Minn. Senate OKs 2012 Vote On Gay Marriage Ban

By Pat Kessler, WCCO-TV

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The state Senate on Wednesday approved a statewide vote in 2012 on a gay marriage ban in the Minnesota Constitution, pushing forward what’s expected to be a contentious debate over the definition of legal unions.

The Senate voted 38-27 in favor of the marriage amendment, with one Democrat joining all Republicans in support. The state House is expected to vote on the issue soon, and passage is likely in the Republican-led chamber.

State law already confines marriage in Minnesota to one man and one woman. But supporters of that definition said the extra protection is needed to guard against judicial rulings like one that legalized gay marriage in Iowa in 2009. Critics said it would enshrine discrimination in the state’s most important document, and that the debate between now and November 2012 would be divisive and a distraction from more important issues facing the state.

The Senate debate stretched past three hours, with numerous Democrats citing gay family members and friends in opposition to the amendment. At a press conference following the Senate vote, several Democratic senators had tears in their eyes.

But Sen. Warren Limmer, chief sponsor of the Senate bill, said no one should fear leaving the ultimate decision to the public.

“Quite honestly, the definition of marriage is so encompassing and it’s such a part of our society and our fabric that this issue would be cheapened by letting a small group of politicians or judges to define marriage, when we have a third option,” said Limmer, R-Maple Grove. “The third option is to give it to the public.”

Sen. Paul Gazelka, R-Brainerd, said prohibiting gay marriage in the state constitution “does not prevent gays and lesbians to live as they choose in our state as they do now.” He said gay couples could still jointly own property, ensure hospital visitation rights and invoke other right granted to married couples through the use of legal contracts.

But Sen. Scott Dibble, the Minneapolis Democrat who is the Senate’s only openly gay member, said that was not sufficient to gay Minnesotans who are seeking simple fairness. He challenged Republican colleagues to cite examples of ways in which gay relationships threaten more traditional families.

“What’s so different about us?” Dibble asked as he held up a picture of himself and his partner. “What’s such a problem? The truth about our relationship is we work hard every single day at our jobs. We’ve been there for each other. We made a lifetime commitment based in love, a commitment and a promise made in front of our families and made in front of God.”

Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, pointed out that many Fortune 500 companies, including several in Minnesota, now use domestic partner benefits and other inclusive policies to attract employees. He said by pushing the constitutional ban, Republicans are contradicting their party’s message that attracting and keeping jobs is the top priority of the current legislative session.

“This would send a strong message, and precisely the wrong message, to potential employees around the world that Minnesota is not a welcoming place to do business and bring your families,” Latz said.

The long Senate floor debate was dominated by Democrats criticizing the amendment, with few Republicans speaking on the matter. The few Republicans who spoke mostly limited themselves to arguing that the public deserved a vote on the issue, avoiding discussions of the pros or cons of gay marriage itself.

Limmer, in a press conference after the vote, did say he would personally vote in favor of the amendment assuming it gets on the ballot, “simply because I don’t believe marriage should be defined that way,” he said of gay unions.

Dibble said he thought Republicans steered away from explicitly moral arguments because of rapid shifts in public opinion polling nationwide in favor of gay marriage. “They’re being steered by a strong vocal minority that they know is wrong,” he said.

Despite the perception of changing opinion, the 31 states that have voted on constitutional gay marriage bans have all passed them. Dibble and his allies said they believed Minnesota had the potential to be the first to vote one down. But most said they did not relish what Sen. Linda Higgins predicted would be a “long, divisive and bitter debate” — one likely to attract attention and a steady stream of political spending from national groups on both sides of the issue.

The ballot measure has the potential to drive up voter turnout, but that could cut both ways — bringing out both conservatives and liberals with strong feelings on the issue.

A single Democrat, Sen. LeRoy Stumpf of Plummer, joined every Senate Republican in supporting the amendment. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton has said he opposes the amendment, but governors can’t block lawmakers from putting constitutional amendments on the ballot.

(© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

More from Pat Kessler
  • Joe

    *eyeroll* Instead of job creation, we get this ridiculous form of social creationism.

