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.)

Comments (200)
  1. Joe says:

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

    1. Phid says:

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

      1. Jim says:

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

        1. Kate B. says:

          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!

          1. Majority Votet says:

            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………

            1. jim says:

              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.

              1. Manuel Little says:

                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.

                1. Andy says:

                  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.

                2. Art B says:

                  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”.

                3. ??? says:

                  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.

                4. Kevin says:

                  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.

                5. Tom says:

                  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!

            2. eastside_evil says:

              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.

            3. eastside_evil says:

              Majority Votet:

              How would gay marriage negatively impact your life?

              Please cite specific examples.

          2. Nick W. says:

            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.

          3. Max N says:

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

      2. stace34 says:

        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.

        1. Just dont get it says:

          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?

        2. Nick W. says:

          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.

      3. Just dont get it says:

        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.

      4. bfbaumer says:

        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.

      5. Joe says:

        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.

    2. JamieinMN says:

      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?

    3. This is all wrong says:

      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?

  2. John says:

    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?

    1. Randy says:

      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.

      1. Sorry Randy says:

        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.

        1. Tom says:

          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”.

        2. Randy says:

          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.

    2. Amanda says:

      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

      1. George says:

        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.

        1. Amanda says:

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

          1. Lin says:

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

            1. George says:

              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.

              1. Sarah says:

                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.

                1. George says:

                  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

        2. Tom says:


          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.

          1. dan says:

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

            1. Tom says:


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

              1. dan says:

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

    3. travis says:

      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.

      1. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

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

      2. Tom says:


        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”

      3. eastside_evil says:

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

    4. Andy says:

      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!

      1. eastside_evil says:

        Is military recruitment actually sliding?

        I’m not sure it is.

    5. Art B says:

      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.

  3. Jim says:

    Makes me glad that I left Minnesota, frankly.

    1. George says:

      Glad to see you are happy in another State!

  4. Roger says:

    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…

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Why did you turn away from your gay side then?

      1. travis says:

        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.

        1. eastside_evil says:

          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.

        2. Mollie says:

          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.

    2. Amanda says:

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

      1. Charles says:

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

    3. Tom says:

      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?

    4. Jim says:

      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.

    5. stace34 says:


      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.

  5. Cory says:

    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

  6. Woman in Mpls says:

    Human rights are not up for a vote.

  7. Alex McC says:

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

  8. YoMaMJ says:

    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.

    1. Manuel Little says:

      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.

      1. Amanda says:

        @ 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?

      2. John says:

        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.

  9. YoMaMJ says:

    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.

  10. Julie says:

    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.

  11. eastside_evil says:

    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.

  12. Yelper says:

    Republicans are such immoral racist bigots…

    Enough Said… can’t fix stupid…

    1. st paul says:

      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.

      1. Amanda says:

        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

      2. James says:

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

  13. Bill m says:

    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!

  14. James says:

    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.

  15. Amanda says:

    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

    1. Tom says:


      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.

  16. Amanda says:

    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

    1. Tom says:


      Yes we are all sinners!

      1. eastside_evil says:

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

  17. Amanda says:

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

  18. A Sad Day says:

    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.

  19. eastside_evil says:

    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.

  20. Jon from midway says:

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

  21. James says:

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

  22. jason k says:

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

  23. Amanda says:

    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?

  24. eastside_evil says:

    “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?”

    1. Amanda says:

      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

  25. JB says:

    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?

    1. Lin says:

      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.

      1. Tom says:

        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?

    2. Amanda says:

      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!

    3. eastside_evil says:

      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.

    4. LadyJane says:

      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.

      1. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

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

    5. stace34 says:

      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?

  26. StarR says:

    Meanwhile, back at school, my students computers aren’t working, therefore, no keeping up with 21st century fluencies to research the Civil War. Let’s not focus on education or anything else important, we’ll just keep focusing on human rights issues. I hope we will look back on this topic one day, as my students do about slavery, and say, “wow, what were people thinking? You mean, they didn’t have all of the same rights white people did?” It makes for an interesting discussion.

