 |
The Town Hall Archives
Ahh, the nostalgia.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 10:51 am Post subject: MN Marriage |
|
I just recieved an email from the MN capitol chaplain, and find it urgent.
Tomorrow afternoon (the 31st) a bill which would put the question on the ballot about whether or not the state will define marriage as one man+one woman. Please pray that this year freedom of speech is recognized in the chamber. Last year it wasn't.
-Jonathan |
|
 |
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:46 am Post subject: Re: MN Marriage |
|
| Jonathan wrote: | | Tomorrow afternoon (the 31st) a bill which would put the question on the ballot about whether or not the state will define marriage as one man+one woman. Please pray that this year freedom of speech is recognized in the chamber. Last year it wasn't. |
While I am supportive of attempts to define marriage as between one man and one woman, the request to "pray that this year freedom of speech is recognized in the chamber" gives me pause.
Freedom of speech? How is this a speech issue?
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding your remarks, but the only thing that makes sense to me is that last year, such a bill was not placed on the calendar for debated -- presumably bottled up in committee. Surely, though, this is not an infringement on freedom of speech! How does the first amendment possibly apply here?
Again, I support the attempt, but am often horrified at the way arguments are worded. There is no freedom of speech in legislative bodies! To insist that hearing debate or having a vote on any bill is required by freedom of speech is disingenuous and to actually require it would be disasterous and utterly unconscionable.
Now, none of this is directed at you, as the text in question appears to come from the state chaplain, as either a quote or paraphrase of his words -- but he ought to know better! I presume he does, in which case his choice of words is lamentable.
Pray, if you so choose, that the bill will be considered. Pray, if you feel led, that it be passed. However, I urge you not to turn this into a free speech issue, as it is not. |
|
|
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
Last year Michelle Bachmann was blatantly ignored by the President of the MN Senate. They heard the other side, but not hers. Now of course this video was not released in the news, but I have seen the footage from C-SPAN. If you like, I'll look into getting a copy for you in MP3 format.
Also, those were my words, appereantly a poor choice.
-Jonathan |
|
|
Jared
Cute and Cuddly
Joined: 23 Nov 2002
Posts: 4672
Location: Pennsylvania
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
Every legislative body adopts its own set of rules by which it must abide concerning floor rights, bringing bills to the floor, time allotments, the body's calendar and the like. These procedural matters allow the majority party some right to limit what is placed on calendar, but also gives the party in the minority a number of parliamentary options. Overall, it is a nearly ideal system, and excepting supermajoritarian measures, it does not actually limit the ability to pass any measure, for if enough supported it to favor ultimate passage, it would in all probability be brought to the floor through traditional means.
I hope the bill is considered, but that it was not last year abridges no one's rights. |
|
|
Jonathan
Dungeon Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 2254
Location: Minnesota and/or North Dakota
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2005 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
I was informed the rules were broken by the majority (DFL). I'll look into it and get back to you.
-Jonathan |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Search
Memberlist
Log in