    • Phid

      Something tells me that you would not be “eyerolling” if this were for some pro-liberal cause.

      • Jim

        Maybe. But the fact is Republicans ran on “jobs, jobs, jobs” and delivered gay marriage legislation. Is this really a priority for most Minnesotans?

        • Kate B.

          Gay marriage legislation, anti-abortion legislation, legislation to terminate health care for poor families, legislation to make it harder to vote… this is dictatorial overreach in its purest form!

          • Majority Votet

            Katee: your there is no logic in your quote. This issue is being decided by the PEOPLE of the state of Minnesota, not by a bunch of politicians. I would love to see a lot MORE ballot issues resolved in this manner. Your fear is that the liberal minority won’t win…….just gotta live with it……or move………

            • jim

              the problem is … it is WRONG for the majority to limit the freedoms and rights of the minority “just because”. there is NO valid reason, NO factual support of ANY kind for this legislation.

              • Manuel Little

                The majority ALWAYS decides in the USA. The minorities depend on the majority to get their way. There is no such thing as “wrong” in civil legislation – it not a moral or religious issue. it is a matter of votes, plain and simple. Senators who vote against the marriage amendment can simply be removed by their constituents. Don’t try to bring in your religion into this civil debate.

                • Andy

                  I agree with Jim. If we had state-wide votes on de-segregation, would that have passed? If we had state-wide votes on mixed-race marriages, would that have passed? If we had state-wide votes on women’s right to vote or to own property, would those have passed? Yet today, after “judicial activism” or the “big government” stepping in, we would probably consider such issues part of our everyday lives. But at the time, the voting minority needed help to create equality. Today, we face a similar challenge. The majority cannot always be trusted with the equality of the minority.

                • Art B

                  Ok, then. Please tell everyone how “civil” it is to deny anyone their RIGHT to enjoy a life full of love and happiness with the person they choose to spend it with — just because that someone happens to not be heterosexual. What the Right-wing CONservatives of Minnesota (and the U.S.A.) propose is like what the Nazis did with the Jews in Europe: “They are Human – but not equal to everyone else and therefor do not have the right to be treated as Human”.

                • ???

                  Manuel Little
                  Then how would you describe the non legalization of weed? Studies have shown that more than 50% of US citizens do not believe this is a harmful drug, and the last stat that I heard is that 57% have used this or do use this. It still is not legal, yet you state that anything that “the majority wants” happens. I fail to see the logic in the statement. How about the assisted suicide or “death with dignity” that Oregon has? This has been voted on in other states unofficially and they never put it on any other ballet because the politicians found out that the people want something different than what they want. There are countless polls that would prove your point is wrong.

                • Kevin

                  Manuel, the majority does not always decide. Brush up on your civics pal. Bringing in religion into this debate is why there is this legislation. It is a stupid bill that will only hurt MN.

                • Tom

                  Manual Little

                  Are you on drugs? Who do you think wanted this issue to be brought up? Social Conservatives! And they use their Relgious beliefs for their main argument!

            • eastside_evil

              The majority may not suppress the rights of the minority.

              This can NOT be voted on. Not because more people aren’t gay than are… But because we, as a society, can not be voting on what gays get to do or what they don’t. That is not up to us.

            • eastside_evil

              Majority Votet:

              How would gay marriage negatively impact your life?

              Please cite specific examples.

          • Nick W.

            Kate B. you should take a quick course on United States politics or just look in your old history book. Then you might understand what your role in politics. Every one in Minnesota should vote for what they believe and not what other people do. That is Democracy. It is not dictatorial in the slightest, especially if you believe in the Freedom of Choice. The mandatory Health care is therefore against freedom of choice. Think, I demand that you do at least spend that much time before blogging.

          • Max N

            yes! if they want small government, they can start by using laws to tell people how they can live their lives

      • stace34

        I “eyeroll” at the idea that this it the party that claims to be about small government. They just want it small enough to dictate your heart and control your bedroom. There are real conservative that understand this. I have seen them. I may not like all of their ideas, but at least I can respect them. I can not respect people who advocate for discrimination.

