Although it is nice of this video to highlight the local bigots for us.
You can tell the producers of the video really, really care about communities outside of Minneapolis/St Paul by the way they care about getting the details right…like how to spell “Willmar”. (It’s a local thing: Minnesota is a state divided into the one big metropolitan area and the rural so-called ‘outstate’ region, which often feels neglected and put upon by the big city. And it’s not spelled “Wilmer”.)
Vote NO on the wretched Minnesota marriage amendment.
(via Joe. My. God.)
It’s tradition! The rallying cry of those who can’t even master tolerance, let alone inclusion or celebration. Bunch of backwards thinkers.
I am looking forward to voting NO on this bit of religion based bigotry. It’s so typical that they are trying to push it through on an off year election.
Are these people under the impression that their heterosexual marriages will be dissolved or something? What part of inclusion are they mistaking for a decrease in their personal liberties?
I just don’t get it.
“Ratings have been disabled for this video.”
:-(
Given that the last guy thinks that marriage should be a life-long commitment between one man and one woman, I am assuming that he will be backing legislation to eliminate Minnesota’s divorce laws as well.
@billygutter01
Has there EVER been a justification for the fear that allowing gays to marry will damage someone else’s marriage?
@AIDAN
Of course! They want to vote on the rights of others while denying others the right to say their video sucks eggs.
It’s interesting gays were not mentioned during the entire clip. There were however mutliple suspicious cuts – I’m guessing they had to remove the bigotry – it’s ironic because that’s all that motivates these kind of efforts.
Does it not occur to even ONE of these people that they are recording — in high-definition digital video — their utter bigotry for all of time? History is going to look back on these people in these videos the way we now look back upon the newsreel footage of flagrant racists.
That will be their legacy, and they just don’t care.
Those were all shiny, happy people. How could the “one man, one woman” definition be bigoted?
GOD. DAMN. IT.
Every time I see shit like this it sends me right over the edge. Someone, anyone, please explain to me, using small words if you don’t mind, HOW THE FUCK TWO PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX GETTING MARRIED IS A THREAT TO MY FAMILY?
Seriously, for every gay couple that gets married, does one straight couple have to divorce, or is there some number of gay couples that will simply cause the whole country to implode?
Must. Control. Fist. Of. Death.
So if marriage is for one man and for one woman, how is it decided which two Minnesotan get to marry? There are over 5 million citizens, and only two get to marry. Is it the first couple, or is it the first man and woman to sign up even if they don’t know each other? And what about all of the marriages that currently exist? Are they all null and void?
I recommend a battle royal. Everyone dresses up in a tux or a gown and fight. Last guy and girl standing get hitched. It will be easy to color co-ordinate, is not matter what the bridesmaids will be wearing blood red.
FSM and love
When you watched the video didn’t you almost expect Thomas from Lino Lakes to close his little statement with SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES! ?
Sigh. Well, I guess the jig is up. Minnesotans for Marriage is on to us. I am a woman happily married to a man, but I have secret orders from the Gay World Order that, should this amendment fail, I am required to divorce my husband and go live on a lesbian commune, taking my two young boys with me so that they may be indoctrinated into the dogma of superiority of womanhood and the natural subservience of man. And once we are properly settled, I would be part of field ops, going door to door throughout Minnesota and seducing women to leave their husbands and come to live with us in lesbionic ecstasy. And now the whole plan may be ruined, thanks to Minnesotans for Marriage.
Curses.
I have little respect for any of these “pro-marriage” amendments that make no attempt to outlaw divorce or infidelity.
“lesbionic ecstasy”
Carlie wins the Internets for Nov. 7. 2011!
Carlie, you figured me out. I never wanted people to be able to love those they are attracted to. I never wanted LGBT people to have equal access to what straight people have. I demand that all men be gay and that all women be lesbian. And any one who insists on being straight should have all rights stripped from them.
It is so good that we have come to this understand. You must leave your husband now!
*snort*
(For those who do not know, Carlie knows I am kidding.)
Even that does not go far enough. If marriage is about children, anyone who cannot reproduce should not be allowed to get married.
@Tethys, this amendment will be on the ballot in 2012 not tomorrow.
Ugh. This group’s HQ is less than two miles from my house.
