marriage equality.

However, a blank vote should count as nothing, not as a NO vote. If I fail to vote on an issue, then I expect that issue not to count my vote, not that my vote will count in one direction.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice "
~ Rush (the northern philosophy ensemble, not the blowhard )

I get that. I guess I've just had bad experiences with this in the past, though with a person, at a school election, and not with a state amendment.



That isn't like this at all.
 
2012-09-18 01:33:53 PM  

Emposter: You read Impaler's post wrong.


Yes, yes I did.
Mind you I wasn't trying to jump on him, but was merely pointing out how ballot initiatives, depending on who is sponsoring them, can be twisted to no means yes and yes means no.
 
2012-09-18 01:35:28 PM  

cretinbob: Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.


Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.


Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.
 
2012-09-18 01:44:50 PM  

Muta: Flaming Yawn: Muta: cretinbob: A "No" vote is a vote for equality.

Even though I am for marriage equaity, it is screwed up to count an abstention as a 'no'.

Seems legit to me. If someone doesn't vote "yes", then they must have voted "no". QED and ipso fucto

And you'll be wetting yourself in the next election when they learn their lesson and turn the question around so a 'no' vote makes same sex marriage unconstitutional.


In what way could a "No" vote mean "pass this Constitutional amendment"? That's all the rule affects: Constitutional amendments. You can't even vote "No" to repeal an existing amendment. You'd have to vote "Yes" to amend the amendment!

The only way your point makes sense is if the gay rights side makes an amendment to dictate marriage equality in the Constitution. No gay rights group has tried that tactic as far as I know. The legislatures and courts are good enough to get equality.

The anti-gay side is going to the extreme of a Constitutional amendment because they're trying to limit citizen rights while blocking out future legislative and judicial oversight.
 
2012-09-18 02:24:17 PM  

Cletus C.:

Like I said, seems weird. In this case, good. But what if the question were phrased so that yes was the oppressive, backasswards answer.


It wouldn't be. Constitutional amendment ballot questions are always phrased "shall the constitution be amended to say thus and such?" which means that a yes vote affirms the change and a no vote or non-vote affirms the status quo.
 
2012-09-18 02:46:31 PM  

fracto: A choice isn't being made for you.


Only if "No" is inaction every time. If the ballot is set up so that a negative response allows for something to be changed from its present state, then a choice has been made for you. With initiatives it is not always the case that "Yes" means to proceed in a new direction and "No" signifies to stand pat. I don't know if Minnesota has rules in place where ballot questions must be consistent in regards to Y/N, but many places do not.
 
2012-09-18 02:51:34 PM  

swahnhennessy: fracto: A choice isn't being made for you.

Only if "No" is inaction every time. If the ballot is set up so that a negative response allows for something to be changed from its present state, then a choice has been made for you. With initiatives it is not always the case that "Yes" means to proceed in a new direction and "No" signifies to stand pat. I don't know if Minnesota has rules in place where ballot questions must be consistent in regards to Y/N, but many places do not.



If you expand the conversation to every conceivable ballot measure from any and all locations, then sure. But in the context of this discussion, non-yes votes in Minnesota constitutional amendment questions, a choice isn't being made for you..
 
2012-09-18 02:55:25 PM  

cretinbob: And the wording on the ballot?

"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one
man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"

Impaler, you are incorrect. A "No" vote is a vote for equality.




impaler: teto85: Does a "Yes" vote on the issue count against marriage equality

Yes.

 
2012-09-18 03:07:29 PM  

lemurs: Doogles4221: My view from around Minneapolis and the suburbs is amazingly strong on Vote NO. I see at least 3 cars with Vote No bumper stickers every day, and i have never seen any Vote Yes ones.

I think I've seen a couple of "Vote Yes" lawn signs in an older suburb on the north side of town, but they've got some small light green text on a bright background that makes them nearly illegible at any sort of speed. One might see a better showing outside of town, but who's going to notice them until the deer hunting opener or ice fishing season?


My suburb is having a school referendum. Lots of vote yes signs popping up, but the message is pretty obvious.
 
2012-09-18 03:29:52 PM  
 
2012-09-18 04:01:06 PM  
The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.
 
2012-09-18 04:20:57 PM  

OregonVet: The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.


The people that don't seem to get it seem like "constitutionalist" tea party members.
 
2012-09-18 04:33:38 PM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]


And that's exactly why you're seeing the push to get as many state & federal laws in place against gay marriage - this is quite actually the last time such bigotry can be legislated.