    1. klmk says:

      Agreed, StarR. I would also like to add that I agree with Lin, my husband and I are both agnostics/atheists, and we were not married in a religious setting. We married because we wanted the benefits of marriage, and because we wanted our loved ones to know we are committed to each other for life.

  27. jon says:

    Not sure how they are forcing anything on you. If anything you are forcing your will upon them which I believe is against what God would want if you are going that route.

  28. Lisa Gonyea says:

    I love the “Human Rights” and how it keeps being redefined. I don’t think marriage is a right is a privilege. Liberals keep getting these confused…and I am supposed to be the dumb one(republican). Could be, cause for the first 30 years of my life I was…Thank you Jimmy Carter for being so enlightening.

    1. Amanda says:

      If it’s a privilege, so why are GAYS not allowed to it? Why is everyone else allowed but us? then that is call segregation… I don’t even know what is worst…

      1. Jim says:

        AmandaNot, which POS university taught you spelling? Because they failed. Or more likely it was a high school, right?

  29. eastside_evil says:

    Lisa, that nonsensical collection of misplaced words meant absolutely nothing. Did you read it before clicking on submit?
    How do human rights “keep being redefined?”
    What redefinitions have there been? Please be specific.

  30. eastside_evil says:

    Of all these comments, nobody has yet said how 2 people marrying each other affects them in ANY way whatsoever.

  31. Lisa Gonyea says:

    to marry here is being called a isn’t is a privilege..and yes Gays are allowed to marry..where the law denfines that they is in statutes who may and may not to age, being eligible(not already married) ect. My nephew and his partner married in Canada where the law defines it is permissible. When the statute states same sex partners can marry in MN..OK, but until them it is not legal. I am almost sure if put on the ballot as a referendum in liberal still will not pass. Oh..east..dosen’t affect me at all!

    1. JesseV says:

      Good place for them…Canada.

      1. travis says:

        I can’t believe comments like this. And the worst thing, these people who spew hate have a larger voice in government right now than sane people.

        1. Travis says:

          and the reason they have a larger voice is because the republican party ran on jobs and the economy. However, that really was just a trojan horse to advance the social agenda of the extreme right. trying to defund planned parenthood, Anti-gay marriage legislation, Anti-abortion legislation, anti-immigrant legislation, show me your papers before you vote (even though votes are already crossed checked with a valid voter roll), blah blah blah. You go to Canada.

    2. travis says:

      yes… thats the thing… It doesn’t affect you at all. But it hugely affects several thousands of people in this state. So, please, before you spew things out, think about the people this will affect.

    3. stace34 says:

      That is actually not true. Becasue normally (by law) states are required to honor the marriages performed legally in another state. Except same sex marriage. They are an exception to the rule. So it is not the same thing.

      1. Tom says:


        That is true! There are people who get married in Hawaii, Las Vegas, etc, and they are not from there and when they do go home their marriages are recognized by the state they live in!

    4. eastside_evil says:

      If it doesn’t affect you at all, then you don’t get an opinion.

  32. Heidi says:

    Everyone here should read Meredith Baxter (Birney’s) book! She was married to David Birney and had 5 kids. She was married twice before David and is now living as a “gay” person and has a gay partner. It’s a very interesting book!

  33. BlueB says:

    WE SHALL OVERCOME! One day, we will look back on this discrimination and not be able to believe it was even an issue.

  34. FROG says:

    God is good!!! Didn’t read the rest of the comments, I don’t need to… I pray Marriage is forever between a man and a woman. We are all God’s children and we all make poor CHOICES occasionally. I love you all and God bless you all!!

    1. Amanda says:

      And GOD is GOD in Church… not in politics…. SEPARATE STATE FROM THE CHURCH

    2. eastside_evil says:

      “I pray Marriage is forever between a man and a woman.”

      Why do you care?

      How would it affect you if gays could marry? Please be specific.

    3. stace34 says:

      My church performs same sex marriages.