Oh, yes, of course! I’ll just go unpack this little suitcase I have here, um…
All of those silhouettes they use infuriate me as well. Hey, it’s a typical woman with a dress (and is that a bow in her hair???) who is shorter than the man, and they have one little boy and one little girl, and the woman is carrying a…baby? Grocery bag?
Why is bigotry always dressed in smiles and claims to superiority because it honors tradition ?
How is tradition even an argument. It’s like the mistakes of the past have to be repeated in the future. There can be no learning.
Why don’t these people live without cars or computers like the ‘traditional human’.
Ha ha ha ha ha! This one in particular had me in stitches
Marriage: “A lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.”
What, does this proposed law ban divorce? Does it ban the very common prenuptial agreement? And what about the >50% of married couples who engage in extramarital sex – will those couples be stoned to death in the public square? How can these hypocrites keep a straight face?
50 years ago, these people would have been calling for bans on inter-racial marriages. Here’s a good wikipedia quote on that:
In 1958, the Christian fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell, at the time a defender of segregation, in a sermon railed against integration, warning that it would lead to miscegenation, which would “destroy our [white] race eventually.”
Marriage is something of a joke – the central issue revolves around ownership of property, especially on the death of one of the partners, and certain benefits delivered by employers and governments, and that should all be lumped together under the legal term “domestic partnership.”
Does the woman who doesn’t want politicians or judges telling her what marriage is, who wants each Minnesotan to have a say, realize that the initiative she supports will mean that politicians and judges will be telling people what marriage is? Or is she Okay with it as long as they tell other people that marriage is what she wants it to be?
@billygutter01,jeffa,et al:
Exactly. It’s mind boggling to see any ‘threat’ to ‘traditional’ marriage by inclusion of gay unions–church sanctioned or not.
One thing I don’t think we can discount is the economic factor: I’m sure many fear that employers may have to cover gay spouses in terms of health insurance, and probably other benefits as well. And in this political climate of ‘reverse Robin Hood’, I feel they’d like nothing better than to deny even more people benefits.
I liked the woman saying, “I don’t want politicians or judges defining marriage” immediately before asking people to vote for a politician’s definition of marriage.
Part of the Fundie mind set seems to be a blindness to historical perspective or irony.
Do these people know that according to the Bible, marriage is between one man and up to seven hundred women?
“If marriage is about children, anyone who cannot reproduce should not be allowed to get married.”
Isn’t this still the official policy of the Catholic Church or do their rules only apply to consumation? I seem to recall that a guy who was paralysed below the waist being refused a Catholic wedding for this reason. Why he, and his would be wife, would still wan’t one after having first hand experience of how utterly depraved the RCC actualy are is a mystery to me.
I agree with Persephone @ #9. I think that gay people gaining equality in marriage, and everything else, is inevitable at least in the western world. Once all the fuss has died down it will become the accepted norm and younger generations will not have known a world that was any different. At this point Christians will all be aware of how Christianity was fully responsible for the establishment of gay rights.
@madbull21:
Yeah,… I know I’ve grumbled the same things to myself when it comes to the absurd hypocrisies of the religious in general, Islam in particular.
It seems fine– among some culturally required–to steadfastly align with centuries old superstitions–all the while taking every advantage of modern science, technology and knowledge, and giving virtually NO credit to the HUMANS that have keep the world going.
(Footage of jet streaking through the desert. The plane crashes in an awful conflagration of smoke, fire and mangled metal, shots of operating rooms and sciency looking equipment)
Voiceover: We’ll use our Lesbionic™ implants to rebuild her, she’ll be better than before, she’ll be . . . The Kinsey Six Million Dollar Woman. (Cue Indigo Girls “Love Theme from TKSMDW.”)
Cut to commercial.
Ratings may be disabled, but “Reactions” aren’t.
I voted “ouch”, ’cause I had a hard time laughing…
The link between sensitivity to revulsion and conservative views makes total sense to me.
http://yhoo.it/u1L6F0
I can just see these people imagining a homosexual act and being grossed out, which leads them to believe that the act must be wrong. I mean, why should we let other people do things that gross us out?
Perhaps I’m just an eternal optimist, but I think Minnesota will be the first state to defeat one of these abominations. The next step will be to change the law which already bans same sex marriages.
Not proud of Minnesota?
