Minnesota suffers under DFL-controlled legislature

  • Article by: Jason Lewis
  • Updated: May 25, 2013 - 5:36 PM

Now that this year’s legislative session — otherwise known as “DFLers gone wild” — is mercifully over, ­Minnesota’s monopoly party can get to work planning its next assault on American tradition.

  • 87
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
badcopperMay. 25, 13 5:18 PM

Ok, let's get this out of the way. I want to take cAre of the poor and the week. Now that that's out of the way.... Who I dont care about are the middle class liberals who would rather your wages go towards THEIR families versus YOUR wages going towards your retirement and your children's college funds. Pretty much sums up the liberal mindset.

hobie2May. 25, 13 5:24 PM

Why is it that the right wing blabberers think that taxing the upper brackets is taking other people's money; but the GOP borrowing and spending and putting that bill on the kids is NOT taking other people's money?... So the kids are actually not "other people"? Or that it was OK for Reagan and Bush to spend like madmen and borrow to do it because it is "magic borrowing" that no one ever pays for? For Pawlenty to take the schools' money to pay for his enlarged staff was not taking other people's money?... When is one of those right wing talking heads going to stand up and say "I am a conservative, and conservatives pay as we go. SO we need to raise taxes and pay as we go, and do so until we pay off our debts."... The right is so hypocritical they have lost all grasp on any reality but me, me, me.

my4centsMay. 25, 13 5:43 PM

hobie2 - "right wing blabberers" are just as offended when spending requires borrowing - that's why neither Bush nor Pawlenty were fully embraced by conservatives. Although, at least in Pawlenty's defense, the spending that required the shifts and gimmicks was pushed for by Democrats. Same is true for Reagan - he allowed for more domestic spending by a Democratic Congress in order to gain their support on tax cuts. The group most labeled "far right" are the Tea Partiers - and they are the ones who oppose the excessive spending, regardless of whether it is paid for by borrowing or higher taxes.

ebfauvelMay. 25, 13 5:47 PM

"Democrats anointed gay marriage at the behest of a vocal lobby of activists, corporate chieftains, and an obsequious news media reluctant to examine the societal ramifications of overturning 2,000 years of social policy."

You don't know much about the history of marriage, do you, Jason? The aristocracy of Europe used it as a means of securing wealth and power. Divorce was common - the Catholic church didn't outlaw it until around the 13th century - as were the keeping of mistresses or concubines. Most marriages, even among the peasant class, were arranged. In medieval Europe, husbands didn't take wives for love, but rather for the help she would give him with his trade.

Despite its prohibition against divorce, the Catholic church would, for a fee, grant an annulment - especially if a relative of the church official granting that annulment stood to gain from it or the remarriage made possible by it.

There's a lot more to the story, of course, but the point is that there is no such thing as "2,000 years of social policy" when it comes to marriage. Marriage has been so many things in so many places in so many times that one is hard-pressed to find anything universal about it - other than, of course, that it united two (or more) people in a societally-approved relationship.

Same-sex marriage isn't even a new idea. Although rare, there are historical examples of it - and there are even more examples of approved same-sex coupling outside of marriage (such as in ancient Rome).

But don't worry, Jason. Even though we are now all allowed to civilly marry a consenting, non-related adult of our choice - of either gender - no one is required to marry a person of the same sex. You need not marry another man, participate in a gay wedding, approve of same-sex marriage, or like any particular same-sex couple (or same-sex couples in general). You are free to continue voicing your opposition to marriage equality (and thereby display your ignorance about the history of marriage). The rest of us will continue to live our lives as we please, giggling at the funny sounds you make in opposition to our freedom.

Oh, one more thing. There are still lots of states that don't recognize same-sex marriage. You could always move to one of them if marriage equality here in Minnesota bothers you so much. Don't let the proverbial door hit ya.

greg62May. 25, 13 6:06 PM


borisbadenovMay. 25, 13 6:53 PM

The problem is that the DFL and democrats on the national level think that we work for them and they are entitled to take our property to spend as they see fit. This arrogant bunch is out of control and most liberals actually love it because they actually believe the government is responsible for providing them their quality of life.

borisbadenovMay. 25, 13 6:55 PM

"You don't know much about the history of marriage, do you, Jason?"

Obviously liberals don't. The premise of marriage has always been spiritual and between a man and a woman. The US government stuck their noses in the marriage business in 1863. Marriage predates modern government. But, you already knew that and just ignore it.

jdlellis1May. 25, 13 6:56 PM

In reading the Declaration of Independence in its entirety, one would see the concerns of the colonists over the depths at which the crown encroached upon the lives of the colonists. These words established the foundation for the framework of limited government codified in the U. S. Constitution (e.g., freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.). The tragedy today is those so willing to abdicate those freedoms to government agencies (federal, state and local). Today their is an inability to separate "musts" from "wants", the on-going drive to look for the government to do more and more and the inability to ask questions such as; "What aspect of the citizens lives should the government not control and/or regulate?" "What type of country will exist when 51% of the population works for a government agency being supported by 49% of private citizens?" The harsh reality is, "In a free society, government cannot and should not be all things to all people."

ebfauvelMay. 25, 13 7:59 PM

"The premise of marriage has always been spiritual and between a man and a woman."

It's rarely been spiritual. It's most often been political. Usually it has involved both sexes, but even then it has more often been polygamous than monogamous. Even in marriages involving only one man and one woman, history is rife with the married man having mistresses and/or concubines - and with knowledge, even approval, of the wife and the church.

Yes, marriage predates modern government - but it also predates Christianity and Judaism. In any case, marriage equality in Minnesota concerns only civil marriage, not religious marriage. It doesn't matter when the United States "stuck its nose" into marriage, because today marriage as a civil contract is all that the government cares about.

garykhansonMay. 25, 13 8:27 PM

We know Jason Lewis will make his case against Democrats and other unfitting people. Could we at least start with the premise that other sides of any issue may have a point.


Comment on this story   |  


  • about opinion


  • Submit a letter or commentary