  35. stace34 says:

    This just angers me. The fact that a party that likes to talk a lot about being about smaller government wants government to say what relationships are valid and worth of special treatment and what relationships aren’t is so far beyond the idea of BIG government. Not only that, but to think that the voters should be able to invalidate someone else’s relationship based on religious belief differences, fear, and hatred is beyond me. Do you realize that in many states if they were able to ban interracial marriages today they would still be ban? There too you would have majority telling a minority that your relationship, your love in not as good and as worth as ours. This is the same thing that the southern states did to ban interracial marriage. The same arguments about it being against God’s plan, that this is what the people have chosen were used to justify this horrible discrimination. It makes me sad to see that we really have not come that far. That a group of people think that they should get these special benefits and those others shouldn’t. That somehow the government or anyone else has the right to tell another who their relationship is not the same. It is a sad day in MN.

  36. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

    Hatred and bigotry are disgusting.

  37. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

    What an argument! Congrats on looking like an UNORIGINAL bigot.

  38. Amanda says:

    I am just going to ENJOY the day that this will bite them in the you know where.. and that day will be Nov 6. 2012

  39. Kate B. says:

    There are more than 450 species, including humans, in which same-sex pairings are observed. There is only one species in which anti-gay bigotry is observed.

    You tell me: Which is the unnatural one?

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Kate, not to split hairs here, but what species in nature outside of humans practice same sex pairings? I can’t think of any.

      1. JamieinMN says:

        Here’s one: dogs. Females hump females, males hump males.

  40. Amanda says:

    I was always proud to be a Minnesotan… now not so much, but I hope that on Nov. 6 2012 I will be proud again! let’s show this REPUBLICANS in the Congress and Senate, what is this state made of, I am not saying that ALL of republicans are the same, as a matter of fact I know plenty of people that are republicans, and they still support me and my girlfriend getting married

  41. Smart Alec says:

    I just don’t see how keeping peoplefrom being allowed to wed is protecting the institution of marriage. Wouldn’t more people being allowed to marry strengthen marriage?

  42. Swamp Fox says:

    The Legislature can’t balance the state’s budget but they can show their idiocy by passing state Constitutional amendments for the citizenry to vote on. There are already statutes covering what constitutes marriage. If drastic changes are to be made now is not the time to do such when this state is in financial distress!

    Why isn’t the Legislature enacting the legislation that benefits all Minnesotans in this time of financial recession? Where are the jobs bills? Where are the tax reforms? Where are the public works and infrastructure projects that get this state back on the recovery road? And, where is that political ambiance and cohesiveness MN is noted for that shows Minnesota as a forward moving progressive state?

    Come election time many of the present incumbent elected Legislators are going to be filing for unemployed!

    I guess Forrest Gump was correct when he said, “Stupid is as stupid does!”. The present Legislature is certainly living up to that bromide! To the Legislature; stop your inane stalling, belly-aching, and governing selfish hypocrisy get the budget balanced in the most efficient way and get this state working again!!!

  43. worryfree says:

    Thank GOD the Repubs are protecting my wife and I from hordes of invading Gays!!

  44. Paul says:

    Here’s hoping that the good citizens of Minnesota rise up and vote against this amendment next November. Thankfully it’ll be on the same ballot that will allow us to vote against his legislature.

  45. Shane says:

    i am so ashamed to be a Republican in Minnesota today. And I vow to vote all Democrat in the next election because this is not what I voted for last year. I did not vote for discrimination. What the Republicans did today is pathetic and I hope to God that the Minnesotans give them the finger on this topic come 2012.

  46. Me says:

    I don’t like the thought of gay marriage however, I’ve thought a long time about it and realize that’s my problem. I look at my hubby, not the same race as me, and realize that 40 yrs ago, this same discussion was being held. Same issue, just a different “type.”

    Everyone should be allowed to marry the person they love.

  47. Tom says:


    How do you know that animals aren’t gay?

    And I would be careful throwing the word “normal” around!

  48. Male 4 Female says:

    We Minnesotans have a choice to vote on this matter and if the Government wants it they will dig up dead people that died of aids and let them vote. I vote that my peanuts belong on the chin of a female. Just saying!

    1. eastside_evil says:

      “I vote that my peanuts belong on the chin of a female”

      And nobody is asking you to do otherwise.

      However, you will not be allowed to decide for others that they can’t put their peanuts on the chin of a man if they so choose.

