Poll: Majority In MN Oppose Ban On Gay Marriage

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A new poll shows the majority of Minnesotans surveyed oppose amending the state Constitution to ban gay marriage.

The Star Tribune Minnesota Poll says 55 percent of respondents oppose such a ban, while 39 percent favor it. Support for the ban seems to rise with age. Sixty percent of respondents aged 18 to 34 oppose the idea. A slimmer majority, 51 percent, of Minnesotans older than 65 oppose the ban.

“We should have our own choices and abilities to choose what we want and not have someone categorize or label people because of their sexual orientation,” said Adam Leistiko, a 22-year-old Democrat from Edina who opposes the marriage amendment. “I have a very open mind.”

The Minnesota Senate approved the amendment this week after lengthy debate. The House is expected to follow suit. If approval is given, voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended to “provide that only a union of one man and one woman” be recognized as marriage. Constitutional amendments need approval from a majority of state lawmakers and a simple majority of those voting in a general election.

The latest survey reflects a change from a Minnesota poll done in 2004 when 58 percent of Minnesotans supported a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

Doug Regester, 53, of Minneapolis, said he supports putting the question to voters.

“If there is a way to give the people the say rather than just having a few politicians decide, I’m all for that,” Regester said. Limiting marriage to a union between one man and one woman has been shown “over the centuries” to be “the most beneficial to society,” Regester said.

The poll of 806 Minnesotans was done last week and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.7 percentage points.

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. Yelper says:

    Take that Republicans! Lets let voting season begin so we can end the bigotry!

    Hoo Ya!

    1. My Vote says:

      Where was my vote? I was never told how or when to vote against this!

      1. TS says:

        Same here! I had no idea there was a poll.

        1. Bill says:

          This is a public opinion poll, people. It’s a sampling. The actual vote is not until November, 2012. You are encouraged to learn basic politics, including the difference between public opinion polls and actual elections… and also to read the article which states “voters would be asked in the 2012 election whether the Constitution should be amended “

      2. Scott says:

        the vote was just takenby the gays

    2. interestingly enough says:

      Where is my vote? I was never told about a time or place where I could vote against this on the poll. What a bogus poll and yes I agree that 55% is not exactly a land slide victory.

    3. Jake says:

      It’s about money. It always has been. It is about survivor benefits with pensions, housing, and other programs originally designed to support those staying home to raise kids.

      How is the world a better place by subsidizing same-sex couples? It is not. If there are children involved (with the help of a third party, obviously), that is one thing, but if it’s about Jonathan going to work while Kevin stays home to work on his pottery, they can pay for that themselves.

      This is not about fairness, or inclusion, or about making the world a better place. It’s about money. The people demanding state recognition and subsidy of same-sex couples should admit that and be ashamed for pretending it is not.

      1. Nancy says:

        Jake,
        wow, Really? I have to admit, that’s a new one.

      2. Jim says:

        I demand state recognition of same sex couples just as I do mixed sex couples, and it’s about treating all humans equally, not about money. I have absolutely no monetary stake in gay marriage, I support it because it’s the right thing to do. Your statement here is false.

      3. Andrew says:

        No Jake, it’s about rights and the role we want government to play in our lives. If my fiancee were to be hospitalized, I would have no control over the medical decisions. It would fall to her parents, neither of which she would want making those decisions. This is just an example of the problems same sex couple’s face. We need to have goverment sanctioned unions that are available to all. As for the religious side, the state has no place in telling any church what is acceptable. Some denominations will support same sex marriages, some won’t. It’s not goverment’s place to say.

        1. LadyJane says:

          @Andrew – an intelligent answer. Hope you are active next year to defeat this and the other amendments being pushed.

          I do not understand why so many do not realize that their religion belief is not universal. I’m not forcing my belief structure on them, why do a few think they can force theirs on me?

      4. B says:

        Marriage should be about love and not money. However, what we’re saying is that if you extend financial benefits to opposite-sex couples who have made a lifetime pledge (which over 50% fault on, btw), those benefits should go to same-sex couples who have made the same pledge. Why should Suzie get to work on her poetry and not Kevin (in your example)?

        In terms of taxes, I honestly don’t think anyone should get tax benefits for being married or for having kids. Why should you pay lower taxes just because you’re married? Why should I have to pay for your kid’s public education, public transit, etc., while you actually get paid for having that kid? Even as Republicans try to “save us money” in the budget by cutting important things, they continue to pay people to have kids via a tax cut. If you want kids, pay for them. If not, don’t have them.

        1. Jake says:

          @B, you make the point. It’s about money. Certainly, a percentage of heterosexual marriages don’t have kids, and that is inefficient. But 100% of same-sex couples don’t. There is not even a child raising argument there. Your point appears to be that the benefit should be discontinued for all, not extended to same sex couples. That is logically sound.

          @ Andrew, get a Health Care Directive. You can designate anyone you want to make health care decisions or have access to you in the hospital. Moreover, you don’t need a religious affiliation to have a heterosexual marriage. It is not about state imposed religion. It’s about money.

          1. Andrew says:

            @Jake, If it’s about money then why don’t we just require everyone to get married? The marriage penalty in the tax code would boost the state income and reduce the deficit woudn’t it?

          2. Superchik says:

            @Jake; Even a healthcare directive doesn’t protect or guarantee a same-sex couples’ rights. There have been many cases where living wills, directives, and/or power of attorney have all been ignored by the hospital. The hospital is NOT legally obligated to follow the directive.

            1. Jake says:

              It is the same legal obligation they have to honor proof of marriage. See Minnesota Statutes Section 145C.07

              Please provide us some specific examples (and I mean names, dates, and locations where you have confirmed cases of this where it was legally ignored). If you cannot (and I’m pretty confident you cannot) then it’s clearly just an attempt to shift the focus away from the fact that it’s about money.

              1. Superchik says:

                Okie dokie! Here you go:
                -A Fresno Hospital in California denied Teresa Rowe access to her parnter, Kristin Orbin after she collapses (May 30th, 2009). Diretive papers were provided yet ignored.
                -Janice Langbehn tried to visit her dying partner, Lisa Pond, along with several of their adopted children when Lisa was rushed to a Miami, FL hospital. Again the hospital denied her family access (May 18, 2009). Again, Directive papers were ignored.
                How about one more?
                -Sharon Reed was unable to see her partner of 17 years, Joann Ritchie when she was taken to the University of Washington medical center until a nurse made her leave citing only blood family and spouses may visit (September 3, 2005).
                So, now that I’ve provided some examples for you and have “proven this isn’t about the money” will you vote againts the amendment in 2012, now?