For consolation, you can take the same comfort as is regularly enjoyed in Arkansas and Tennessee:
Thank Gawd this isn’t Mississippi!
Sigh… of course ratings have been disabled for this video.
Ah, they’re establishing a Willmar Republic.
I liked the woman saying, “I don’t want politicians or judges defining marriage” immediately before asking people to vote for a politician’s definition of marriage.
The quote from the commercial is especially ironic given that they already do. Does she think that the statutes currently defining marriage on the Minnesota Law books just poofed themselves into existence? She might be a creationist, so maybe she does.
My favorite is the insipid woman about halfway through who declares her support because she doesn’t “want a politician or judge determining the definition of marriage”.
Ok, somebody PLEASE tell me why I should care who gets married. Please do. I’m a 20-something straight guy, and although I have no intention of ever getting married, I’m quite curios why some people wish to claim some sort of bonding-ritual-thing for exclusively themselves, while excluding a whole other group of potential marriagers (that’s a word now, deal with it!). Surely there’s some clear reason for this. So, why? Why should I agree with you that you and only you may get married, while some other couple may not. Clear reasons, free of self-contradictions and logical fallacies only, please.
Now I obviously cannot do much to affect the outcome of this ballot measure, but I do think leaving matters of rights up to popular vote is a huge mistake. But hey, it’s only a clear indicator of how backwards your state is :)
Gather ’round, ye puzzled and confused: enlightenment is at hand.
The basis for this whole bs business about traditional marriage arose because (a) some (wealthy) people detest gays and will do anything to put at stick in their spokes; and (b) a bunch of grifters figured out that the anti-gay meme, dressed up in various guises, was a great way to frighten their ignorant followers into coughing up money, more money. (With the usual tip of the hat to LRH)
Every reason they give from “The bibble is agin’ it” to “Baby jeebus will cry” is false. Their real reasons are “I hate gays” and “I want more money.”
Nothing more, nothing less.
They are not interested in logic, in truth, in public debate wherein they may be shown up as the fools they are, or anything else. It’s purely and simply an expression of two very bad vices.
Pumpkin Pie
Thanks for the correction. (need moar coffee before posting)
Excellent! I have a whole year to continue to make religious bigots admit that marriage is a legal right, and that their homophobic religious beliefs are NOT a valid reason to deny people legal rights..
These abominations get put on ballots by cynical political operators in order to drive turnout (hence the 2012 ballot date) of lizard-brained bigots (aka Republicans). It was Ohio’s turn in 2008 and sadly there were enough morons to pass our version easily. I hope the good people of Minnesota turn out to have more sense than my fellow Ohioans.
Hmm,
https://www.facebook.com/mnformarriage
There’s a link on the left-hand side of the page that says “Report Page”
There’s an option to report the page for “Hate Speech” and you can specify “Targets based on gender or orientation.”
It might be interesting if Facebook got a number of people reporting this group.
Just sayin’.
Because it works.
For my fellow Minnesotans, here is one of the organizations campaigning against this amendment: http://www.mnunited.org/
The first thing I thought of was Kent Brockman although he was talking about a different problem. I know that the US is big on this sort of public initiative proposition, but I’ve never really understood it. Allowing a majority to propose and then pass laws that discriminate against a minority seems the antithesis of a free, open and democratic society.
You can rest assured that they’re not on to you, Carlie. Every fundamentalist knows that lesbians don’t exist outside of those dirty, evil pornographic movies that other people watch. Gay men, on the other hand, are either evil or seduced by the devil, and must be fought by any and all means available because otherwise they’ll rape their sons.
So, your plans for lesbian world domination are safe. Well, that is until they get around to removing all rights for women, of course.
This makes me so angry. We already have a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, but that isn’t enough for these tossers. It’s still a year away and I am already fired up for this vote.
@Carlie – that post rocks. “lesbionics”
Until I started reading Pharyngula, I thought MN was a fairly enlightened place. Now I’m starting to think it’s Florida North. It’s good to see that there are organisations like Minnesotans United. (which for some reason I find I must pronounce vit a Norvegian accent.)
That “67 year old Navy veteran” hit it right on the head for me. Yeah, you grew up in some ‘culture’ back then. Guess what? That’s not today’s culture.
And I won’t get off your lawn.