        • Just dont get it

          Blacks as Slaves
          Women without rights
          Segragation in the South
          Gays can’t marry

          I am not gay and i’m a conservative (not a neo-con like these nut jobs) but a real conservative (state’s right, small government, strong defense, etc) for the life of me i cannot understand how in the year 2011, we have people openly lobbiing for reduced rights for an entire class of people. It boggles my mind and i dont know we let it go on. Why are so many people out there hate filled with small lives?

        • Nick W.

          All parties are for small government, at least in areas that they disagree with. Think about that Democrats want smaller defense and other things. Republicans want other things too.

      • Just dont get it

        We are talking about PEOPLE…..HUMAN BEINGS with thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, aspirations, etc. Why is this even a debate???

        How did we as a country let this issue of HUMANITY become about partisian politics and rhetoric? It makes me sad this is the level of compassion and understand we treat our fellow humans. I think it says alot about us as country/society and how we are only about a stones throw away from living in caves again.

      • http://benbaumer.wordpress.com bfbaumer

        This isn’t about eyerolling….
        I grew up in MN, I love MN, It’s a beautiful place and I owe so much in return for everything I learned in all my years there.

        Minnesotans are by and large welcoming, warm, and community focused people- we do not have a reputation or history of discrimination, why would you start now… and why me?

        I have always had dreams of returning, getting married and starting my family in MN. Having been in a stable and loving relationship for 3 years, this dream of mine is so close to becoming a reality. How could there be so many people that would destroy my dream out of nothing but their own fear. I get it, peoples’ perceptions of those they don’t know are often adverse ones, and with so many lies being thrown around in our media I understand where the prejudice comes from.

        BUT PLEASE, if you are unsure where you stand on this issue, reach out and speak to an LGBT person, and get to know them (don’t worry “gay” is not contagious,) and then try to compare their dream with your own. Many of us just want the opportunity to have the sacred and beautiful institution of marriage bring us permanently together. We want marriage for so many reasons, but speaking personally, I think the idea that my future husband and I will enter into a recognized promise: til death do us part, is ultimately what we want, and it’s what our families want.

        I’m begging you, please vote no to the marriage ban.

      • Joe

        You’d be amazed what makes me roll my eyes, honey. Democrats and global warming legislation, for example. Amazing! I have this incredible gift called ‘critical thinking.” I don’t automatically fling myself off some ideological cliff just because it’s a liberal or conservative idea.

    • JamieinMN

      This is BS. This is NOBODY’S business! This shouldn’t even be an issue anymore! Tell me, if I were to marry a woman today, how would you DIRECTLY?!?! How would it affect YOUR life?

    • This is all wrong

      Why do we vote for the GOP? Besides what they say they will do, they want to spend time and resources trying to pass their own moral and ethecal laws as they see the world as they seem to think as if they must save us all. This whole thing is discrimination at its best. What’s next? Saying gay people cannot cote? Have them taxed? Watched? Asked to leave the state? The GOP is acting foolish. Why do we vote for the GOP?

  • John

    Liberals complain that elected officials should be concentrating on fiscal issues instead of social issues. Did they protest when the anti-morals crowd was working to repeal DADT in the midst of the worst recession in decades?

    • Amanda

      Yes, the only difference is that democrats didn’t campaign on… “let’s concentrate on jobs, let’s keep the spending at minimal”, but they don’t, as a matter of fact they decided to pay 520.00 an hour to a lawyer to defend DOMA in court

      • George

        And the Liberal Art Farts gave some hack Author $45,000 for one speech that was attended by less than 50 people. Oh, how honorable he is donating $15,000 of it to charity after his compensation was criticized.

        • Amanda

          Great… Art is the foundation of Culture… of course for you, it is hard to understand.

          • Lin

            He donated the entire fee less the amount that went to his Agents. It was something like $30K.

            • George

              We can argue anything but the fact that the Arts foundation thought this was a good idea is what kills me, not what was done after he was publically humiliated.

              • Sarah

                1. We’re talking about Neil Gaiman, so let’s say his name.

                2. It’s not Gaiman’s fault that the library had to spend the money. If they had not hired him to speak, they would have had to hire someone else.

