THE GAYS ATE THIER MARRIAGE OR HOW ABOUT BONNIE AND CLYDE

Destroying the sanctity of marriage

Enough of the heavy Marxist analysis, my readers scream out today.  Enough of the posts that go on forever.  Okay, then, my friends, I take you to the late, great state of Minnesota, land of 1000 lakes and one super crazy congresswomen.  For it is at their very own state fair, that the glitter bombers came flying in to lay one on the wacko "save our marriage" crowd (what do ya bet they are big on preborns as well).  I'll leave it at that and present you with this article (and video) from LEZGET REAL.
























Protesters Hit Marriage Bigotry Booth At Minnesota State Fair

GLITTER BOMBS AWAY!

Written by: Bridgette P. LaVictoire on September 5, 2011.

The state fair booth for Minnesota for Marriage- the mostly Christian conservative umbrella group that includes the Minnesota Family Council, the Minnesota Catholic Conference and the National Organization for Marriage- was glitter bombed from the air this weekend. The groups that are supporting a proposed ban on same-sex marriage were given a booth inside the fair while those opposing it were not.

Instead, Minnesotans United for All Families, the coalition opposed to the proposed amendment, were forced to talk to fair-goes from within the booths of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor, Greens and Independent parties.

The glitter bomb came from protesters riding in the fair’s Sky Ride. One of them yelled “Where’s our booth” and another yelled “Equality for all”. It is the latest in a string of glitter bombs including one that hit the counseling centers run by Representative Michele Bachmann and her husband Marcus. There, they claimed to be able to cure lesbians and gays of their sexuality. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty have also been bombed.

Of course, many of those who support this discriminatory amendment try to justify their beliefs with the usual platitudes and idiocies. For instance, Matt and Julia Doffing, both 26, married with a ten month old son, stopped in support of the pro-hatred group and stated:

Matt – If same-sex marriage were legalized, that would “essentially define one man-one woman institutions as discriminating, which, if that’s codified in law, means that effectively you’re discriminating against Catholics then. Effectively, you’re discriminating against anyone who believes in one man-one woman marriages.”

Julia – “I think the reason that the state supports families that are one man and one woman is because they produce children that will be future citizens. And it’s the ideal environment for children. And marriage isn’t about just people who feel in love with each other. If the government’s going to benefit people, it has to be something that produces something good for the society, not just for those two people as individuals.

“I think there’s this perception that people who are not for gay marriage are like these really angry, bigoted, crazy religious people. And I think that I just want to spread the word that that’s not the case. That we’re not angry or bigoted, and we certainly believe that everybody deserves to be loved, but that it really just comes down to the policies and what makes sense for our country and for the state.”

Except that is not the case. With Matt, so far, there have been no lawsuits banning people from having heterosexual marriages and no discrimination against Catholics anywhere where same-sex marriage is legal. It is only the fear-mongering of the Catholic hierarchy who want to believe that. As for Julia, she misses the fact that her logic means that, if after a short period of time, a straight couple does not produce children, then it would have to be dissolved, and that the elderly or the infertile would have to be barred from marrying. What is more, it has been shown that children of same-sex couples, since same-sex couples can have children the same way infertile straight couples can, turn out just fine. So, her logic about it being about what makes sense for the country and for the state and not being based on bigotry does not compute. In fact, her opinion is based upon ignorance and bigotry.

When it comes right down to it, those who support this kind of amendment do so without thought or care of others. They do not even realize that the very same arguments that they are making are the ones made a long time ago by those who opposed interracial marriage.