                1. A man who was lucky. says:

                  You seem to want to pull in a few extreme examples. My partner of 36 years is now in a Nursing home in Bidmidji, MN. The facility has a hospice team that will step in at the needed moment, which will be soon. My partner does not even have to change rooms. The entire staff has been absolutely wonderful. From the doctors right down to the orderlies are well aware of our relationship. No one has even batted an eye to our situation. Perhaps it is the famous “Minnesota Nice’, but whatever it is I thank whatever god by whatever name who is responsible for the civil folks of Minnesota. Of course, not everyone is civilized, we do suffer the fools who belong to The Party of NO!!, Even as I write this the Republican led legislature is trying to legislate a change in the state constitution to outlaw same sex marriage! The last few days at the nursing facility, I have had many people comment on the duration of our relationship, many heterosexual people (I assume – I don’t need to know otherwise. and it is none of my business) ask our we have managed a long term relationship (becoming a rare thing in the “straight” world). Our two families are flying in from all over the country. I have a wonderful relationship with his family, they and I are all family. Three of my grown children are flying in tomorrow. They have known my partner for 36 years of their lives and have treated him as a member of their family, they and my partner have been close all these years. I realize that the two of us have been extremely lucky in how compassionate how families are. I, too, have heard horror stories. Civilized people understand that love does not ask questions, it happens when and where and between whomever. As long as there is life on this planet there will always be a group that feels it has the right to control another group. It is far easier to love than to hate, that is a choice, not your sexuality! May your life have some gorgeous sunsets. I am about to experience one.

                2. Jake says:

                  Um. How about Minnesota, since that is the issue here?

    4. Justin says:

      its not even a dem or repub issue. I’m against the amendment and I think you sound like an uniformed moron.

    5. Tea would vote Pro-Gay says:

      Well Yelper…I’m Republican and I would for AGAINST a ban…..

      I have NO isses this!

      So…..though MOST Republicans are against this….I am one who is NOT!

      Trust me…I would take the gay man/man couple as my neighbors ANY DAY over the blue collar hillbilly’s that live down the street from me ANY DAY!

      Give hillbilly’s money and they are the WORST…..Give a gay coupe money…and the property value of EVERY HOUSE on the block goes up 10% as they add CLASS to the neighborhood!

      If ANY GAY COUPLES would like to me to my neighborhood….PLEASE LET ME KNOW, you have a straight couple who will help you move!!!!

  2. Munich says:

    55% is not exactly a “vast majority” especially when coming from a left-leaning news firm.

    1. ft2yahoo.com says:

      TRUE TRUE TRue !!!

  3. Larry says:

    I am 73 and straight

    1) The constitution is there to protect our rights, not take them away

    2) Gay Rights is a religious issue, not a political issue. Politicians should leave it alone and let the chuches deal with it.

    1. Tom says:

      larry

      Why is gay rights a religious issue? The reason why it is a political issue is that you have people like that nut Tom Pritchard from MCCL and other social conservatives who want gov’t involved!

      1. Larry says:

        Exactly my point, government should not be involved. If a religion wants recognize gay marriage (or not) it is OK. Don’t push it off on everyone.

        1. Tom says:

          Larry

          Certain Religious people will never accept gay marriage because they don’t consider it “normal:. Well if I was these certain Religious people I would look at myself in the mirror before you start throwing the word “normal” around.

          Or maybe email Tom Pritchard and ask him why he get politics involved in gay marriage and other social issues.

        2. Superchik1017 says:

          Larry,
          Most gay couples are not interested in having their marriage recognized by any religion and would oppose any bill forcing a church to recognize their marraige. What would make you think that same-sex marriage is a religious issue? Religion has nothing to do with having the same legal rights and responsibilities and heterosexual couples have.

          1. Larry says:

            Everyboby seems to agree with me. Anyone who can legally perform a marriage has the right to perform a gay marriage and also has the right not to do so.

            Everybody I have talk to about this issue and was against it, was against it on religious grounds. I told them they were wrong.

  4. Lark says:

    i like kevin comment.
    lets vote – I doubt it would pass.

  5. Nancy says:

    I have never been able to get anyone who was opposed to gay marriage to answer this question. Please tell me how me living my life with a woman affects anyone negatively. Just one logical explaination. Not religious based. Not morally based. Because remember, every one is entitled to their own religious and moral beliefs.

    1. Julie says:

      because it scares them.
      what scares them or what they cannot understand they destroy

      1. Cornfused says:

        Okay I don’t get this????Gay guys don’t like girls right?….Then why do they emulate them.???Butch gals dress like men but are not turned on by them?Full flannel and work boot alert?

        1. A full wonderful life says:

          What a pathetic little mind!! I’m not sure I like how your so-called “life” turned out! It is sad to be wasting what might have been a productive live. I hope our creator took the talents that would have been wasted on you and presented them to a deserving person who would have cherished them. You, my friend are about as useful as used condom. Karma – look out!!

    2. Tom says:

      Nancy

      You living with another woman does not effect anybody else. Like I mentioned on another post on here is that those people who believe it does only believe that because that is what they are told by the man behind the pulpit. And Nancy those same people that is the only argument they have is a religious one you take that away from them they have no argument.

      1. Nancy says:

        Tom and i don’t get it,

        right. and we wait and wait and wait……..
        where are the “Kevins” now? Right now, when someone is asking a direct question.
        The only thing this bill has done (and will do) is dig up hatred and anger for both sides of this issue.
        So much hate.
        Not sure how we keep teaching our kids to turn the other cheek…..but we will. regardless of the outcome

        1. Jake says:

          @Nancy, you have every right to live with who you want and marry whoever you want. The question is whether the state must recognize your marriage (if you have one. You didn’t say.) must be recognized by the state for the purpose of receiving financial interests currently extended to heterosexual married couples. What is the advantage of subsidizing same-sex couples?

          Nobody is saying you can’t be with the one you love. I have no hatred whatsoever for people in same sex relationships. I just wish people wouldn’t claim this is about something other than a push for financial benefits.