                3. He was not publicly humiliated. Being used as a political bludgeon, sure, but as he believes he has done nothing wrong he is not humiliated.

                4. He donated the money to several different charities immediately, including one that benefits public libraries. He did not sit on that cash until he was embarrassed into giving it up.

                5. Why the hell are we talking about Neil Gaiman, when the article is about the State Constitution? Someone wants us all to be angry and distracted. I mean, George, Amanda, everybody — support your cause, fight about it if you want, but for the right reasons. This is ludicrous.

                Also, anyone who thinks that all Liberals (or Conservatives) have the same virtues, faults, or values is plainly mistaken.

                • George

                  That’s what I love about public funds…….”they had to spend the money” What planet are you people from? That was $45,000 of our money that got blown on Mr Gayman. and, No Sarah, he did not give the money to charity immediately. it wasnt until it was brought to light how much money was wasted on this writer that he came to Jesus.
                  The reason this came up is that Amanda has a real problem with a lawyer being hired for $520/hr. At least the lawyer did something for the money

        • Tom


          Well that is 50 people more that have a brain as compared too paying someone like say Palin and speaking in front of lets 1000 people who don’t.

          • dan

            At least it doesnt come out of your tax dollars Tom.

            • Tom


              Who pays someone like Palin to speak? And I would venture too guess you would listen to Palin speak?

              • dan

                Witty come back Tom! You are as colorful as our mothers when they gave us such eloquent names

    • Randy

      Jphn, you’re more focused on blaming liberals and hating gays than fixing anything. It tells us all where your priorities are, and I hope you sleep like a baby with that on your head.

      • Sorry Randy

        He was illustrating the liberal hypocritical nature. Actions speak louder than words. Pretty sure you mis-read what he wrote. oth sides are hypocritical however. But liberals seem to acknowledge it less.

        • Randy

          Actually I’m pretty sure I’m absolutely correct in assuming what’s on John’s agenda, as well as yours–since the both of you have a clear prejudice against liberalism. I would not charge you personally with such an accusation if you weren’t so blindly defending his off-topic comment. Have a better day. :) And I forgive you.

        • Tom

          Sorry Randy

          The big difference is that Liberal don’t campaign on socials like the GOP does. Liberals say let gay people get married, abortion rights, keep the gov’t out of our bedrooms, etc. And the GOP does the same thing, but when they get into office they do exactly the opposite, because they have too deal with a social conservatives who don’t live in reality , but live in their own little “land they call OZ”.

    • travis

      are you saying it is morally wrong for an openly gay person to serve in the military? I am a gay person and I am increasingly feeling unwelcomed in this country. I have lived with my same partner for coming up on ten years… we are very normal people.

      • Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski

        Ignore these bigots, Travis. You are more welcome than you realize; the ignorant just tend to have the loudest and angriest voices.

      • Tom


        I think what they are afraid of is that instead of backing their fellow soldier that they will doing the cha cha cha instead! And yes they don’t consider you “normal” but if I were them I would watch who they consider “normal”

      • eastside_evil

        You probably have a cleaner house, make more money, and have a better education too, statistically.

    • Andy

      Perhaps those liberals thought that repealing DADT would put people back to work that had been suspended for being gay…ie job creation. Maybe they thought that, when military recruitment has been sliding, bringing back qualified and trained soldiers into service would actually help our military efforts. Maybe they thought that essentially firing someone for sexual orientation was wrong…and would increase unemployment. Hmmm, maybe the decision indirectly does help the recession…and lead to a greater equality!

      • eastside_evil

        Is military recruitment actually sliding?

        I’m not sure it is.

    • Art B

      John, what exactly is “moral” about denying a person their RIGHT to a life filled with love and happiness and to spend that life with the person of their choice? Your Right-wing CONservative heroes ALL ran on the promise of “{creating jobs”; now we know what kind of jobs they intended to create all along: Morality Police. Stay the frak out of other peoples’ personal lives, John — who they marry is none of your business.