      It doesn’t affect you. If it does, I want to know how.

      1. Male 4 Female says:

        If gays can marry than angry people can hit….If your handing out rights. Again I’m Just Saying!

        1. Amanda says:

          So care to explain me then, why do you have the right to marry? Just Saying

        2. eastside_evil says:

          @ Male 4 Female:

          Should gays get to get together and vote what you can or can’t do?

          Why should you get to decide what gays can or can’t do?

          Honest question. Please be specific in your answers so I can understand your viewpoint.

        3. eastside_evil says:

          Violence against an unwilling victim is not a relevant comparison.

          Do you HAVE a relevant comparison?

          Do you have a relevant ARGUMENT?

  49. Vinny says:

    Hopefully the next bill passed will be to ban government involvement in marriage period. That means no tax breaks, or special status for married couples, or extra money for children. They have no business in regulating marriage.

  50. Scott L says:

    I propose a ban on divorce. If it is the Holy Bible we are using to decide what is right and what is wrong and determine what is truly a marriage, then we MUST ban divorce. If you are divorces, you cannot be seated next to God and this is a sin you cannot ask Jesus for forgivness. I think making divorce illegal is way more important than who should be married.

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Also, eating shellfish and marking your flesh (tattoos) shall also be punishable by death. The first witness to either abomination shall be tasked with their beheadings.

  51. Small Government Now says:

    Marriage, Sunday liquor sales, and all other personal activities are not a government function to determine

    1. Laura says:

      I want a ban on having kids out of wedlock too. Because the repubs also say it’s about children being raised by a mother and a father – yet there are plenty of people having kiddies out of wedlock (right Bristol?) and a lot of deadbeat dads to be found (or rather, not found…)

      1. eastside_evil says:


        Why the “right Bristol?” comment?

  52. Superchik1017 says:

    Senator Barb Goodwin (DFL-Columbia Heights) attempted to present an amendment to the ballot regarding same-sex marraige we will be voting on so it would read, “Only a marriage between one mand and one woman FOR LIFE will be recognized in the state of Minnesota.” That was quickly voted down by everyone. So she tried to amend it to read, “Only ONE marriae between one mand and one woman…” Again, that was quickly struck down. So my questions is, if the concern is “keeping the sanctity of marriage”, why would they vote againts defining marriage as something that only occurs ONCE in your life?

    1. Charles says:

      I watched that, of course it was struck down, statistically speaking, Republicans have a higher divorce rate than Democrats 🙂

      1. Laura says:

        Just think of little Newty Gingrich…. Yet even he can find love, over and over and over again. He’s a SUPER defender of marriage!

  53. James says:

    Yay for the Nanny Government of Republican’ts, who tell the rest of us that we can’t either. The party of No, i.e. no budget, no jobs, and no good. They were given a chance. Time to get rid of the bums!

  54. Ryan Henriotf says:

    Lets hope are great state of MN does not vote yes if this makes it on the ballot. Will you stop me from happiness? I would never want to stop you from getting married. Please vote no.

  55. HWG says:

    This is a democracy and the people should be able to decide what happens in our society. It will be iteresting to have this decided once and for all.

    1. stace34 says:


      Way to make the same arguement that in the past has been used to justify bans on interracial marriage. “This is a democracy and people shoud decide” Should the people be able to decide what is right in every aspect of your life? Shoudld the people get to vote if you get married? Should I not be free to choose who I want to marry? Shouldn’t you be able to decide who you want to marry? Does anyone have the right to vote on your marriage/relationships?

  56. rydog says:

    god made adam and eve, not and and steve. so no to gay’s

    1. Amanda says:

      Eve requested a sex change.. she was originally Josh

    2. eastside_evil says:

      @ rydog

      How did the gays get here then?

      What should be done with them?

  57. jason says:

    well if they want to protect marrage, outlaw divorce. and could someone please tell me why letting same sex couples get married be a bad thing? it boggles my mind.

  58. Laura says:

    Eastside evil: Bonobo monkeys are notorious for same-sex pairings. But they also have no bones about same family pairings or pairing with infant bonobos – so they’re like the ultimate sex machines of nature.
    I think Bonobos monkeys are all reincarnated sexually repressed Republicans.