    3. Todd W. Olson says:

      So, Jose, you would say that a childless, heterosexual couple also provides no benefit to society? Are you saying that only heterosexual couples who actually produce children should be allowed to be married? Or should childless heterosexual couples be forced to divorce?

      1. Amanda says:

        And how do you figure that???

    4. Ellen says:

      Divorce negatively affects society, so should it be illegal?

      1. Jose Cuervo says:

        This discussion is about banning gay marriage, by way of a constitutional amendment. Divorce legality would have to be a separate discussion.

        1. stace34 says:

          But if your arguement is marriage is a sacred union between man and woman and that it benefits society and divorice ends that sacred union and hurts society, then shouldn’t you be working equally hard to ban divoirce?

        2. Superchik1017 says:

          Senator Barb Goodwin (DFL-Columbia Heighrs) attempted to change the language in the proposed amendment so it would make Divorce illegal. The comiittee voted it down – twice – before she could take another breath (look up Senator Barb Goodwin on YouTube to see the vote)! Bottom line: this isn’t about the “sanctity of marriage”, it’s about discrimination.

          1. Kevin says:

            Its about morales……..

        3. Jake says:

          Gay marriage is not being banned. Legal recognition of same-sex marriages is being debated. A couple’s personal or religiously-recognized marriage is not being limited in any way.

          1. Nancy says:

            Is this what you tell yourself before you go to bed at night Jake so you can clear your own concious? . At least if you are going to defend this proposed amendment, call it like it is. All of this side stepping is really annoying

    5. LD in MN says:

      Bristol Palin’s “family unit” isn’t one man and one woman. She’s raising her kid on her own. Are you going to ban single parents too? The Republican’s love to celebrate Bristol Palin’s pre-marital sex lifestyle.

    6. Nancy says:

      jose –
      would you like to tell my 15 and 13 year old girls that? tell them that their family unit provides no befefit to society. WOW, and our state legislature believes that people like Jose are educated enough to decide my life……..that’s nice

      1. Jose Cuervo says:

        You asked for a non-religous, non-moral reason to be opposed to gay marriage. I gave it to you. I’m sure you don’t like it, but it is the truth. (and the truth shall set you free)

        1. Nancy says:

          yes, non-religious, non-moral…….AND logical.

  6. Why Kevin? says:

    I get you Kevin….i used to be like you.

    But then someone really made me think one day.

    So i ask you…why are you opposed to gay marriage? Does it affect you in the least? Does it make your marriage any less valid? NO. Do you have to witness the gay marriages? NO. Is it going to raise your taxes? NO.

    So i do not understand where your objection originates from. These are fellow human beings we are talking about. Just like you….they have thoughts, feelings, dreams, aspirations, etc. They are your brothers and sisters. Cant you see that?

    This is just like segragation in the south….it is an issue of HUMANITY not politics or religious beliefs. We are talking about HUMAN BEINGS!!!!

    1. Tom says:

      Why kevin?

      I think the answer is very simple. People like that believe if you do not live your life like they do and you don’t think like they do you are the one who has a problem. What two gay people does effect anybody else. It’s just that they are told that it does by the man at pulpit every saturday or sunday.

    2. Why Why Kevin? says:

      Actually there are tax ramifications and the likes. If there aren’t any benefits to being married why is anyone married? In all the states that have had gay marriage bans on ballot all of them (30 some) have passed the ban. On the other hand Minnesota does have a history of being more liberal than even California. How is this just like segregation? Being sexually active is a choice. Skin Color isn’t a choice. We aren’t arguing over whether gays can vote or pay taxes, but whether they should receive the benefits of a marriage. They can and do already adopt children in the twin cities.

      1. Paul says:

        I would hope people get married for other reasons then the tax benefits.

      2. wake up says:

        Hmm the benefits – higher taxes – being responsible for someone else’s debts, bad driving record, etc. Will the person love you more by being saying vows – nope and as far as being able to legally make decisions on your significant others behalf – yeah good luck with that – the inlaws can still over ride your decisions – even with a living will – sorry seen it happen to my brother. I’ve seen enough of marriage/commitment whatever you want to call it to wonder why people even bother.

    3. Jake says:

      I do not oppose same sex couples getting “married” in whatever context they choose. I do not support the state recognizing such relationships as marriages, because it is, in fact, about money. Survivor pension benefits, housing benefits and other subsidies that were provided for heterosexual married couples were about having children. While same-sex couples can raise children, they cannot produce them.

      While some heterosexual couples choose not to or are unable to have children, that inefficiency has been accepted by the public. The inefficiency in same-sex couples in 100% from a child production standpoint without third-party participation.

      This is not about fairness, or inclusion, or acceptance. Steve Simon’s Youtube video is a strawman knockover. The issue isn’t about getting rid of gay people. That is just silly. The issue is whether the world is a better place by subsidizing same-sex relationships. It is not.

      Perhaps the best result would be to reevaluate the issue of marriage benefits entirely. How about this: The current housing, pension, health care and other benefits currently apportioned to married couples goes to two-adult households with at least one minor child (or special needs person) as a dependent living there. One of the adults would be subsidized as a means of caring for the dependent. If the care is provided for at least ten years or ends due to tragedy, the subsidy continues. Otherwise, the subsidy ends and people can pay for their own lifestyle.

      The majority of people are now single. The subsidy of others not engaged in raising kids is neither appropriate nor does it make the world a better place. People demanding recognition of same-sex couples by the state should admit it is about money. And they ought to also be ashamed for pretending it is not.

      1. Mike says:

        What a cynical view of relationships… people do actually bond and form loving relationships without the concern of what monetary benefits they will get… at least the gay couples I know do – is that not how hetero relationships work?

        1. Jake says:

          @mike. My point is quite the contrary. Relationships do not have to be recognized by the state to be valid. The point is that the push to have same-sex relationships recognized by the state is about access to financial benefits, not that it is necessary for the relationship to be meaningful.

      2. stace34 says:

        Why should we subsidize any “choice” that people make? Why should hetero couples who get married get subsidized with tax breaks? Why should people who choose to have children get tax breaks? Unless you eliminate all of the breaks that come with marriage you can not ban that right for other concenting adults. that is discrimination.

  7. Rita says:

    I’ve said it before. If you’re against same sex marriages, then don’t marry someone from the same sex.