  • Jim

    Makes me glad that I left Minnesota, frankly.

    • George

      Glad to see you are happy in another State!

  • Roger

    Being A gay man John I dont think you really know what you are talking about… Look at issues then open your mouth…. Ok everyone is just afraid that if same sex marriage is pasted it might threaten them.. Guess what you dont have nothing to worry about not even the gays want you… If you say yeah right dont kid your self… if its that big of issue to you change it and get some counseling and someone in your family is probably gay and dont admit it…

    • Tom

      Matt Thill

      So you are claiming that the “gay lifestyle” is a choice? So then you are saying that one day after being married too lets a woman or man for about 10 years that you wake that you don’t love your husband or wife anymore, but now you have the hots for “mary” or “chad” now?

      So then the next question would be if you are Social Conservative were you born nuts or did you choose to be nuts?

    • Jim

      If it’s a choice, why would anyone choose to live with the bigotry and hatred gay people face in this country? Makes NO sense.

    • eastside_evil

      Why did you turn away from your gay side then?

      • travis

        matt… I am gay. When I was growing up, I wished every day… and prayed to God every day… to make me straight. I didn’t want to be gay. I knew it would be a life full of hate and ridicule. I grew up depressed. The only way to get beyond that was to come out and accept myself. Being gay is not a choice.

        • Mollie

          Here’s my take on it…..if you don’t agree with gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person. Otherwise, shut up! Live and let live. While I am straight, happily married and a semi conservative, I can recognize that whether this is a choice or not, it is NOT MY PLACE to tell ANYONE, besides my 2 underage children, what to do. Unfortunately, it is obvious that we are still living in a very homophobic community. Sad, considering this is 2011.
          For the record, I do not believe being gay is a choice. I whole heartedly support gay marriage. While some things are not being handled correctly, I must say I am glad that the public has a say instead of just the politicians. I think there will be a huge turn out in favor of EVERYONE’S human rights being honored.
          Love, people. It is much more satisfying than hate.

        • eastside_evil

          I can’t imagine the torment and confusion generated by one’s self as they mature through that process, Travis. It has to be the most difficult thing I can imagine for a child, especially KNOWING he won’t be accepted, and even his parents will (or might) change their opinion of their own flesh and blood and how they receive him in their lives.
          Why do people not understand how harmful and destructive their bigotry is? Humankind is doomed. Humans are naive, selfish leeches with no regard for right or wrong.

    • Amanda

      Sure Matt, it is a choice…. I choose every morning to be GAY so I can be segregated.

      • Charles

        Wake up Matt! Time for a reality check. Do some real research

    • stace34


      So when did you choose not to follow your heart and become straight? If you did not choose straight, what makes you think anyone chooses gay. It is somply who they are. No choice in involved.

  • Cory

    JOBS,JOBS,JOBS That’s what the right told us!! What is this nonsense? All across the country state and fed levels. NOT ONE JOBS BILL!!!!!! We gave you a clear message. Now fulfill you end of the deal. I’m a GOOD employee I need a decent job.So do too many people. CUT THE BULL

  • Woman in Mpls

    Human rights are not up for a vote.

  • Alex McC

    Jesus and real marriage is? 60% of marriages don’t last take that as you want it but that is not a valid argument.

  • YoMaMJ

    And the 50% divorce rate for hetero couples is any better? Next time your wife is in the hospital be grateful that you can visit her with no questions asked . Next time you get a job and need to switch insurance, be grateful that she can be on your plan, no questions asked. Next time you files taxes, be happy you don’t need to file separately. When you pass away, be grateful that your wife is “next of kin.” Next time you have a child, be grateful that you can take paternity leave. Next time you go to work, look around, there are gays and lesbians that have long term committed relationships who work with you. You have no idea what gay/lesbian couples go through.

    • Manuel Little

      You are forgetting that many other couples who have a deep friendship would also deserve the same privileges (insurance, hospital visitation, etc.) – – for instance two roommates in College, away from their homeland – relationships don’t necessarily merit automatic “next of kin” privileges. These matters have to be controlled from abuse with falsifiable documents, but i agree that hospitals are to strict about information, and there should be a better system to get registered “next-of-kin” some automatic privileges in hospitals.