    By the way, ever notice the people who are most vocal about defense of marriage are people you really wouldn’t want to spend the rest of your life with anyway?

  59. Charles says:

    What species outside of humans vote in legislators who then work on all these social issues when they promised real solutions to our economic crisis? Do dogs do this? Not that I know of. How about fish? Not that I know of. Maybe monkeys? Wait, don’t think so…maybe you should join another species.

  60. Just sayin' says:

    A sad day for human rights.

  61. Kevin #2 says:

    The MN GOP can now be referred to as the MN Taliban. They disgust me.

  62. snowman says:

    Only reason this is an issue is because Republican run big business doesnt want to pay out same sex marriage benefits

  63. snowman says:

    Only reason this is an issue is because Republican run big business doesnt
    want to pay same sex marriage benefits

  64. dphilips says:

    Hope this frails miserably on the ballot!

  65. Manuel Little says:

    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. 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.

  66. Manuel Little says:

    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.

    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.

  67. Integrity says:

    I was in the gallery for this session. Tons of sound rational reasons that this should not become a part of the state constitution, and very, very, very little comment at all by senators who were in favor of the amendment (rational or irrational). And yet it passes? The issue aside, the IS something wrong with this picture! Virtually 95% of the discussion was rational thinking in opposition to the bill, and it passed????

  68. cody says:

    This is an anti-minority amendment. We should start calling it an anti-minority amendment.

  69. stephanie nelson says:

    This is how the republicans propose we solve the economic crisis we are in? great job

  70. Jacob says:

    Why should the government even have a say in the definition of marriage? Shouldn’t it be between God and the people who love each other. If God created people who are gay, then I would assume that He would want them to be able to get married.

  71. petrostar says:

    Side note on those of you afraid this will affect the 2012 elections. If the majority of the state votes this’ban’ into place, how do you think this would change their 2012 vote? Those same people aren’t going to get mad at their previous vote and throw democrats back into the majority.

  72. JamieinMN says:

    FYI, eastside, 1500 species of animals practice same sex pairings.

  73. Tom says:

    It is amusing that the GOP and the Relgious Right alway accused liberals of making up laws as they went along when it came too issues like this. But look at who wants to change the State Constitution ? The GOP and the Relgious Right.

  74. No wisdom here says:

    Personally I would like to see “marriage” defined as a union between a male and a female but I would not be at all opposed to a “civil union,” with the same rights, obligations, and privileges for the gay and lesbian people.

    What chaps my cheeks, and I hope chaps yours, is that our legislators have time to spend on this issue – which clearly does not need to be addressed right now, if ever – instead of solving our five billion dollar state deficit.

    Another cheek chapper is this: gay marriage has zero impact on the public debt and the subject is a personal matter, not something for the state to be involved in. Yet our brain dead legislators will put that to a state-wide vote but they refuse to allow us to have a state-wide vote on whether or not A LOT of our money should go towards supporting a billionaire’s new football stadium.

    In your mind, which of these issues is more properly brought to the voters for their decision? Which is a personal matter and which is a public matter?

    What does that tell you about the wisdom of our legislators? Given three things to deal with, they want the public to decide if gays can get married in MN, they don’t want the public to decide if they should fork over multi millions of dollars for a private venture, and they won’t even work on the five billion dollars in debt that we have.

    The new motto for Minnesota should be “We is smart.”

    1. eastside_evil says:

      “Personally I would like to see “marriage” defined as a union between a male and a female”

      Ok. Gays don’t. How do you propose we deal with it? Straights get to decide FOR them that they can’t?


  75. Matthew says:

    What is this State come to you can ‘t marry who you want.

  76. Jim says:

    Let me ask you, what is the difference between asking the public to vote against the definition of marriage to be sure to block gay marriage to gay, loving couple, and having the public vote if it is ok for nigros to use white bathrooms and waiting rooms?

    1. Jim says:

      Sorry, I meant to ask:

      Let me ask you, what is the difference between asking the public to vote for a concrete definition of marriage to add insurance to block a gay marriage, a marriage between a gay loving couple, OR have the public vote to define a white waiting room or bathroom to insure that no nigros using white bathrooms and waiting rooms?

