4 MN Mayors Sign Marriage Equality Statement

And people wonder why major metro areas in the state are F'd. This is what they focus on?

We can't control inner-city crime or illegal immigration...but at least you can get fake married.

The3 headline should read...

4 MN Mayors In Leftist Cities Sign Marriage Equality Statement

AntiMelting wrote:

And people wonder why major metro areas in the state are F'd. This is what they focus on?
We can't control inner-city crime or illegal immigration...but at least you can get fake married.

Why try to tackle the necessary, difficult tasks when you can opt for the easy, politically correct photo ops? You get what you vote for.

This way the Sheeple "feel" good as Rome burns.....The Great Leaders "care".

This answer from the elected officials could also serve in the selection process for their replacement.

What is worst?

The fact that the vast number of Minnesotans do NOT support this and the Mayors effective spit in their faces?

Or the fact that city government has nothing to do with gay marriage and these buffoons are too clueless to be aware of it.

Gaylord wrote:

What is worst?
The fact that the vast number of Minnesotans do NOT support this and the Mayors effective spit in their faces?
Or the fact that city government has nothing to do with gay marriage and these buffoons are too clueless to be aware of it.

They are preping for when if/it becomes legal they can get govt benefits like married couples do thus costing taxpayers more.

This is what happens when people elect liberals to city councils.

__________

Domestic partnership registry approved
by Karla Wennerstrom

January 18, 2012

A domestic partnership registry was approved by the Eden Prairie City Council Tuesday. The council OK’d a second reading of the ordinance by a 4-1 vote, with City Council Member Brad Aho voting against.

Brad Weber, who brought his husband Ryan and their two children, was first to speak about a domestic partnership registry at the open podium before the City Council meeting Tuesday. He said they’ve lived in Eden Prairie for six years.

“We moved here specifically because of the wonderful community we’ve heard Eden Prairie is,” Weber said.“I’m hoping that it continues to be an open and welcoming community for families such as ours.”

Sitting behind them was resident Gary Johnson, who opposed the ordinance.

He said there appears to be little demand for such an ordinance, calling it vague and a possible administrative burden.

Johnson said that for heterosexual couples, it looks like “marriage light.” He said the city should not endorse living together of unmarried couples, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

CeAnne Becker said she and her partner Laura Kaczmarek support the ordinance. They’ve lived in Eden Prairie for seven years.

“We, as a family love Eden Prairie. A registry would allow us to feel that Eden Prairie cares about us too,” she said.

Resident Fred Koppelman opposed the ordinance. He said,“It’s step one to redefining marriage,” and this is an area where the city doesn’t belong.

Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens said both sides had brought up salient, thought-provoking points.

The ordinance would “provide a means by which unmarried, committed couples who reside in Eden Prairie and who share a life and home together may document their relationship,” according to a synopsis in the council packet.

City Council Member Brad Aho, who had voted against the first reading at the Jan. 3 meeting, said,“Marriage strengthens our society and that’s why we honor and give it benefits specific to marriage.”

He said the ordinance infers that any relationship is equal to marriage between one man and one woman. He said the majority of residents didn’t ask for the ordinance and the city should focus on public safety, infrastructure and parks, not social issues.

Aho asked for an example of a company that would give benefits like family leave or insurance with the ordinance as opposed to without the ordinance. He questioned how the city would administer the ordinance and asked if the ordinance conflicts with state law.

“Ultimately there is no urgency here,” Aho said.“We need to take some time to look at this.”

Aho moved that the second reading be tabled until issues with the ordinance were discussed at another workshop. His motion died for lack of a second.

Aho said that only 13 of 853 cities in Minnesota have adopted such an ordinance.

With the approval of all of the other council members, Eden Prairie became the next.

Sherry Butcher Wickstrom referred to the Eden Prairie Manifesto, based on the words of Mayor Jean Harris. She said the ordinance offers “a way for the City Council to not just talk the talk, but walk the walk.

“I support this registry. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Butcher Wickstrom said.

Mayor Nancy Tyra-Lukens asked City Attorney Ric Rosow whether the ordinance conflicts with state law.

“I do not believe it conflicts with state law,” Rosow said.

more...

Council Member Ron Case said the ordinance doesn’t license, authorize or sanction, it simply avails some residents an opportu-nity.

“It’s about personal freedom and family values and civil rights,” Case said.

Council Member Kathy Nelson also said she hadn’t changed her mind since voting for the first reading earlier in the month.“This registry is irrelevant to whether the state law goes up or down in November,” she said.

Nelson said it doesn’t grant any privileges of marriage.

