MCDM Update
Minnesotans Concerned in Defense of Marriage (MCDM)
has emailed a summary of Tuesday's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that highlights some of the most illogical statements I've ever seen. Here's a couple of my favorites:
When you go to the polls this November, remind yourself on which political party trusts people & which political party trusts enacting 'reforms' through judicial fiat. If you trust judges to speak for you, then the Minnesota DFL is for you. If, however, you prefer making your own decisions or at minimum having an accountable legislator making the decision, then the GOP is the only choice you've got.
One final thing: Ultraliberal John Marty lectured Michele Bachmann during Tuesday's hearing, saying "I didn't know that we put our civil liberties up to a vote." Sen. Marty, I just have one question for you: Who made you final arbiter on what is or isn't a civil right? That sounds terribly autocratic, doesn't it?
Posted Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:10 AM
No comments.
Marriage amendment opponents presented a confusing set of arguments, claiming that Minnesota's existing laws provided adequate protection for marriage while at the same time saying that amending our state constitution to define marriage would be discriminatory. "The proposed amendment simply takes how marriage is defined within our current statutes and elevates it to the level of a constitutional amendment so that it can't be overturned by our state courts," said Davis. "If you were to agree with the arguments of our opponents, you would need to conclude that our current laws are both adequate and discriminatory. This makes no sense.'Typical liberal 'thinking' at it's confused best.
In an act of compromise, Senator Tom Neuville, R-Northfield, offered alternative bill language that simply limited the power to define marriage to the state legislature, a nearly identical version of the bill offered by Judiciary Chairman Don Betzold, DFL-Fridley, in 2004 and passed by the committee at that time. But even this comprise bill was voted down by the DFL majority. Senate Judiciary Chairman Don Betzold voted in support of amending the bill with the revised language, but then voted in opposition to approving the bill. "I wonder if Senator Betzold plans to use John Kerry's excuse that 'I voted for the bill before I voted against it'," said Davis.I wouldn't put it past him. He seemed that clueless from what little I saw of the hearing.
"DFL state senators appear to care more about placating deep-pocketed gay activist groups than serving the interests of their constituents," said Davis. "Beginning today, we plan to fully commit ourselves to making sure that DFL state senators are held accountable at the ballot box this November."While Mr. Davis is right in his analysis of who DFL legislators favor, I'd add that this proves that DFL'ers support the judicial system, which is filled with liberal activists, setting controversial social policy rather than letting accountable legislators or the voters themselves determine social policy.
When you go to the polls this November, remind yourself on which political party trusts people & which political party trusts enacting 'reforms' through judicial fiat. If you trust judges to speak for you, then the Minnesota DFL is for you. If, however, you prefer making your own decisions or at minimum having an accountable legislator making the decision, then the GOP is the only choice you've got.
One final thing: Ultraliberal John Marty lectured Michele Bachmann during Tuesday's hearing, saying "I didn't know that we put our civil liberties up to a vote." Sen. Marty, I just have one question for you: Who made you final arbiter on what is or isn't a civil right? That sounds terribly autocratic, doesn't it?
Posted Thursday, April 6, 2006 10:10 AM
No comments.