Subsequent generations simply won't care - if two people love each other and want to get married, gender is irrelevant. Hell, if more than two people love each other and want to get married, that, too, should be allowed - I never understood why polygamy is somehow bad (from the perspective of government.) We allow all sorts of relationships between corporations, and we're treating corporations as people - why is it that corporations can do what people cannot?
 
2012-09-18 04:40:34 PM  

PsiChick: cretinbob: Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.


Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.

Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.


Does marriage actually make that much of a difference in raising a child? I get that there's a statistical correlation between children who have married parents and children who don't grow up to be a complete farktard. But does the marriage itself cause that? I'm pretty sure if the government dropped marriage and any rights/incentives they tie to it, the same people who are good parents today would continue to be good parents.
 
2012-09-18 04:47:43 PM  

Citrate1007: The people that don't seem to get it seem like "constitutionalist" tea party members.


Very wide, your brush is.
 
2012-09-18 04:54:16 PM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost.


Am I skimming over the wrong posts? Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.
 
2012-09-18 05:48:44 PM  

serial_crusher: PsiChick: cretinbob: Cythraul: Oh, 'No' is a good thing? Well, it's still stupid to vote on civil rights in a popular referendum.


Yes. I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether. If churches want to run them and define them, go for it. Eat the administrative costs and the chaos of reconciling a Catholic marriage with a Presbyterian marriage with a Methodist marriage with.......Earn that tax exemption mother farkers.

Marriage actually does have some secular purposes. For example, the family unit. That one is kind of important, since it means the state doesn't have to legally be the guardian of every single damn kid in the country.

Does marriage actually make that much of a difference in raising a child? I get that there's a statistical correlation between children who have married parents and children who don't grow up to be a complete farktard. But does the marriage itself cause that? I'm pretty sure if the government dropped marriage and any rights/incentives they tie to it, the same people who are good parents today would continue to be good parents.


No, but it makes it easier to legally say 'okay, you and you are in charge of this kid until you fark up'. Paperwork, essentially.
 
2012-09-18 06:46:11 PM  

OregonVet: The ignorance is astounding in this thread. FARKing read something people.


It was the lack of reading comprehension that floored me. :)
 
2012-09-18 07:42:43 PM  

cretinbob: jaylectricity: This blank=no thing only applies to constitutional amendments in Minnesota.

It is a constitutional amendment


sprawl15: Yeah, but what about constitutional amendments?


I know this thread went on without me, I just wanted to point out that I realize that this particular case is about an amendment. I was addressing all the people that assumed all the other kinds of laws in Minnesota got the same treatment.
 
2012-09-18 08:14:07 PM  

cretinbob: . I still think that to save money, government should get out of the marriage business altogether.


See, this is what I've been saying. I agree with you. Unfortunately, a bunch of farktards on Fark have been screaming at me that "marriage isn't a religious ceremony," so it should be OK for government to encourage marriage.
 
2012-09-18 10:38:34 PM  

FormlessOne: And that's exactly why you're seeing the push to get as many state & federal laws in place against gay marriage - this is quite actually the last time such bigotry can be legislated.


Actually... there's good odds that that was 2010. All four of the 2012 ballot attempts look to be in trouble.
They've picked up all the low hanging fruit... and soon, what they've picked will start turning rotten?

serial_crusher: Am I skimming over the wrong posts? Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.


Which seems itself an interesting development. Perhaps I can look forward to being obsolete?

♫ As the present now will later be past ♫
♫ The order is rapidly fadin' ♫
♫ And the first one now will later be last ♫
♫ For the times they are a-changin'... ♫
 
2012-09-18 11:36:02 PM  
Look, the US constitution requires supermajorities in the house and senate and a superduper majority of states to radify an amendment. Similarly, the state of Minnesota certainty can and should require extra steps to make major amendments to their state constitution.

You want to error against the side of low voter turn-out when it comes to fundamentally changing something upon which everything else is based.
 
2012-09-18 11:45:14 PM  
Also, for completeness:

Yes = Amending the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing changes phenotypically as gay marriage is already against the law in Minnesota

No=Not amending the state constitution to limit marriage to one man and one woman. Nothing changes phenotypically as gay marriage is already against the law in Minnesota.


What makes this different from other anti-gay marriage amendments, propositions etc...is that anti-gay groups can't run "scare" ads where you have little Jimmy coming home and telling his mommy he can marry his best friend Bimmy. 