  8. Julie says:

    it isnt political, it isnt religious.
    It is a personal lifestyle.
    It is nothing the government has any business telling us we can or cannot do.

    Sure marraige is an institutuion recognized by the church.
    So that gives the church the right to tell people who arent christian what they can do?

    Seperation of Church and State for a reason.

    Stop gtting into other people’s business and focus on getting the state back on track. This is a non-issue in regards to what our politicians are supposed to be doing.

    This is just to garner votes for 2012

    1. Tom says:

      Julie

      The social conservatives say that “Seperation of church and state” is myth because the consitution doesn’t use those “exact” words. Well it seems that about 75% of the country knows that is what it means.

    2. Larry says:

      Julie, everybody has a lifestyle. The only differnce between other lifestyles and the gay lifestyle is “MOST of the time, the gay lifestyle is not chosen”.

      1. booboo says:

        Beg to differ in regards to you ‘chosen’ comment. Some people have a more violent personality, some people seem to have the desire to steal things, some people have the desire to drive their cars real fast. When they get caught the “I was born that way’ excuse doesn’t cut it. Acting on immoral or bad impulses is a ‘choice’.

        Whether it is a right or wrong choice is not mine to say. Being gay is a choice. If you think it’s wrong, you don’t give in to the desire. The lifestyle is a choice….period!!!

        1. Amanda says:

          SURE, YOU KEEP THAT TO YOURSELF! AND MAYBE ONE DAY YOU WILL GET OUT OF THE CLOSET THAT YOU LIVE ON

          1. booboo says:

            The closet is a choice.

            1. Amanda says:

              So get out of it….

        2. stace34 says:

          When did you first find your self attracted to the same sex, but choose not to act upon that? If you did not make a choice to be straight then what makes you think someone makes achoice to be gay? When you can answer my question about not giving into your own gay feelings then I will take your arguement a little more seriously. Also there is a huge difference between breaking the law and falling in love and if you don’t realize that than I feel really sorry for you.

          1. booboo says:

            If you’re attracted to a married person, do you act on it…or do you control yourself? Is it wrong to go after a married person? YES.

        3. Ugh says:

          If this is the argument, which I don’t think it is, then straight is also a choice. In which case, you’re choosing to be straight. Therefore your decision isn’t any more important or right than anyone else’s. I doubt you’d agree with all of that… But you can’t have one way be a choice when the other way isn’t a choice. I would argue that neither is a choice, you are straight or gay and that’s the way it is.

          1. booboo says:

            Are you born with a violent temper? Maybe. It is your choice to learn to control it.

            You are confusing Choice with Desire. The Choice is how we act. And the consequence is the result of our Choice.

            We are all born and learn different emotions throughout our lives. It is our responsibility to control them.

            1. Ugh says:

              Desire is a feeling, choice is an action. I completely understand the difference between the two. The desire for someone of the same sex is a feeling, an emotion; it’s difficult to describe desire in a way that accurately reflects how it feels and what it is. This is the same desire a straight person feels for someone of the opposite sex. All people, straight or gay, choose to act on those desires.

              I’m saying the desire is innate. The choice is conscious. For all sexual orientations.

              1. booboo says:

                Exactly what I was saying. Whether I am gay or not, I choose to act on it. Maybe I am gay and I just believe it is morally wrong. So…I control my desire. I didn’t say it was easy. Life is not always easy. But to do the right thing sometimes isn’t easy.

                So, it basically boils down to how a person feels morally. Again, I’m not saying right or wrong…I’m just saying the action is a choice.

                Should we make gay marriage legal? I don’t really care. It won’t affect me one way or the other. I’m not involved in the debate.

                1. Nancy says:

                  if you vote………you’re involved

        4. Tom says:

          booboo

          If you are saying that the gay lifestyle is a choice then what you are saying that even you being straight for so many years could wake some morning and instead of the hots for your wife or husband you would have the hots for your neighbors wife or husband?

          And then there is the second question for social conservatives. Were you born nuts or did you choose to become nuts?

        5. Larry says:

          Most Gays are born Gay, some chose to be gay.

          It has nothing to do with stealing cars.

  9. stace34 says:

    Kevin,

    If your tired of big goverment then why would you say that government should be able to dictate who can and can not get married. That is government BIG enoungh to fit into the hearts, relationships and bedrooms of it’s people. That is the oposite of what a real small goverment conservative should be advocating. So you are really not against big government. This is the hipocracy of clainimg that people who would ban gay marriage also want small government. Goverment has no place dictating the relationships between consenting adults. That is intrustive and the very definition of BIG government.

  10. Love says:

    Poor Kevin, so full of hate!!!!

  11. ryan says:

    The government should give a civil union to ANYONE who wants it, gays and straights. Get your marriage certificate from your favorite religion. It’s just horrible they are born that way and don’t get the same rights as straight people.

    1. Jake says:

      They do have the same rights. They can have a state-recognized marriage someone of the opposite sex. (The law does not require the marriage to be based on love or sexual attraction.) What you are describing is a new, different right that has not existed before: The right to a state recognized marriage to another person regardless of gender. The current right was based on family units primarily responsible for producing and raising children. This new right would be for the purpose of validating and subsidizing a new category of relationships that do not need validating or subsidizing.

      Same sex couples may marry in any fashion they choose, religious or not. The question is whether there is a benefit to the state recognizing the marriage. All of the non-financial components of state-recognized mariage are available to same sex partners through other means.

  12. hmm says:

    Well the people will get to decide if the constitution is amended. If this poll is valid the issue will be voted on next year and the amendment will fail which will make it all the more easy to get marriage legalized for them.

  13. hmm says:

    What do you have against Kool-aid? I drink it quite often and enjoy it, especially during the summer.

    1. Tom says:

      Hmm

      LMAO! Good One!

  14. Uriah says:

    The poll was not taken of ‘likely voters’ which means nothing except those they called do not favor the ban. It doesn’t mean the ban won’t pass at the polls. Personally I don’t care if it passes or not but I wish these ‘poll takers’ would also release info on the poll such as who they called, #dems vs #repubs, are they likely to vote, etc. This is why polls vary so much and are used by the media in promoting their point of view.

  15. Paul says:

    You’re tired of big government, yet you want the government to tell people how to live and who to marry? Reread my question a few times and then discuss.

    1. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

      Here, here! Hypocrites.