  77. A Voter says:

    I’m straight and will vote against it because of the time and money wasted.
    I the US Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional we will all be crying.

  78. Matthew says:

    Are we land of the free. So can Marry who ever you want to marry.

  79. Ron says:

    I have no problem with gay marriage. a gay man and a gay woman can get married anytime…..

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Why do you think you should get to decide for someone else but they shouldn’t get to decide for you?

      Please be specific, Ron.

  80. majority rules says:

    Can’t wait to vote! looking forward to putting this non issue back in the closet. then amanda and eastside will move out of minnesota where their **rights** can be excercised. Iowa is close and defends your **rights**

    1. eastside_evil says:

      And again, you can’t show how it would even affect you, let alone destroy your life and dreams.

      Or can you?

      And no, the majority does not rule. That isn’t how America works.

  81. Daniel Matthes says:

    I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I have been married for 31 years. I believe that the issue of the sanctity of marriage should be addressed! I, however, feel it needs to be addressed by the main culprits who are destroying the sanctity of marriage. The 60% of Americans who are getting divorced. How can this Government, that wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage, turn a blind eye at the fact that so many people are turning marriage into a farce? They should make them all stay married just as they now want to make the Gay people marry straight people…How sanctimonious can we get!

    1. eastside_evil says:

      @ Daniel Matthes

      MAKE them stay married?

      What a disastrously HORRIBLE idea.

      What exactly WOULD preserve the sanctity of marriage? I guarantee you that creating a hand full of laws about what you can or can’t do in a marriage won’t be that solution.

  82. eastside_evil says:

    Here’s a funny situation. The IBEW Local 160 in St. Paul recently voted to allow a lesbian electrician union member to use her insurance to cover her same sex partner. A gay man electrician union member then went through the proper paperwork and same procedures and put his same sex partner on HIS insurance and they voted to disallow it.

    Here’s another. I have good friends who are opposite sex, and have been roommates, non-romantic, strictly platonic friends living together for about 7 years. She covers him on her insurance. Legally.

  83. Jeremy says:

    Once the MN Constitution is amended, it will be worthy of toilet paper. Non-sacred, and certainly not anything worth respecting. Just a thought.

  84. George says:

    Here is the hard truth. Most Minnesota people do not want to physically vote to allow gay marriage. If its currently happening they are not going to care about it. but the fact that it is already illegal for gays to marry in MN, makes it a lot harder to get that vote. Our Politicians are simply looking out for the next election and are going to try and stay Politically correct. There is no politcal correctness in the voting booth.
    Sorry but this will not pass. I think all 31 states that brought this to the voters all agreed that there should be no marriage for gay couples.

  85. john says:

    Gay marriage only happens in ‘white america’.

  86. bob says:

    gay marriage = no procreation = death of mankind.

    1. eastside_evil says:

      “gay marriage = no procreation = death of mankind.”

      Dumbest comment of the day award. Way to go.

  87. hoffman says:

    AIDS. Nuff said.

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Not enough said.

      What about AIDS?

      Are you trying to insinuate that gay couples who are married would get AIDS?

      Wouldn’t getting married PREVENT the spread of AIDS, Einstein?

      I think this debate is just over your head.

  88. James says:

    The Republicans are the bullies in the political schoolyard. And one wishes there were some way to legally punch them back, to get them to understand just how psychologically violent they will be in the next year and a half, and how many lives will be turned upside down. I know they don’t care. Why would they? They are the party of NO! guised as less govt, but damn they sure are a big presence in my life, telling me what I can and cannot do, just like Jim Crow. Self reliance, independence, are not mine to have. The MN Constitution will become a joke, just toilet paper.

  89. Mike says:

    The Republicans are the bullies of the schoolyard. How many lives will they turn upside down without a care? WCCO won’t post the next thought from me. The MN Constitution when they are done will be a joke, toilet paper, not worth a dime. It will not be mine to cherish, just mine to be cheerful for others who are equal while I am not. With liberty and justice for ALL does not include me. Heterosota, in the United Hetero States of America. HA!

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE