Tim Riley and the Marriage Amendment

An interesting article in today’s Duluth News Tribune about the at-large city council race race. This Tim Riley is a piece of work. He’s apparently a one-issue candidate.

“Riley said he was motivated to run by a desire to make the Duluth City Council more approachable and welcoming to concerned citizens.

He also has strong views on social issues.

“Some people don’t much want to talk about it, but I support the marriage amendment, and that’s an important issue which is sure to be addressed between now and the 2012 election,” he said. “Our very existence depends on preserving the relationship between man and woman and the institution of marriage.”

How welcoming.

44 Comments

Paul Lundgren

about 8 years ago

"Our very existence depends on preserving the relationship between man and woman and the institution of marriage."

Because if gay marriage were legal, everyone would become gay, no one would reproduce and the human race itself would go extinct. Isn't that obvious? Deep down we all really want to be gay, but decent people force themselves to be straight because we have the institution of marriage in place to preserve human existence.

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Outlaw divorce!

Iron Oregon

about 8 years ago

Preserve our very existence! Procreate with everyone you see! Pronto!

Lauren

about 8 years ago

This reminds me of the most recent Daily Show episode.  The topic of discussion was the media's push to instill conservative ideologies into our young people.  Recently there have been a few animated TV programs that are a means to this end.

Personally I've always thought of Duluth as a more progressive city.  The idea of voting a man such a Tim Riley into office scares me because he strikes me as neo-conservative and would probably move our city in a right-wing (and in my mind backward) direction.  

But like Paul said, if the amendment went into effect we'd all be able to come out of the closet and stop having kids.  The only negative I see in that would involve China realizing that we won't have a next generation to push our debt onto, causing them to create a payment plan so that we pay it off in the next 30 years.

zra

about 8 years ago

funny how they want to prevent the "definition" of marriage by ...defining marriage.

Personally I like Clint Eastwood's take on it:

"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage? I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of. They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' — don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Now, don't try and tell me you're gonna argue with Dirty Harry.

zra

about 8 years ago

Thankfully, Mr. Riley won't have very much say in the realm of Constitutional affairs.

Why even bring it up? We're supposed to elect him on the basis of a highly divisive issue that will likely never come up at a council meeting? 

As a city councilor, your primary focus is supposed to be on the substance of running the affairs of the city. Get it? WTF does a marriage amendment have to do with making decisions that affect the city?

calk

about 8 years ago

I knew I always liked Clint Eastwood.

chiefly

about 8 years ago

Luckily, Mr. Riley has 0 chance of getting elected.

Question

about 8 years ago

I want to know what the hell government has to do with marriage?

Isn't marriage a religious institution?

Shouldn't the churches decide who they want to marry and who they don't?

Danny G

about 8 years ago

Uhg.  Gay marriage as a city council issue is just dumb. 

By the way, I wonder how Jeff Anderson's silly little $20 useless pieces of paper certificates are going?

zra

about 8 years ago

Depends on who you're talking to, Question.

There are those who whine about government intrusion in our lives in one breath and in the very next, will thump their chest and crow on and on about this very issue and how there must be some sort of law that protects the sanctity of marriage.

"Personal freedom" only exists when it doesn't step on someone else's perception of morality.

emmadogs

about 8 years ago

I thought "our very existence (as a city/state/nation) depends" on liberty and justice for all.  That would include people who want to marry their same-gender loved one.

Elden

about 8 years ago

Zra, I think you hit the nail on the head, unless Tim's agenda is to get elected and propose a city definition of marriage. I have seen smarter people propose stupider things.

Question, you want to know what the hell the government has to do with marriage? Well how about:

Filing taxes jointly, or inheriting your partner's assets when he or she dies. What about Social Security benefits of a surviving partner?

There are three things that have to do with government that you can only participate in if you are "married."
 
The list only gets longer and more maddening when you look to the "private sector" and begin considering health-care benefits, co-owner property insurance, health-care decisions for partners, and child custody rights. Oh, right, only hetero married couples can have those things, lest we become extinct.