  16. Paul says:

    Oh, and also, you can’t say “I’m not a bigot” and then say “I hate gays” in the same paragraphs. Your hypocrisy is astounding

  17. jeff says:

    the problem here is that all the conservatives believe that being homosexual is a choice? i would ask if there are any conservatives out there to answer this question; tell me your story about how you made the choice to be straight? and i’m not talking about your first sexual experience…..i am talking about the first time you were attracted to the opposite sex……….what was it inside you that drew you to be attracted to that sex? as it happens, my first crush was in the 4th grade. i can’t tell you what about that boy made me attracted to him…..it just happened? and it has never changed. i have never found a women sexually attractive. i’m not into morbidly obese people and i can’t really tell you why, just doesn’t do anything for me down there…..not even a wiggle. so just tell me how it’s a choice as to what we’re attracted to.

  18. Liberals Suck says:

    haha Moron Liberals…. I love it because that is the correct definition. Liberals are the reason why we have such high gas prices today too. They screw everyting up.

    1. Mike says:

      Please do tell us how Liberals raise gas prices…

    2. Tom says:

      Liberals SucK

      Which party was in complete control of things from 2000 -2006? It was not the liberals it was the conservatives!

      And what does gas prices have to do with gay marriage anyway?

  19. Sharon Bowers says:

    I never get polled. Probably because they hung up on me once because I wouldn’t give them the answers they were looking for.

  20. kapulas says:

    Real republicans believe deeply in the sanctity of the open market and the free market capitalist system but don’t give a HOOT in H**L if gay people get married and believe equally deeply that the government has no business is this discussion. If the church won’t marry gays, fine, then don’t get married in that church. Marriage, and the bundle of legal rights it carries with it, is a secular decision, governed by secular laws, not religious ones.

    And to you Bible thumping idiots out there who would deny people the most basic of all human rights – to love and be loved by the one of your choice, remember this: Jesus himself would be voting “no” on this amendment.

  21. Yelper says:

    Republicans are such wankers…. and lots are pretty GAY too…

  22. KJS says:

    I’m 18-years old and will vote in the November 2012 election for the first time ever, and I plan on casting my ballot “yes” in favor of amending the Minnesota Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages. I’m a conservative Christian, and my faith drives every decision that I make. I’m in favor of the ban on gay marriage, and here’s why:
    I believe that homosexuality is a sin – no better or no worse than any other sin. God created the world and everything in it, and it was so wonderfully and beautifully made, until sin entered the world through Man – and, because of that sin, Man is forever flawed and damned until Jesus Christ came to die for us. Homosexuality is just another way that people are falling from God’s grace through sin… but it is absolutely no worse a sin than stealing, murder, swearing, etc. My heart aches for people with homosexual tendencies, and I am just crying out to God for them. I feel that it is very important that we send a message to the future generations that this is not how humans are intended to be – how could it be? Children can be beared and families can be made through the gift of sexual intercourse – with one man and one woman; how it was intended to be, before sin came along.

    I have respect for the gay community. They stick up for what they believe in and I admire that. Gays are not monsters, not evil, and not worthless, like some of my fellow Christians proclaim when they spew the hate that is doing the opposite of what Jesus Christ would have done if he still was in his earthly body. Gays are people, just like the rest of us – but, I cannot condone their lifestyle choices and, for the sake of the future of our country and mankind, I feel that the government needs to step in and intervene. Thanks for listening to my thoughts.

    1. Amanda says:

      @KJS

      I have to love your answer… go ahead and vote… but just keep in mind that 90% of all man kind are sinners. not just GAYS… since we all Fornicate, and that is a CAPITAL SIN… LUST! so if we are going to point fingers on who is a sinner, we will never end. but again, I respect your opinion, I will like people to respect mine and I know that you will not like it, same way you said you can’t condone my lifestyle…. well SEPARATE STATE FROM THE CHURCH

    2. stace34 says:

      I am happy to read that you are perfect and without sin. But I don’t think that you should force others to do things based on your religion. This is not a theocracy. We have seen in other countries what happens when relition not fairness and equality rule government. If you actually believe in Jesus you will know it is his job to judge people, not yours. If you actually believe in the teachings of Christ you would know that he taught tolerance and to treat others the way you would like to be treated. So if you would not want others to dictate what relationships in your life are “valid” or “right” do not dictate that to another. Nothing about this ban is Christian. It is just fear of something that is different that what you want or believe.

  23. Ryan says:

    Sorry, if you think that gays should not be permitted to marry (in the eyes of the law, not a church), you are a bigot.

    It’s the same as saying, “I’m not a racist. I just don’t think that blacks should have the same rights as whites.”

  24. Tom says:

    I am not surprised by that poll because of the age part. I do agree the younger the voter the less likely they will care . Where as the older the voter the more likely they will care. But you have too understand something about the older voter. They probably don’t think that gay woman or gay men were around in there but that is the farthest thing from the truth. There were gay people back in that era but they were in the closet because of how society back then viewed certain matters. But now the gay community is able too live more out in the open. This vote will be interesting if the younger voter comes out this amendment will fail. And if it fails I am sure if the GOP retain power they go around the voters and do it anyway.

  25. T-Rock says:

    50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. Marriage is NOT SACRED, its a joke. The saddest part is that most people who are vehemently against gay marriage are probably gay themselves. How else can you explain such irrational hate & discrimination?

  26. Tim says:

    some day when a man wants to marry a woman, or a woman wants to marry a man, they will have to go to a state where its allowed because gay will be the new normal. We live in a fruit cake society

    1. Superchik1017 says:

      And maybe the gays will vote their right to marry away by enacting a constitutional amendment.

  27. Nancy Aleshire says:

    Comments to Nancy–there is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to live with your girlfriend (or Steve living with Fred, or even a guy living with his girlfriend). If two women, or two men, or a guy and girlfriend are living together as a common household and splitting the costs then a person should be able to put the boyfriend or girlfriend on his medical insurance policy if the other person lacks coverage. This would be considered a civil union or domestic partnership. This same thing would include family members living together. It is no threat to anyone. The term marriage should be reserved for a man and a women. Civil unions should be separate, but equal.

    1. Nancy says:

      comments to Nancy Aleshire
      why should it be separate? because you disagree with it? because the majority disagrees with my relationship being called a marriage?
      So this has nothing to do with the concept only the use of a word?

