Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

site search

Site Meter
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

"Make No Law Respecting An Establishment Of Religion"

Category: Gay Rights
Posted: 09/02/15 04:07

by Dave Mindeman

We are hearing a lot about the First Amendment these days...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The conservative right has made a big deal about the "free exercise" of a personal religious belief.

But they tend to ignore the more important aspect..."make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

In the case of the Kentucky clerk who is denying marriage applications to gay couples, we have a violation of that First Amendment clause.

The clerk represents the State of Kentucky. She has established that her religious belief takes precedence over anyone who seeks out her government services.

She has established her religion as the law of that county.

She has lost in court...all the way up to the Supreme Court. And since she has violated the First Amendment, she needs to be fired. Held in contempt. And if it were me, she would be sent to jail.

You do not get to "exercise" your personal religious beliefs if you hold a government job. You just don't. You are expected to expedite the standing legal regulations which your job espouses.

And the fact that other Kentucky officials are allowing this "exercise" means that they should be held in contempt as well. This isn't about God's law...take that to your church. If your job is to work for the government, then you don't get to interpret the laws as you see fit.

You just get to do the job, period.

This lady's 15 minutes of fame are now up.
comments (1) permalink

Maybe It's Not About Religion, But The Pursuit Of Happiness

Category: Gay Rights
Posted: 07/01/15 14:11

by Dave Mindeman

People who disagree with the Supreme Court on the Same Sex Marriage issue are quick to hide behind the religious freedom amendment - and of course "God's Law".

Here is the problem I have always had with that. You may think that same sex marriage is wrong, but that doesn't give you any basis for denying rights.

Like it or not, marriage does not have the same definition that everyone seems to attribute to the Bible. Over the years, marriage has evolved from a simple spiritual union to a legal contract.

We have placed too many secular constructs into marriage to point to this as a spiritual, religious union anymore.

Marriage is a contract for property rights....for child custody....for inheritance... for health care...and the list goes on. To deny a person a marriage contract in today's society is to deny them legal rights and privileges that we assume should be available for everyone.

So, if you think that same-sex marriage is a religious violation then you really do have to redefine marriage in our materialistic society - it has been defined well beyond Bible definitions and is now a secular and legal contract which is ingrained into our materialistic society. Don't blame same-sex couples for needing to participate in marriage - it is necessary to have a marriage contract because too many legal frameworks have been entangled around "simple" marriage.

We conveniently redefined divorce. The Bible says it is wrong - we seem to have defined "exceptions". The Catholic Church fabricated "annulments". The rest of the religious community simply shrugged their shoulders.

People have religious objections to a lot of things. People who have an objection to war can be a conscientious objector. People who have an objection to capital punishment can move to a state that does not allow it.

But in the case of same sex marriage, your religious objection to it is worth noting, but it has little to do with you personally. Your religion would seem to require that YOU do not have a same sex marriage. If other people decide to do it, that should be for your God to judge (if you truly believe judgment is warranted) - not YOU.

I know that people who object to gay marriage make a big deal about a wedding cake caterer being "forced" to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Well, first of all it is just a cake. Second of all, your objection to a gay wedding and refusal to bake the cake is not going to stop it. Nor are you required to participate other than making sure the cake is there. I don't see anyone refusing to bake any cakes for two divorced people having a second marriage. Third, I doubt that any gay couple is going to "force" you to bake that cake if you are uncomfortable. Yes, if you get belligerent about it, there may be a legal confrontation, but 99% of the time, a couple getting married doesn't want their happiest of days tainted with a sour note. And over time, I would guess that this will be less and less of a problem as weddings lose the extra terminology that tries to define the participants.

Time will heal this issue. And although there will be a lot of hellfire rhetoric on the subject for the foreseeable future, the time will definitely come when we will actually wonder what all the fuss was about.

Our young people know this already. It is their future, not ours. So let's move beyond this and let everyone have the opportunity to be happy.

After all, that's what the Declaration of Independence noted as one of our unalienable rights - the pursuit of happiness.

Let's allow everyone to have that "pursuit" on an equal basis....OK?
comments (0) permalink

Trying To Figure Out The Roberts Dissent

Category: Gay Rights
Posted: 06/27/15 17:45

by Dave Mindeman

Same sex marriage won its court case. That much is over.

But Chief Justice John Roberts did not agree with the idea that gay marriage should be an option as the law of the land. He wrote a dissent....and to me it is raises questions about Roberts thinking on the subject.

Take this for instance:

[T]his Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment.

If Roberts truly believes the above paragraph, then why did the Court overturn the Voting Rights Act clause that protected voters in certain states. That clause was renewed by Congress in overwhelming votes, both in the House and the Senate - yet the Court did away with that clause and changed the law.

Another quote:

Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority's argument is that the Due Process Clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society. If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority's position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.

Except Roberts omitted and important truth. It is not just about social policy. And the right to marry is not just "good" for the couples involved and for society....it is also about fundamental marriage rights. Rights for wills....rights for Federal benefits...rights for property assignments.....rights for joint ownership. These are basic rights that follow the recognition of legal marriage. And Chief Justice Roberts seems to dismiss what is universally recognized as part of the marriage contract.

And then Roberts goes into the marriage "purpose"....

The premises supporting th[e] concept of [natural] marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child's prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond.

I would challenge Roberts to tell us where in any marriage contract or construct that procreation is a fundamental part of the language. You do not have to be married to procreate. You do not have to be married to raise children. You do have to have a marriage contract in order to deal with the legal status of your family as defined in state laws. What makes the same sex marriage decision so important is that legal status needs to be equal for all and the due process of contracts involving couples who wish to exercise those legal contracts available to all without fear of discrimination.

Roberts seems to have a different view of how marriage actually works in society. He minimizes its value and diminishes its legal status.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and viewed marriage in its proper context. Thank goodness this will be the prevailing authority.
comments (1) permalink
« First « Previous


« October 2015 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31

Latest posts


(one year)




RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

Powered by
Powered by SBlog
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.