Abolish every government and private sector link and bias associated with "marriage" and then let the church have it as far as I am concerned. In the meantime, Clint Eastwood +1, Tim Riley -10,000.

Sam

about 8 years ago

It used to be thought that two people of different religions cannot be married, since marriage was an institution within a religion, and not across religions.  

It was also thought that people of different races could not marry, since marriage was thought to unite people of the same race.  There were anti-interracial marriage laws in many U.S. states.  It was only in 1967 that those anti-marriage laws were deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Three times in American history, there were constitutional amendments proposed on the floor of Congress banning interracial marriage.  This Minnesota constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is just as stupid.

Hannah Arendt wrote that anti-interracial marriage laws were a deep injustice, and that the free choice of a spouse was "an elementary human right: Even political rights, like the right to vote, and nearly all other rights enumerated in the Constitution, are secondary to the inalienable human rights to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence; and to this category the right to home and marriage unquestionably belongs." 

Her point applies to gay marriage today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States

Question

about 8 years ago

Hypocrites, the lot of 'em.

Paul Lundgren

about 8 years ago

Ironically, this headline popped up today:

World population hits 7 billion

If it weren't for those darn homos, we could be even closer to our goal of over-populating the planet.

Question

about 8 years ago

Elden,

Yes, there are factors in government that come in to play when a couple enters marriage.

But that doesn't mean the government can decide who can marry using those benefits as the basis for their decision.

jessige

about 8 years ago

Yeah.  Marriage is a sacred vow.

Elden

about 8 years ago

Question, actually it is the government deciding who can have those benefits using marriage as the basis of their decision.

I think we actually agree on this. I may have misinterpreted your initial question to infer that you felt it was the church's decision as to who can marry, and the government had nothing to do with it. I was responding, in rant form, that the government is essentially ratifying the religious dogma by assigning benefits to the institution of marriage.

I personally think all this could be solved if all legal partnerships were Civil Unions, and all government benefits were the result of the Civil Union and Civil Union only, which would be accessible to all walks of life. Then if you want to tack a religious ceremony on top of the Civil Union and call it marriage, go right ahead. That maintains equal rights for all, and also the "sanctity of marriage" for those who believe in it.

MK2

about 8 years ago

I worry about the decision to not allow gays to marry being based on the idea that they can't produce offspring. Being "sterile" myself, I worry about "the folks who like to decide for others" coming for my spouse and me next! Yikes!

Claire

about 8 years ago

Well I do appreciate Tim Riley for not being a stealth candidate. He put himself out there, take him or leave him. We know exactly where he stands before the election. Not that he has a snowball's chance in hell, or ever did.

adam

about 8 years ago

Just so we're on the same page: gay rights is human rights.

And get your fucking church out of my government.

Conrad

about 8 years ago

Agreed with Elden's comment about getting government out of marriage.  Let every consenting adult decide to marry or not or get the government completely out of the game. 

Churches can do whatever they want on the marriage topic.

Chad S

about 8 years ago

I'm also in agreement with the others above.  In the last legislative session, State Sen. John Marty made one of my favorite arguments, contending that it's just as wrong to tell the churches who to marry and who not to marry.  The fact is that there are plenty of churches that WANT to marry same-sex couples, and certainly they should be able to.  

I think that's an argument that can hold water on both sides of the aisle.  No one likes government intrusiveness, and the far right vehemently opposes it. Well, what is more intrusive than the gov't getting involved in a personal relationship?

I do have hope and confidence that this will not pass in Minnesota.  Evidence: GOP State Rep. John Kriesel spoke out against it.

zra

about 8 years ago

The Mormon church funded the support for the anti-gay marriage (why does it have to be gay marriage, anyhow? Why can't it just be Equal Rights?) bill that was passed in California a couple of years ago (prop8?)

You can bet we're going to see a lot of the same funding come in both supporting and opposing a state amendment from outside our borders ... and for the same reasons as California ... any state that has the issue come into play becomes a battleground for "rights" on both sides of the issue.

Butthead

about 8 years ago

Marriage is gay, a huh huh.

Bill

about 8 years ago

... "our very existence blah blah blah ... depends on the institute of marriage." Mr Riley.
 