      I’ll go out on a limb here………. Let me ask you this.

      if this was really just about a word, then maybe the way all of this hatered and name calling that is going on within all of these posts might have been completely avoided if Senator Limmer R, Maple Grove, would have come to the Minnesota legislature with a bill proclaming equal rights for same sex marriage. It just would have had a different name at the end?

    2. Amanda says:

      @ NANCY…. But why??? and please give me another answer that has nothing to do with religion or morals… since we all are able to choose what do we believe on and what morals we have.

      1. Tom says:

        Amanda

        Because if you take the relgious argument away from them they have no argument. And yes they like too play the morals and values card, and to tell you the truth I don’t think they follow those rules either! If they did their divorce rate would not be so high. And Amanda you know question should be asked of these people is, “is your marriage as strong as you make it out to be? Or are they in a unhappy marriage but their relgious beliefs keep them from seeing the truth?”

    3. stace34 says:

      That does not give you the same rights as a marriage. Why doesn’t the government get out of the business of marriage all together. Everyone can have civil unions with the same rights. “Marriage” can occure in the church.

      By the way Nancy you are really advocating “separate but equal”. We all know how equal that turned out to be for the minorities in the south don’e we.

    4. Superchik1017 says:

      Yes, seperate but equal. That didn’t work too well in the old Soutn, though, did it? I believe the Supreme Court of the United States agreed that it didn’t work.

  28. Jose Cuervo says:

    Marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

    1. Amanda says:

      And why this doesn’t surprise me coming from a LATINO guy… Macho type that can’t understand why a girl can be happy with another girl… that is what really kills them!

  29. Tim says:

    when a dog tries to hump another dog in public, i dont like it. but what can You do. Do You kick it away from the other dog or just let it keep on humping. I hate descisions. I guess its better than them fighting tho . . .sigh

    1. booboo says:

      What about the guy who tries to hump a dog in public? anything wrong with that? I guess we know where you stand….as long as their not fighting….

      1. Tom says:

        booboo

        A guy trying to hump a dog? What kinda of example is that? Why is that you social conservatives bring animals into this? And you call liberals “weird”

  30. Swamp Rat says:

    Sorry folks but shouldn’t the state’s budget problems take priority over this issue?

  31. PJ says:

    According to the 2010 census there are 5,303,925 people residing in MN. Out of the adults in this population WCCO polled a mere 806. It would be physically impossible to achieve a truly representative sample with such a low number. Polls like this are incredibly unscientific and have only one purpose: to mislead and misinform according to it’s creator’s agenda. WCCO is not doing the gay community a service with this propaganda. This proposed amendment is poorly conceived and must be defeated BEFORE it gets on the ballot to be voted on by a population that is still quite socially conservative.

    1. Amanda says:

      It was not WCCO conducting this poll…. this shows how much people really reads and understands about every issue… HALF WAY

  32. Jim says:

    “I am now dumb”

    I can agree with that.

  33. Get To Work says:

    Where are the new jobs? It seems the focus has been shifted to morality legislation once again. Can anyone in government stay on track?

    1. Amanda says:

      Yes and can someone please explain me how this is creating JOBS? or fixing the BUDGET? the only good thing that will come out of this, will be that this will not be pass and that people will see republicans for what they’re are… and the same way they got vote in they will get vote out!

  34. PJ says:

    Minnesota has a population of 5,303,925. There is no way that a truly representative sample can be achieved by polling a mere 806. This poll is unscientific and misleading. This poorly conceived amendment must be defeated before it gets on the ballot. I believe that the population of this state is much more socially conservative than this poll indicates.

    1. stace34 says:

      PJ there is a huge difference between population and likely voters. you need to read and understand more about polling and how it works. Aslo just because the poll is not what some want to believe does not make it untrue. In the end though it will come down to who goes to the polls and who gets the vote out the best. Though I think that in the United States on America it is wrong to allow a vote on whether or not to discriminate against it’s citizens. Maybe I believe in America too much to think this is ever right.

  35. Tellin it like it is! says:

    The problem with that report is this……they need to do a real poll of the people who do not hang out in Loring Park….How about the rest of the Twin Cities, and more importantly the rural areas, and greater MN, which would give this survey an honest opinion!

  36. Misplaced effort people says:

    They’re not hurting anyone and they’re not costing the taxpayers a single cent. Leave them alone.

    We should be spending our time helping Ziggy move the Vikings out of Minnesota and electing legislators who are able to keep government spending below revenues collected – WITHOUT raising our taxes!

  37. PJ says:

    This poll samples 806 our of a population of 5,303,925. There is no way that this could be a truly representative sample. This poll is unscientific and misleading. This poorly conceived amendment must be defeated before it gets on the ballot, where it may well be passed by a population I believe is still quite socially conservative.

    1. Tellin it like it is! says:

      PJ…Your remark about a society that you believe to be quite socially conservative describes the MN voters. Do you want them all to lie and vote against something that the population does not believe in?? What would voting that way accomplish for those people??

  38. Walt says:

    Who did you poll? I have asked many of my friends if they have been polled lately and every one says no. Now I see this article about the majority of the people think gays marriage should not be banned. I am guessing they polled families and friends of those in the gaty community, for they haven’t asked any one here in New Prague. Lord I hope the Media would poll other areas out side of Minneapolis, St. Paul, if they want the true feeling of what most people think.

  39. MRJ says:

    The fact that opposition to gay marriage is high here speaks to how Minnesota really is. It’s not at all an open-minded place and never has been.

    Gay marriage rights is a human rights issue. One of the problems is that religion has gotten involved. Stop quoting a book of fiction and trying to force others to live the religious lie that Christianity and all organized religions are.

    One’s sexual orientation has nothing to do with anything except that’s how a person is born. it’s the same as the different cultural types we have as humans. We aren’t different races. We are different cultures. Different races of beings cannot mix without outside interference.

    If different orientations and people of all stripes weren’t meant to be here, then they wouldn’t be. That’s the only thing god has to do with it. They created all of us, no matter what we look like or how we live. The point is learning to accept diversity as the good thing it is and to stop trying to force people to be a certain way. The universe is diverse for a reason and that will never change. Am so glad that god is so much smarter that humans and isn’t a petty jerk.