Conservatards are so arrogant, they're tempting fate (of the voters never having passed/approved of gay marriage) on something that has little-to-no 'benefit' for them rhetoric wise. In other words, this is like betting your house on the Indians coming in last in the league
 
2012-09-19 01:34:38 AM  
Hey, Minnesota and all you other backwards dipshiat farktards, how about you stop pissing yourselves into a frenzy over other people's love and sex lives, allow consenting adults to marry each other, and go on with your pathetic little lives? Your religion has no place in politics or lawmaking, and "I think it's icky!" doesn't cut it as a reason.

Goddamned retards, all of you. If you put this much effort and energy into something actually productive, humans would be living on Jupiter by now.
 
2012-09-21 10:20:42 AM  

abb3w: You guys don't understand. You've already lost. The current generation doesn't care.

[a.imageshack.us image 600x400]
[carryabigsticker.com image 449x533]


he is correct

blogs.laweekly.com

RIP freedom of speech, religion, etc.. 

Cops consider the situation to be vandalism and not a hate crime, unless reverse hate crime counts.

it's only a hate crime if you agree with Christians, but you disagree, then it's just artistic "vandalism" expressing free speech in the name of progress

duh
 
2012-09-21 10:23:49 AM  

abb3w: Perhaps I can look forward to being obsolete?


ditto

intelligent thought is way over-rated

/pearls before swine
 
2012-09-21 10:31:32 AM  

serial_crusher: Because it looks to me that nobody in this thread is actually trying to argue against gay marriage.


yep its the same in every one of these threads not a single good reason against "marriage equality", but just pointing out how Christians are racist bigots that need to be exterminated


I drunk what: Silverstaff: "Gay marriage is against God and the Bible"

well i was going to use the scientific approach, but if you believe in God we can discuss the option of using religious concepts in the formation of our laws, whichever suits you, i'm easy

Silverstaff: We do not base public policy in the United States on religious teachings.

actually we do, but we can come back to that one later if you so choose

Silverstaff: The Establishment clause of the First Amendment makes it clear that we cannot establish any state religion, or provide preferential treatment to any one faith.

speaking of irrelevant this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the previous sentence, perhaps it would to recognize this first mistake before we proceed

Silverstaff: It is not universally believed to be true among Christians. There are a number of Christian denominations that condone or perform same-sex unions. While they are a minority, it is wrong to say that it is universally held by religious leaders that same-sex marriage is against Christian teachings

i try not to make a habit of arguing a point as valid/invalid simply because it holds unanimous approval nor even popular opinion (majority or otherwise). however, if you feel this is important for basing one's argument feel free to bring it up again

moving on

Silverstaff: We do not use the Bible for the definition of marriage already.

there may be multiple instances of "marriage" contained in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (each being separate collections of accounts and SEVERELY different codes of Law) however there is one definition that is verified in both

Matthew 19:4-6

4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no ma ...



I drunk what: ciberido: they next go to the "it's unnatural" argument. Which is bunkum, of course, for any scientific meaning of "unnatural,"

what is Nature?

and more importantly is it natural for a human mother to eat her babies?

feel free to use the scientific meaning of Natural

and while you're at it you could humor us by answering a couple other questions that no other farker has the intelligence, courage or ability to answer:

I drunk what: kim jong-un: Consent as a term applied to animals is nonsense.

are humans animals?

I drunk what: Some 'Splainin' To Do: You forgot "It's not consensual".

are animals capable of consent?

and while we're recapping on how your side has got nothing it may be a good time to correct myself, it seems i inadvertently posted a careless and thoughtless list of viable options when in fact the politically correct version would include a more compassionate range of choices:

I drunk what: i haz a fark edumucation

Homosexuality
Bestiality
Polygamy
Incest
Redneck
Pedophilia
Necrophilia
[fill in your lifestyle choice here]

are all valid ETHNIC groups and therefore shall be afforded the same rights, if you disagree, you are an intolerant racist bigot

1eth·nic adjective \ˈeth-nik\

Definition of ETHNIC

1
: heathen
2
a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background
b : being a member of a specified ethnic group
c : of, relating to, or characteristic of ethnics
See ethnic defined for English-lang

FTFM, now we are being considerate of people's feelings, with the option left open to fill in your personal lifestyle choice, so that i don't get sued by the ACLU, GLAAD, or equivalent community

....

ready when you are?


180nps.files.wordpress.com

i've been looking in this hole for days now and i can see or hear a single objection to anti-Christian hate propaganda

but i do hear a bunch of circle jerking, so i must be in the right place

music to our hears
 
2012-09-21 10:33:02 AM  

I drunk what: i've been looking in this hole for days now and i can CANNOT see or hear a single objection


sorry it's hard to type in this dark hole, can't see the keyboard

/lulz
 
Displayed 146 of 146 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report