Aho said that to say a domestic partnership is equally committed undermines the state of marriage and says that being signed up on a domestic partnership registry should afford you the same benefits as being married. He said he has a problem with that.

Mayor Tyra-Lukens said she had received many more emails for the ordinance than against.

“It struck me as a really unusual response,” she said. Usually the City Council hears from people opposed to a proposal.

She said,“To me, we’re not talking about marriage.” She addressed some concerns with the proposal.

“I’ve heard comments that it’s part of a liberal gay agenda and that this is just the tip of the iceberg,” Tyra-Lukens said.“Maybe it is, but does that mean I don’t take action on an issue that seems to fit succinctly within our manifesto?”

She said she heard from a writer with a 76-year-old mother who lives with a gentleman and they have been committed to each other for years.

“Do we have any problem with having people like that in our city? I don’t think we do.”

She said she heard from an Iraq war vet living with a same-sex partner.

“Do we want these people in our city? Yes.”

She said it could possibly benefit couples living together prior to marriage. And she said it would do nothing to impact or lessen the stability of her marriage.

She said she respects the opinions of those who spoke against the ordinance, but feels the ordinance is the right thing to do.

Case made the motion to approve the second reading, seconded by Butcher Wickstrom. Mayor Tyra-Lukens, Butcher Wickstrom, Case and Nelson voted for the ordinance, with Aho voting against.

http://www.edenprairienews.com/view/full_stor... ?

"Council Member Kathy Nelson also said she hadn’t changed her mind since voting for the first reading earlier in the month.“This registry is irrelevant to whether the state law goes up or down in November,” she said."

This woman from EP is an idiot. There is already a state law in MN against homosexual marriage. A constitutional amendment would only strengthen the already existing state law. Vote this woman out the next election. She has an agenda.

"Mayor Tyra-Lukens said she had received many more emails for the ordinance than against."

That's because the homosexual lobby came out of the woodwork. Tell use how many of those emails were from EP residents? Another woman with a social agenda.

Who CARES what these bubblehead mayors think? Tell you one thing, they don't think for ME. If you want to be led around by the ring in your nose by 'mayors' like these, that's your business.

AntiMelting wrote:

And people wonder why major metro areas in the state are F'd. This is what they focus on?
We can't control inner-city crime or illegal immigration...but at least you can get fake married.

Actually, wasn't it the newly elected legislature that campaign on less gov;t and jobs, jobs, jobs, that wasted the first part of their session on this issue?

they didn't even get their work done in time by the end of the session and they certainly didn't create new jobs and they are actually making MORE gov't intrusion into citizens' lives with this amendment.

Seems your diatribe against focus was misplaced...

You get the government that you deserve.

Don't like they're stance? Try to remember that when you visit the voting booth next November, instead of the typical party politicking.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Actually, wasn't it the newly elected legislature that campaign on less gov;t and jobs, jobs, jobs, that wasted the first part of their session on this issue?
they didn't even get their work done in time by the end of the session and they certainly didn't create new jobs and they are actually making MORE gov't intrusion into citizens' lives with this amendment.
Seems your diatribe against focus was misplaced...

Woodrow,

......Putting to rest once and for all the issue of Marriage between Sexual Deviants is not a misplaced ammendment.

Solve for X wrote:

You get the government that you deserve.
Don't like they're stance? Try to remember that when you visit the voting booth next November, instead of the typical party politicking.

All candidates need to be vetted for their political and social agenda views. But, that don't mean that they will do or vote what they say their views are.

Consistent wrote:

<quoted text>
Woodrow,
......Putting to rest once and for all the issue of Marriage between Sexual Deviants is not a misplaced ammendment.

irt won't be once and for all even if the amendment passes. it will eventually be found to be unconstitutional on the federal level and you know it.

your children will call you by your rightful name, just like the children of past bigots do now.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>irt won't be once and for all even if the amendment passes. it will eventually be found to be unconstitutional on the federal level and you know it.
your children will call you by your rightful name, just like the children of past bigots do now.

Yes, You are probably right.

The Founders put in the 3rd Branch of Government for the very purpose of finding rights for the Sexual Deviants in America Today.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>irt won't be once and for all even if the amendment passes. it will eventually be found to be unconstitutional on the federal level and you know it.
your children will call you by your rightful name, just like the children of past bigots do now.

Perversion is constitutional? I guess it is since the perverted liberals on The Court believe in Sodomy.

Jerry wrote:

<quoted text>
Perversion is constitutional? I guess it is since the perverted liberals on The Court believe in Sodomy.

I told you it was a fraternity initiation and you bent over...get over it ! LMAOROTF !

Imagine, finding YOU here, Geno

LMAO!!!!!