    1. ouch says:

      You better hope it’s a book of fiction. Or, you just slapped the designer of all the amazing things and cycles we see all around us. I’m sure you don’t care though because obviously you understand perfectly how everything came about.

  40. tuna-free dolphin says:

    So they took a poll… well I guess that settles it. Right. Where’d they take this poll, Loring Park? Me thinks thou should’st put thy feather boa back in the closet till next November. Too soon to celebrate. In fact you may want to get a black arm band. Then get ready to hit the streets and throw a big gay liberal tantrum the day after.

  41. Rafe says:

    Media polls are nothing less than a propaganda tool

  42. Ginger Shepla says:

    Is this ammendment about gay marriage or is it about defining marriage as one adult consenting maile and one adult consenting female who are not related? I think with the way our state’s demographics are chaning, we need marriage defined. Otherwise, we could end up havimg groups of people being married, adults marrying children, etc… Unless I’m missing somethiing here, I don’t understand why people feel this is about one specific group and not the entire population of Minnesota?

    1. stace34 says:

      Your arguement is rediculous. Really allowing 2 consenting adults would lead to plural marriage. By the way there are already laws about at what age you can get married. There are also laws that prevent plural marriage. But lets not let reality get in your way. Lets go an pull from the proven bag of fear. It is about on specific group.

  43. For the love of pizza says:

    HA! 806 people was the pool? A liberal poll taken by a liberal newspaper reported by a liberal TV station. Let me just emulate this without any questions asked! Give me a break.

  44. Stacy Otto says:

    I believe that Gay Marriage effects no one else but the couple who wants to get Married. They are going to be together anyway so let them get married. Don’t we have bigger issues to deal with in the world? Poverty,,, people that are homeless…. wars that seem to never end.
    I am so sick of our Goverment & individuals sticking their noses in where they don’t belong. If everyone minded there own business and took care of their own problems the world would be a better place.

  45. worryfree says:

    My wife and I will be hiding from the hordes of gay people coming to destroy our marriage if this bill does not pass. What a bunch of lame reasons to pass this abomination of a bill. Gay marriage causes no societal damage. Objections to it are deeply rooted in religious beliefs. We have seperation of church and state in this country. Or at least we do when Repubs do not hold majorities…

  46. Gittar Buddy says:

    It would be novel if a vote could be held without a “poll” that is intended to influence the vote one way or the other. I’m not predjudiced, I dislike most everyone. My angst is founded in having to deal more with an imbalanced media than the issue of gay marriage. However, that’s in a perfect world. The “press” is really more bigoted than the general population and that’s why the comics are the only rational thing to devour.

  47. mr waffles says:

    Oh yeah? I bet my 2 gay dads could beat up your 2 gay dads!

  48. Always in favor of less government says:

    Why the government cares if ANYONE gets married is beyond me. I cannot understand why the government is involved in marriage, they do not get involved with any other “heart’s blood” issue. If marriage isn’t legal, then divorce wouldn’t be a legal issue either. Those who want to get married in the eyes of God can, those who want to get married for other reason can too.. but the government isn’t going to provide incentives, aid, means for divorce or otherwise for doing so.

  49. Trev says:

    At the end of the day we know this is not really about gay marriage. It’s about gaining more “acceptance”. Most gays(men) have no intention of going into the marriage and remaining monogamous. There’s no point to “marriage” It’s the principle of what the right symbolizes.

  50. Paul says:

    You must have been at my secret meeting the other day about how we are going to use gay marriage to raise gas prices. It seems to be working.

  51. Vic says:

    Marriage always has been and should always been between one man and one woman.

    1. Amanda says:

      Care to explain why? And PLEASE don’t use your religion in here… SEPARATE THE STATE FROM THE CHURCH

  52. Hope says:

    This poll shows there’s still hope for our state! I was beginning to wonder.

  53. Amanda says:

    Yes, we all agreed that we will raise gas prices until they let us get married… so you better start accepting this otherwise gas will be up all the way to 15 dollars a gallon LMFAO,

  54. Cache says:

    Polls a can be slanted and are mostly hooey…put it to a vote to the general public after… we get voter photo ID…then we’ll see!

  55. Hope says:

    The poll shows there’s still hope for MN. I was beginning to wonder.

  56. kim says:

    Seriously, I think the state has more pressing issure than gay marriage. How about fixing how education is funded.

    And, since when was constitution used to take away citizens rights, I always thought it was there to protect rights.

  57. Cache says:

    After Gay marriage…then what…one guy – one goat or one woman – one dog….where does the wacko nonsense stop???

    1. Amanda says:

      I Am sooooooooo tired to listen to this argument.. we are asking to have a definition as follows….

      Marriage would be a union between 2 consenting adults, that are not blood related… how hard is that to understand?

      1. Jake says:

        Why does blood relation matter in same sex couples. If brothers want to marry, there is no issue with inbreeding. Your bigotry against related couples is troubling and inconsistent with a claim that the preference of who one wants to love is nobody else’s business. Explain why two brothers or two sisters or two same-sex cousins shouldn’t be permitted to marry?

  58. Cache says:

    Take a nap….2 adult what???? …adult guy and adult goat????

    1. Amanda says:

      Sure that is what I meant

  59. SB says:

    I have heard many different reasons by the gay community as to why they want to be “married”. But then I hear the next gay person deny reason 1 and say it is reason 2. Can someone from the gay community answer these questions? (And these are honest questions.)

    Question 1 – Why is it important for people who are practicing the gay lifestyle to use a term that historically been used to define the union of a man and a woman? Is it for tax breaks? Is it for insurance? Is it a political statement?

    Question 2 – I am a man currently married to a woman. However, would it be ok if I married a second woman, because I feel a similar loving attraction to this woman? It sounds like an odd question, but why not?

    1. Amanda says:

      to your questions

      1. it is about taking care of our loved ones… if I am in the hospital and I died, my family will be unprotected… my girlfriend will be out of nothing that I owe, since she will have to pay an unbelievable amount of taxes for my inheritance, within many other reasons…

      2. no you can not… all we are asking is that definition of marriage is… the Union of 2 consenting Adults, that are not blood related…. it is simple… we are not asking to be free to marry 3 or 4 or children or animals…

    2. Nancy says:

      SB
      your honest questions……..answered honestly.