      Same-gender couples are of many types (not just those of homosxual behavior, but who knows?), and if privileges like this are given to couples of homosxual behavior (which is a private matter and cannot be determined), then all couples should also have it. It is much easier to change the hospital system, register other types of “next-of-kin” for these privileges, and problem solved.

      But couples of homosxual behavior want to cry on people’s shoulder about this, when many of these matters simply require a will or registration. It is certainly not a reason to change altogether the definition of civil marriage at the Fed. level.

      • John

        hey Manuel, I’m not crying as you try to trivialize my quest for equality. All my life being gay has been subject some form of explanation by expert heteros such as yourself, as you must understand my experience since you don’t stand in my shoes. Guess you prove that hate comes in all colors, both genders, and always with a smile.

      • Amanda

        @ Manuel Little,

        you are so close minded, you live in your own little world… exactly how is it that me and my girlfriend marrying will affect you?

  • YoMaMJ

    Dear JOhn W —

    And the 50% divorce rate for hetero couples is any better? Next time your wife is in the hospital be grateful that you can visit her with no questions asked . Next time you get a job and need to switch insurance, be grateful that she can be on your plan, no questions asked. Next time you files taxes, be happy you don’t need to files separately. When you pass away, be grateful that your wife is “next of kin.” You have no idea what COMMITTED GLBT couples go through.

  • Julie

    I would love it if the govrenment would stay out of our lives.
    Government does not mean enforcing their wants and don’t wants on my personal life. They should focus on laws, and not curtailing who my heart can fall for or not.

  • eastside_evil

    John W, why should you even get an opinion on what gays can or cannot do? It doesn’t affect you. Whether gay marriages succeed or fail at a higher or lower rate than heterosexuals is not part of this issue.

  • Yelper

    Republicans are such immoral racist bigots…

    Enough Said… can’t fix stupid…

    • st paul

      Hey my partner and I are republicans – we could care less about marriage. It doesn’t stop us from doing what we aren’t already doing.

      We’ve been together over 8 years going on 9.

      Slap a ring on your finger and call it good.

      Some liberals are just plain stupid.

      • Amanda

        Sure, and what about the benefits of being married? if I am raising a kid with my girlfriend, we can not even file taxes together, I can adopt my daughter, and can’t visit either one at the hospital, if I died, since i am the provider, she will be out of nothing… since legally she is not my wife, and my baby it’s not my daughter

      • James

        St. Paul, That is your “choice”, except that choice is not a Republican ideal.

  • Bill m

    Ever wonder why all those old republican politicians get caught having sex with men? Creepy and weird for people that are so High and Mighty…LOL!

    Guess that’s the irony of what the republican party stands for today!

  • James

    Yes suh Massa suh. The Nanny Government will again decide my life cuz I certainly can’t think for myself being second class. Yes Suh, you be a good Massa and pass that amendment. Keep me enslaved. Thanks for the gristle Massa government. Yes suh, Massa suh, I love Republican’ts.

  • Amanda

    And haven’t you heard that Straight marriage doesn’t last long either… it’s the people, that is not willing to work things out, not the sexual preference

    • Tom


      Very true! The divorce rate among straight couples was already high before the gay marriage issue came up. For the Social Conservatives to want too blame gay marriage if theirs fell apart they are looking for a scape goat. When In fact all they have to do is look at themselves in the mirror and the answer will be staring him or her in the face.

  • Amanda

    it is actually Adam and Joseph… LOL but fornication it’s a sin… and we all do it! straight, gays, whatever you call it… we are all sinners

    • Tom


      Yes we are all sinners!

      • eastside_evil

        Not me, Tom. I don’t buy into your beliefs in that arena. So no, I’m not a sinner.

  • Amanda

    And Molly, please define “NORMAL'” cause you are certainly not!

  • A Sad Day

    An American legislative body voting to restrict rights to a segment of its citizens because of their own personal biases and religious hypocrisy.

    Can’t wait until the GOP wants to take rights away from blacks, women, Jews, and others who the Bible singles out.

