. . . and, no, I'm not talking about the "glitter bombing" of the anti-marriage equality group, Minnesota for Marriage.
Rather, I'm referring to the results of a straw poll conducted at the great Minnesota Get-Together, results that have led the Minnesota Independent to declare that: "Minnesota fair-goers reject constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."
Yes, of the record 12,549 people who participated in the 2011 House of Representatives State Fair Poll, 66.5 percent said the state constitution should not be amended to define marriage as "only a union of one man and one woman," while 29.8 percent believe the constitution should be changed.
As most of my readers know, this question will be asked on the November 2012 ballot. Could Minnesota be the first state to defeat an anti-marriage equality ballot initiative? It's hard to say, but these results certainly bode well for such an outcome.
The poll, conducted by the nonpartisan MN House Public Information Services, is described as an "informal, unscientific survey of issues discussed in prior legislative sessions and may again be topics of discussion in 2012."
In his Minnesota Independent article about the poll results, Andy Birkey notes that:
Both sides of the debate over the amendment rallied their troops to the fair to vote in the poll. Minnesota for Marriage, which supports a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, and Minnesotans United for All Families, which opposes the amendment, sent email alerts to activists during the fair urging them to take the poll.
The poll had by far the highest turnout ever: 12,549 people took the poll compared to 9,926 last year.
Other controversial issues were on the poll this year as well. A slight majority favored requiring showing a photo identification in order to vote (50.8 to 46.4 percent), a majority objected to allowing the Legislature to call a special session (25.4 to 64.2 percent), and a slight majority approved of gambling expansion to generate new government revenue (51.6 to 40.1 percent).
See also the previous Wild Reed posts:
Sharing the Good News of Marriage Equality at the Basilica Block Party
In the Struggle for Marriage Equality, MN Catholics are Making a Difference by Changing Hearts and Minds
NOM's Minnesota Battle Plan
Law Professor: Marriage Amendment is Divisive and Mean-Spirited
Winona Daily News Calls Proposed Marriage Amendment "Bigoted" and "Malicious"
Image: Michael J. Bayly (Minnesota State Fair, 2009).
13 comments:
I would think you would want to apologize for the glitter bombing, a violation of State Fair rules, an environmental sin, an assult on birds and animals and a rude attack on the Minnesotans For Marriage people.
Or do you approve of the attack and will be supporting similar attacks in the future?
The end justifies the means does it?
Ray, I think by anyone's reckoning our Jesus was a pretty darn tough guy. How is it that you supposedly conservative Catholics are such thin skinned babies? Could it be that rather than living a truly Christian life, which will develop a thick skin and a hearty soul, you prefer to live in a state of fear and threat? Catholicism really does require strength, Ray. You may wish to look at joining one of the other, gentler, easier religious paths. The unitarians are a mellow bunch. Give that a go.
I thought it was funny, especially the girl twirling amidst the glitter in the video. Although I do not share the same uptight views as "Ray from MN" does, I don't think the action did much of anything. It will be interesting to see how Minnesotans will vote for or against this amendment. I hope it will not succeed, but a part of me fears it might succeed. It is difficult to predict b/c Minnesota has become increasingly unpredictable when it comes to its politics. I for one do not plan on staying in this state for much longer, and choose to take my chances elsewhere in larger cities like my hometown of Chicago or the west coast.
"Thin skinned babies"
What ever would make you think that?
We are in a state of war against a group that is attempting to destroy the family and its children and the Catholic faith. We have sat much too long and let government and society wreak much havoc.
Millions of us are at long last ready to fight the liars vipers and heretics. Woe unto them!
Nobody is trying to destroy the Catholic faith, or any other faith. Gay people are not out to destroy families. We are trying to form our own families. The state allowing same sex couples to marry in civil ceremonies in no way changes the rules of any religious body. Religious institutions will not be required to marry same sex couples. Also, loyal Catholics working for change within the church are just that - loyal Catholics. You should reach out to some liberals for discussion and fellowship. You might be surprised by the common ground you share.
Ray,
I find it very odd that you look upon acts of civil disobedience with such disdain. Jesus engaged in civil disobedience by meeting with the undesirables of society. and by chasing the money-changers out of the temple of Jerusalem. Furthermore, we as Americans have long held civil disobedience in high regard when used a form of protest. We saw this when Susan B. Anthony voted in the 1872 presidential election, and countless times during the civil rights movement.
Castigate the glitterbombers all you want, but in the end history will vindicate those who worked for equity and justice.
Goodness! Was that Jesus up in the chairs?
Ray
"Millions of us are at long last ready to fight the liars vipers and heretics. Woe unto them!"
This is that fear part. Projected outward into an imagined battle from the middle ages. You are thin skinned because in the ordinary political process you see terrifying threats to your life. The Protestant faiths must get you into a real lather, what with all their heretical beliefs. It is a shame that you were captured by the devil in this way. Really it is. God help you.
Ray, I find your words profoundly disturbing and totally alien to the life-affirming and -giving message of Jesus.
They remind me of Nigerian writer and human rights activist Wole Soyinka's insights into that particular fanatical, intolerant, and fundamentalist mindset that “feeds on a compulsion to destroy other beings who do not share (one’s) beliefs;” those other beings who are perceived as threats to things like family, society, and even creation.
I hope you will one day break free from this mindset -- for all our sakes.
Peace,
Michael
Brian, Brian, Brian! It's not fear, it's excitement. At long last something is happening. The Church is being protected.
Protected from what? How is "the Church" under threat from civil marriage rights for same-sex couples?
Peace,
Michael
It's interesting Michael that you adhere to the "life-affirming" message of Jesus. But you ignore the teachings of His Church that He promised that He would be with until the end of time
And you don't seem to want to have anything to do with the chastity required by the Sixth Commandment.
And if I queried you on abortion, I would not be surprised to discover that you believe that it is a woman's right to kill her own baby if she wants to.
Yet, speaking of "pro-choice", you don't believe in the right of a homosexual to change his impulses,while heterosexuals are welcomed with open arms.
Another thing. You have to keep the 10 Commandments of God and the 6 Commandments of the Church and confess grievous offenses regularly if you don't.
You have to subscribe to all the dogmas of the Church including the one about infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals.
You have to be supportive of natural life from conception in the womb til natural death.
You have to agree that a woman will never be ordained as a deacon or a priest.
You will have to admit that homosexual acts are wrong and confess them if you commit them.
You have to admit that marriage is a permanent union between a natural man and a natural woman.
You don't get to just pick a few verses from the Sermon on the Mount, Michael, and decide that is what being Catholic is all about.
You have to buy the entire package. Are you ready to do that and come back to the Church?
"Protected from what? How is "the Church" under threat from civil marriage rights for same-sex couples?"
You should ask the Bishops of Boston, New York and Illinois about their adoption ministries about that, Michael.
Part of the deviance and brilliance of secular methods is that they only reveal their goals one step at a time.
You might want to read up on the Pedophile convention of therapists in Baltimore last month. If the pedophiles (excuse me, "Minor Attracted Persons") get their way and pedophilia becomes legal, Michael, will you support the Church getting back all the money that it has paid out for clerical sexual abuse lawsuits?
If two people of the same sex cand get "married", why can't three people of the same sex, or of different sexes, get married. No "logical" reason why they shouldn't
If people can leave a million dollars to their dog, why shouldn't they be able to marry their dog if they want to? Who are we to say?
Michael, you have done a very good job of wrecking marriage and the family over the past 50 years.
We have done an abysmal job of defending them. The line has been drawn in the sand. We are ready. This might well be the Battle of Armageddon, waged in the media and with glitter bombs and graffiti.
Post a Comment