      Question #1. just some clarification first. …I don’t “practice a lifestyle”. I am who I am. It wasn’t a choice. it’s important because it’s fair and it’s the right thing to do.
      why did you want to marry your wife? for love, I would hope. for the fact that you wanted to spend the rest of your life with her, be committed to only her, maybe have a famiily if that’s what you both wanted. did you marry her for the tax break? insurance? political statement?
      I doubt that very much.

      Question #2. If we are being honest, this question is completely ridiculous. In the state of Minnesota it is LAW that states you can only be married to one person at a time. Pretty sure you didn’t need me to answer that question for you.

  60. PJ says:

    The federal and state constitutions are intentionally difficult to amend. That is why the proponents of this amendment are pushing it through. We as a society are in the process of dealing with the fact that a significant percentage of our population is and always will be “gay.” The decision to extend the institution of marriage to same sex couples is a complex one encompassing many issues both legal and social. It is too early in the discussion to make a semi-permanent decision of this issue. The time may soon come when we realize that the only way gays differ from anyone else is in that aspect of their lives which is nobody’s business anyway. Do we want to embed in our state constitution an amendment that may one day be a reminder of past intolerance? Consider how difficult it was to remove constitutional protections of slavery and segregation from our federal constitution. Those engaging in this debate should also be mindful that it is extremely counterproductive to tar those that identify themselves as Republicans with the brush of bigotry. This issue crosses all party and demographic lines. What good does it do to antagonize those Republicans who are trying to deal with this issue?

  61. Leon Hunter says:

    The BURNING QUESTION is if the Amendment is voted down does that mean Gay Marriages are then become Legal? It would seem logical to assume that be the case.

    1. Superchik1017 says:

      No, unfortunately, it wouldn’t mean same-sex marriages become legal. That would have to be a seperate amendment proposal and vote.

  62. hillbilly says:

    Amanda, why do the consenting adults have to be non blood related? Maybe marrying within the family should be added to the amendment too.

    1. Superchik1017 says:

      It has been scientifically proven that the offspring of a closely related couple can lead to a higher probability of congenital birth defect. In the long term, if everyone had the same or very similar genes, the human race would not be able to fight off massibe viruses and we would be wiped out. And that’s why you can’t marry your sister. Gay people are not related and pose no health risks to the human race – no more than heterosexual couples do. In fact, they try to adopt the children heterosexuals abandon.

      1. hillbilly says:

        I have a niece with a birth defect. Her parents were not blood related to each other, so where did she get it? And I’m pretty sure she isn’t contagious to the rest of the population.

        1. Superchik says:

          I am going to try to simplify this for you, hillbilly: There is a “Higher probability of congenital birth defects” in offspring of closely related couples. That doesn’t mean defects only occur in closely related couples. It you asked me, she was “Born this way.” I never said birth defects are “contagious”. However, I did say that the less diversity in the human gene, the more susceptiblel the human race is to disease and virus. And don’t bring your poor niece into a discussion on same-sex marriage.

      2. Jake says:

        Again, why are you opposing related same sex couples being allowed to marry? They cannot produce offspring. Such bigotry.

    2. Amanda says:

      well, if you want to do that, then fight your own battle… I say YES… you wanna know why?… simple, cause it does not affect me at all… it is your life, it is you belief, it is your family after all… so I say DO IT

  63. Frustrated says:

    There once was a day where no one understood or supported a relationship between a white man and black woman, or a black man and a white woman. I ask this question – if someone finds black men attractive, or Asian women, or wherever their attraction lies…how is that different than a woman being attracted to other women? Neither can explain it, because it’s not something you choose, it’s something you ARE. And because of that, there should be equal rights for marriage. Equality all around.

  64. jeff says:

    you got that right superchik! what’s further is all of our laws should be followed and applied BY all. so tell me all you really super smart conservatives…..if god is so great and infinitely wise and all he wants is for marriage to be between only a man and a woman(or male and female….cuz this all boils down to private parts for you) than why on earth did he make the mistake of CREATING hermaphrodites. if what you all say is true he certainly has thrown a kink in things because these are the only group of people that the law does not apply to. they can choose to go either way. male or female. what do you think about that you pile of freaks!!!!!!?

  65. jeff says:

    @jose……also detestible in the eyes of god are alcoholics, gamblers….the list goes on. i’m gonna take a leap of FAITH here and guess that you are an alcoholic. good luck at the pearly gates you fairweather christian.

  66. Heil says:

    For all against gay marriage, would you still be against it if it was changed to “white Christian male and female of pure German decent”?

    It is all the same…

    discrimination

  67. Da says:

    Wake up people, If the animal world can get it right, why can’t humans? I’T’S NOT NATURAL.

  68. Mark from mntaxwaste.com says:

    Majority wins, gays get out or back in the closet

  69. Jose Cuervo says:

    Ahem…marriage is between one man and one woman, period.

  70. Gag says:

    Why are Gay’s always trying to force things down our throats??????

  71. Diana says:

    If we let gay people get married than where can we draw the line. If this is all about whom people love than people will say, I love 2 people and I want to marry both of them, or 6 people or my pet. I’m 45 and 100% for 1 man and 1 women should be married. If this is all about end of life decisions anyone can get a power of attourney to make this legal. Lets vote one this!

  72. tom says:

    the star trib is just a leftisst rag mag anyway

  73. Ruth says:

    I think that this debat has to do with $$$$. I think that a reason that same sex couples want the recognition of “marriage” is because they also want the $$ and bennefits. Why can’t sames sex couples use a different word and not cheeping the word used for the sanctity between one man and one woman. Maybe our government needs to redefine the tax laws rather than to allow same sex couple to have the same title “marriage” which originated as a union between one man and one woman. I will never be able to force a person to make the same choices that I have made with my life. Each person has a free will and the right to make their own choice and to live with the results of that choice, but a union between same sex couples is not the same thing as a union between one man and one woman. Why does it seem that same sex couples are not happy unless other agree with their choice? Since it is your choice, don’t make me “praise” you for it.

  74. Realist says:

    I hope all the sane Minnesotans turn out in 2012 and turn this pathetic excuse of an amendment down! Don’t cave in to theocratic BS!

  75. check it out says:

    Hi, Neat post. There’s an issue with your website in web explorer, would check this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a large component to folks will pass over your fantastic writing due to this problem.

Leave a Reply

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

Trees Of Hope
Good Question

Listen Live