Ironic considering how many of them participate in ritualized cannibalism. Protestants symbolically, Catholics and Orthodox literally (in their minds at least)
No, no. They know lesbians are real. They just don’t concern them too much because:
A) They’re HAWT…
B)…unless they’re fat ugly butch dykes in which case, like all women who don’t conform to expected aesthetic norms, they’re worthless and can be dismissed.
C) And besides, all lesbos need is a good dicking anyway and they’ll be cured, instantly becoming slaves to the man’s magnificent magical cock.
How much do you want to bet that that white flash at 1:02 was them cutting out a long, bigoted anti-gay tirade by “Joe?”
It’s hard to promote your cause when the root of your cause is hatred eh Minnesota “for” Marriage?
The truth is, in 30 years, if not sooner, Joe will be dead and Minnesota will heave gay marriage. I just hope Joe lives long enough to see it and change his mind about things.
I fully support this. Homosexuals should not be trying to outlaw heterosexual marriage!
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/07/us/mississippi-personhood-amendment/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_politics
People will no doubt also be aware of this bill making it’s way through Mississippi legislature.
I see these happy smiling faces and all I can think about is how much they hate me. Those people are bigoted assholes, all of whom would be happy to deny me any rights and any equality because it doesn’t fit with their perfect world view.
Fuck those people.
@#52 Birdman:
From your linked article:
“The idea for personhood was born during Roe v. Wade’s oral arguments, when Justice Potter Stewart said, “If it were established that an unborn fetus is a person, you would have an impossible case here.” Now, Personhood USA is trying to use the amendment to establish “personhood” as a direct challenge to the Roe v. Wade ruling.”
Somehow I get that feeling that a bunch of folks shouting loudly
Damn, sorry about that. My wife’s laptop has the most sensitive touch-pad in the world and somehow I posted before I finished. So, to finish my thought from #54 above- Somehow, I get the feeling that a bunch of folks shouting loudly “a fetus IS a person, dang it!” is not exactly what Justice Stewart meant by “establish.”
I live in South MS (the Coast, which is at least better than North MS, except for the hurricanes), and we vote on this idiotic, poorly thought out amendment today. Any rational argument that abortion is situational, depending on an individual’s circumstances, to which YOUR moral and absolutist position derived from YOUR religious convictions should not apply, is completely wasted on people who don’t (or can’t) think beyond their emotions. I know- my wife’s two sisters are firm supporters of this amendment, based solely on that type of “thinking,” and every rational argument(“I thought you were for LESS govt in people’s lives?”) is met with a blank (hynotized by religion?) stare, and a bare repetition of the mantra “abortion is murder.” When I respond “then miscarriage is manslaughter” I get- you guessed it, “abortion is murder.” Nuance is lost on these people- and by that, I don’t just mean my sisters-in-law, who are otherwise nice, if limited, people. Needless to say, we don’t have these conversations often. My wife and I don’t have them at all. That’s not as bad as I just realized it sounds- it just means that my wife, who considers herself a Christian (but doesn’t attend church), and I, an agnostic, don’t consider it a matter of enough difference to make a difference in our love for each other. I have no concrete idea of how she’s going to vote on Prop 26, but I suspect our votes will cancel each other out.
It is really so offensive I would suspect the Mormons are behind it or funding it in the background like they did in California. It’s the kind of sneaky thing they do by hinting to their cult members that they need to stand up for righteousness *wink* *wink*. Someone should check this out?
@29 “The Kinsey Six Million Dollar Woman.”
Sweet Chaos, thank you for that laugh!
@The Crow
I don’t know about that. I am a pretty squeamish person. And I also hold onto a lot of what conservative so-called “family value” such as fidelity etc etc (whether they do it or not is another matter). But I never feel that others have to or should live by my view of such matters. I have always understood these things to be personal…
PS: But of course, I forgot to add, one example does not equal valid data. I just find that it is interesting that I might be an outlier in the overall data if they ever measure me…
What’s troubling to me about the video is the fact that people make assertions without justifying them. This leaves us all asking the question “How does gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?” My impression is that they haven’t thought it through, possibly blindly accepting the opinion of some authority. I would like to ask each and everyone of those people one simple question “Who’s doing your thinking for you?”
usually a big fan of linking to blog owners which i love however don’t get a lot of hyperlink love through.
And now comments have been disabled.
Authoritarian preachification for the loss.