The institute he is referring to has a well-documented failure rate of 50 percent divorce. Of the 50 percent that stay married it is anyone's guess how many are unhappy and/or cheating. No one gives marriage a bad name more than married people.

"You see Mr. Bond the laws of the land are nothing more than the enforced prejudices of the ruling class." Mr. Big to James Bond in "Live and Let Die," (the book not the movie!)
 
I have asked many a married couple how the gay couple down the street getting married threatens the straight couples commitment to one another. If I ever hear a valid, reasonable  answer I promise to publish it here first. Don't hold your breath.

Barrett Chase

about 8 years ago

I can't believe people are misinterpreting this. It's not that people will stop breeding if we let everyone marry. It's that God will smite us down as he did in New Orleans and Japan.

Lojasmo

about 8 years ago

What an effing maroon.

Rougement

about 8 years ago

Expect Tim to be caught in a truck stop with a 'wide stance' soon.

Claire

about 8 years ago

OMG, THAT made me laugh, Rougement!

Tom

about 8 years ago

10 reasons why gay marriage is wrong:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8| Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

50+1

about 8 years ago

Just to throw a curve ball in all of this: At the community forum in Lincoln Park put on by the League of Women Voters, Tim Riley talked about helping to found the GLBT student group at Lake Superior College (it's on the LWV website). He's also written a book called something to the effect of "It's Not Natural After All."

Scott

about 8 years ago

I was very confused by that. I was at the forum and I heard the curveball and I was confused.

Tom

about 8 years ago

I had noticed that too and thought that was odd.  I know not all opponents of gay marriage think homosexuals are evil monsters who don't deserve to breathe the oxygen the rest of us are breathing, but it's odd that an anti-gay marriage guy would help out a group that probably advocates for gay marriage.

Tim Riley strikes me as generally confused though.  If you watch those forums on lwvduluth.org or hear him talk somewhere else, it seems like he has a really hard time answering anything he's asked.  He goes way off-topic and repeats himself a lot and never really answers the question he's being asked in the first place.

Also, I find it really odd that he chose City Council as his way of expressing support for the Defense of Marriage Act.  It's like running for state representative to try to repeal the federal health care bill.  I just don't get it.

bluenewt

about 8 years ago

What Tom said. I saw Tim Riley at a recent candidate forum and the word I used to describe him later was "confused."

zra

about 8 years ago

I'm totally taking Tim Riley and the Marriage Amendments as my new band name.

Claire

about 8 years ago

Goddamit zra you don't have a band!

c-freak

about 8 years ago

Well, somebody has to defend "traditional marriage." Look what I did to Kim Kardashian's sanctimonious "marriage." Next up on the "agenda": destroy my next-door neighbor's "marriage."

Sorry about the scare quotes. Just following the Evang's lead. 

Are you scared yet?

Ferdly

about 8 years ago

I just saw Mr. Riley on PBS. Marcus Bachman comes immediately to mind (Mr. Michelle Bachman, that is). I don't see any need to out anyone, it is so personal. However, when the corrosive nature of the closet presents itself in such a pathetic and mean spirited exhibition it must be done. I have nothing unkind to say to Mr. Riley. It is sad to see him flail about attempting to keep his particular closet door sealed shut... then again, I presume that Mr. Riley thinks that Marcus Bachman is as straight as an arrow.

Jim

about 8 years ago

Why all the hub-bub? Let the gays have a legal civil union. Done deal. Same rights, different name. It's not about the name, is it? It's about "human-rights" for a small segment of the population who has decided that a behavioral trait deserves legal protection. How sad. What's next on your hawney-do list? Now that I think about it, aren't you the same weenies that supported an anti-war amendment at the city council? Yah, you were. You're also the ones who defended Sir Jimmy's right to live out of state for the 40 years he was in office. Libs are the biggest whiners with the shortest memory.

zra

about 8 years ago

Oh Jim, you so silly.

Leave a Comment

Only registered members can post a comment , Login / Register Here

Read previous post:
The Old Brewhouse Bar

Anyone have any photos of the Brewhouse's bar before it got remodeled into its current state? No better reason than...

Close