  • eastside_evil

    Molly, your whacko religious beliefs cannot be used in this argument. Do you have anything of relevance to share? Do you have an actual legitimate reason gays shouldn’t marry?

    No. You don’t.

  • Jon from midway

    Boo to this idea – How about we ban building a Vikings stadium instead when out state is in a 5 billion dollars in debt.

  • James

    Molly, how do you know that Steve didn’t ask for gender reassignment?

  • jason k

    You’re truly ignorant. Be informed, Molly…BE INFORMED

  • Amanda

    What does immigrants have to do with all??? and you must hate Gays, since you believe in Allah… don’t they kill GAYS in your religion?

  • eastside_evil

    “seems that if your against Gay marriage….then you hate gay’s”

    First of all, adding an apostrophe and an s to the end of a word does not make that word plural. I learned that in elementary school.

    Second, yes, if you are against gay marriage you are against gays. So riddle me this then: If gay marriage should be illegal because you are offended by and against gay sex, then using your logic, shouldn’t gay sex, and therefore being gay, also be banned. And if so, what should be done with the gays? If you won’t let them live free in society, what is it you suggest as your “Final Solution?”

    • Amanda

      He is an Allah person, of course he wants us dead… that is what they do to gays at their religion! thanks goodness we don’t vote according to Allah, they only want to do it according to GOD

  • JB

    so, if republicans are so evil and gay hating for doing this, then what does that make democrats? Considering they controlled the state houses for 34 years and did not legalize gay marriage, but they sure took the gays money…. I want to know “why marriage?” why not a legal civil union, that has nothing to do with a church? Marriage is a contract between two people blessed in the church, whereas a civil union if the democrats would have created one over the past 34 years could have been set up with the same legal rights as “marriage”, just no church blessing. So why is the word “marriage” so important to you Amanda and Eastside_Evil? You just want your relationship recognized, right? You want the same rights for property, hospitalization, visitation, and tax reasons, right?

    • Lin

      If marriage is a blessing by the church, why did I attend my parents marriage last year in the courthouse with no mention of religion? How come there are so many marriages out there where the people worship two different religions? Marriage is not that closely related to religion, for generations it has been nothing but a business contract – you take my daughter off my hands, I’ll give you all this money/land/goats. Only in recent years has it truly been about emotion. Marriage is a symbol of committment between two PEOPLE.

      • Tom

        Lin and Amanda

        Yes marriage is just a piece of paper. Couples fill out and certificate and then it is up to them when and where.

        And why does the Gov’t get involved because the Social Conservatives want them to. The Social Conservatives are on a mission! They want everybody too become just as nuts as they are and live in the same “little land they call OZ” as they do.

        I wonder what will happen if the citizens of this state vote it down?

    • Amanda

      So if marriage is a contract between two people blessed in the church… then why is the government in the middle of it??? Separate the State from the Church… that is what our founders Fathers wanted for us!

    • eastside_evil

      1st of all, JB, i’m not gay. 2nd of all, I’ve been married twice, and neither time was in a church or blessed by a church or religious figure. So I’ve just debunked that theory of yours.
      Second, about the word “marriage” why do you care if gays marry and use that word? What difference does it make in your life. Please be specific.

    • LadyJane

      Marriage has become a generic term, like Band-Aid and Kleenex.

      I was not married in a church, but we did get the license, file the correct paperwork with the state, and paid the fees. The state said we were married and could file joint taxes.

      We did not want nor did we have children. Does that mean that we should not married? The rational of the proposed amendment seems to be raising children.

      In 2012 get active and work to vote the idiots out and defeat thei1950’s social agenda that they want.

      • Amanda

        Well said!

      • Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski

        Here here! Come on, Minnesotans! Don’t let these ignorant citizens give the rest of us a bad name — we are BETTER THAN THIS!

    • stace34

      I have been to same sex marriages in my christian church. That union may not be regonized by the state, but they are married in the yese of the church. Why shoudl you get to be married but others only get civil unions? What makes you so much more special than they are?

blog comments powered by Disqus
Weather App
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live