Hotdog
10-25-2010, 07:09 PM
I'd like to thank everyone for the continued support of Dave over these last few months.
As some of you might have picked up on, Dave has been acting a little bit... how shall I say... differently, lately.
Let me take you on a trip through time.
http://www.retroclobber.co.uk/movie-t-shirts/images/tshirts/ladies-back-to-the-future-delorean-flames-t-shirt-logo.jpg
In 1971, in the Minnesota Legislature, SF 178/HF 61 were introduced to define marriage as a civil contract between male and female persons. Back in the 1970s, the homosexual movement wasn't very strong; this, however, was the first step in the current state of affairs in Minnesota.
Jumping forward to 1978, SF 977, and HF 2027/SF 1826 were introduced to prohibit homosexual marriage. This was a direct assault against the homosexual agenda.
In 1993, HF 3016/SF 1674 were introduced and stated that Minnesota would not recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. This was clearly a statement of the largely Republican legislature in Minnesota at the time.
Moving forward, and skipping over some of the minor voting taking place, a summation of the events is as follows:
In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the denial of civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians was unconstitutional in that state. Due in large part to this court decision, efforts were made to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and, in some bills, its legal equivalent in Minnesota with the introduction of HF 2798/ SF 2715, and SF 3003 in 2004. These attempts to get the same-sex measures on the ballot failed. In Minnesota the debate continues and bills have been introduced by both opponents and proponents of this issue, see the Legislative History section below for detailed information on them.
In May 2010, three same-sex couples, Douglas Benson, Duane Gajewski, Jessica Dykhuis, Lindzi Campbell, Sean Campbell, Thomas Trisko and John Rittman, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court. They argued that Minnesota's ban on same-sex marriage violates due process, equal protection, and freedom of association rights.
On July 8, 2010, a United States District Court Judge in Boston, Massachusetts ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were unconstitutional. On August 4, 2010 another United States District Court Judge ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. That ruling has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which is scheduled to begin hearings in December 2010.
You might be wondering, at this point, what this all has to do with Dave, a man with very strong attraction to females.
It's a sham.
Dave and I, for the past 6 months, have been carrying on an ongoing affair over the Internets.
And I ask you, my Minnesota brethren, to help me join with him in your fine state.
On December 21st, a Tuesday, I will be protesting outside of your state capital, in... shit... Saint Paul. Yeah. That's it.
Outside of this building:
http://www.minnesotabound.com/visit/Capitol/CapitolHeader.jpg
Because, you see, Ohio, like Minnesota, currently does not allow unions of our type to exist.
That is why I'm coming to Minnesota; with a strong, loyal force of Minnesotans at my backside (oh yes, my backside), we will carry the day.
I am going to be demanding nothing less than a recognition of our love, which we shall then consummate on the staircase of the capital building.
December 21, 2010: The day the walls of injustice fall into one of your many, many lakes.
As some of you might have picked up on, Dave has been acting a little bit... how shall I say... differently, lately.
Let me take you on a trip through time.
http://www.retroclobber.co.uk/movie-t-shirts/images/tshirts/ladies-back-to-the-future-delorean-flames-t-shirt-logo.jpg
In 1971, in the Minnesota Legislature, SF 178/HF 61 were introduced to define marriage as a civil contract between male and female persons. Back in the 1970s, the homosexual movement wasn't very strong; this, however, was the first step in the current state of affairs in Minnesota.
Jumping forward to 1978, SF 977, and HF 2027/SF 1826 were introduced to prohibit homosexual marriage. This was a direct assault against the homosexual agenda.
In 1993, HF 3016/SF 1674 were introduced and stated that Minnesota would not recognize homosexual marriages performed in other states. This was clearly a statement of the largely Republican legislature in Minnesota at the time.
Moving forward, and skipping over some of the minor voting taking place, a summation of the events is as follows:
In November 2003, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that the denial of civil marriage rights to gays and lesbians was unconstitutional in that state. Due in large part to this court decision, efforts were made to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage and, in some bills, its legal equivalent in Minnesota with the introduction of HF 2798/ SF 2715, and SF 3003 in 2004. These attempts to get the same-sex measures on the ballot failed. In Minnesota the debate continues and bills have been introduced by both opponents and proponents of this issue, see the Legislative History section below for detailed information on them.
In May 2010, three same-sex couples, Douglas Benson, Duane Gajewski, Jessica Dykhuis, Lindzi Campbell, Sean Campbell, Thomas Trisko and John Rittman, filed a lawsuit in Hennepin County District Court. They argued that Minnesota's ban on same-sex marriage violates due process, equal protection, and freedom of association rights.
On July 8, 2010, a United States District Court Judge in Boston, Massachusetts ruled in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management that portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) were unconstitutional. On August 4, 2010 another United States District Court Judge ruled in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that California's Proposition 8, which bans same-sex marriage, was unconstitutional. That ruling has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit which is scheduled to begin hearings in December 2010.
You might be wondering, at this point, what this all has to do with Dave, a man with very strong attraction to females.
It's a sham.
Dave and I, for the past 6 months, have been carrying on an ongoing affair over the Internets.
And I ask you, my Minnesota brethren, to help me join with him in your fine state.
On December 21st, a Tuesday, I will be protesting outside of your state capital, in... shit... Saint Paul. Yeah. That's it.
Outside of this building:
http://www.minnesotabound.com/visit/Capitol/CapitolHeader.jpg
Because, you see, Ohio, like Minnesota, currently does not allow unions of our type to exist.
That is why I'm coming to Minnesota; with a strong, loyal force of Minnesotans at my backside (oh yes, my backside), we will carry the day.
I am going to be demanding nothing less than a recognition of our love, which we shall then consummate on the staircase of the capital building.
December 21, 2010: The day the walls of injustice fall into one of your many, many lakes.