One Man One Woman Preserving Marriage in Minnesota Archbishop John C. Nienstedt

One Man One Woman Preserving Marriage in Minnesota Archbishop John C. Nienstedt what do I think as a Catholic and human who is married with kids and reflect on grandparents at war and what we must do and become

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• One
• Man
• Woman
• Preserving
• Marriage
• in
• Minnesota
• Archbishop
• John
• C.
• Nienstedt
• dayton
• emmer
• tom
• horner
• Part
• 's
• Message
• to
• Catholics
• on
• diet
• christianity
• economic
• philosophy
• talk
• economy
• health
• discussion
• video log
• vlog
• religion
• spirituality
• anti
• gay
• mn
• minneapolis

[GABEREDRIBBON]

We need to vote this year again at the polls for equality of Marriage

[markofthebeasts]

when i ended up in jail, i was put into the 'gay' tank, for my own protection, yet somehow the church acts as if it's people like me that they need protection from... interestingly, when they ran out of room in temporary holding cells, where did they put the soft young barely 18 boys? in the gay tank, as they were at greater risk of rape in the "straight" tanks. gay people learn to think for themselves, which does threaten an institution that rewards 'faith' over logic, and intellect. thanks.

[cool22dad]

What's next... marrying your dog?

[timothyjames24]

Ah when will people realize the true evil is in organized religion. Free will is God's greatest gift to us and it is time for Catholic's to stand up against the Pope and those in the church who are wrong. Yes the pope is wrong. The church would be much stronger if the brought people to god instead of pushing them away. Do not justify your hate by saying it is loving the sinner. Love or hate the choice is yours.

[kenballer00]

@Pilgrim812

Also, in practice, there is no way to amend the FEDERAL constitution by popular vote. So I am assuming when you ask me whether we should disregard the FEDERAL constitution, you are talking about getting rid of the federal constitution altogether in some way if its even possible. If this is what you are saying, then no I don't want to do that.

[kenballer00]

@Pilgri

well I don't agree with your premise that this is a civil rights issue in regard with minority rights and that we are only affiriming the constitution's explicit guaranteed right to vote and implicit guaranteed right to vote on marriage. Nevertheless, less just pretend there was a right. even if the Majority did take away existing federal constitutional rights by vote from the state constitution after the U.S supreme court handed down one of its decisions. So we can't even if we tried.

[Pilgrim812]

@kenballer00 If what you say will happen,does indeed

happen,then why not just disregard the constitution entirely

and have elections to determine rights? What do you think?

[kenballer00]

I already know that prop 8 will not only be upheld by the U.S. supreme court but It will be another unanimous decision just like the U.S. supreme court Baker v. Nelson case. This will force legislatures to allow the people to vote without hinderance. In addition, the only reason why the voting margin in prop 8 was so low is because of the civil rights arguments which is the only argument for gay marriage. An unanimous ruling would surely compell voters young or old to keep the status quo.

[Pilgrim812]

@kenballer00 check for new posting.

[Pilgrim812]

@Pilgrim812 And where is love in your equation. Gay people

in "marriages of convienence" is nothing new and creates

misery,infidelity, and deception along the way. This is

what you're trying to sell me on/ Sorry no sale.