GOP Rep. Kriesel Votes Against Gay Marriage Ban

By Pat Kessler, WCCO-TV

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is one step away from landing on Minnesota’s 2012 election ballot. But a Republican state representative is bucking his party to stop it.

“I’m an absolute, firm no. I’ll vote to do whatever I can to defeat it in any way, shape or form,” said State Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove.

He said his party is wrong to interfere in the private lives of Minnesotans.

Kriesel is a war hero and a freshman Republican state representative. Now his GOP colleagues are discovering Kriesel is also unpredictable.

He is breaking ranks from Republicans to vote against a ban on gay marriage. Outspoken on Twitter, Kriesel is not just saying no, he’s saying “Hell No.”

“You live once in your life and so if someone finds someone they love and they’re happy with them, why are we trying to take that away? That’s not what government should be doing,” he said.

Kriesel’s aggressive stand against a gay marriage ban came on the same day a Republican House Committee approved it amid protest, anger and tears.

The freshman lawmaker from Cottage Grove said he’s not worried about political repercussions for bucking his party’s anti-gay marriage stand. It’s because of perspective he earned while serving in Iraq.

“I’ve learned the hard way how precious life is,” said Kriesel.

In Iraq, two of Kriesel’s fellow soldiers died in a bomb blast. Both his legs were blown off. He said that experience changed him to understand what matters.

“I love my wife more than anything. I couldn’t imagine my life without her. She makes me happy. I could not ever live with myself to vote to take that away from someone else,” Kriesel said.

So far, Kriesel said he’s not getting any pressure from Republican leaders to change his vote.

The gay marriage constitutional amendment has already been approved by the Senate. The House could vote on it sometime Thursday.

If it passes, Minnesota voters will be asked in 2012 if marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

More from Pat Kessler
  • Also a Citizen

    Anyone who votes in favor of this ban – Dem or GOP should be ashamed.

    • Jim

      They aren’t voting on a “BAN” they are voting on the citizens of this state to define a man and woman as eligible for marriage in this state. People have as much right to add this to the constitution as they did to vote on the legacy law and add it to the constitution. Minnesotans elect the officials to vote, aren’t they competent enough to vote on a topic like this? There is a difference between not getting the outcome you want, and trying to suppress other people’s rights.

      • Nan


    • Jeff

      Why should gay marriage fall on the shoulders of any one politician trying to get the states work completed? Many times in my life I have seen politicians vote on things that the people don’t want, a good example is sport stadiums and now we’re going to have three! Same with abortion it should be laid out for the majority of the people to decide and not any one politician? I am not a religious person, but have learned through my life on how religion views gay people and how god disapproves of this life style. WCCO labels this decision to let the morality of people decide this fate as a gay ban, when it hasn’t even taken place yet? Nobody’s rights here are being taken away, the way I see it as clearing the desk to focus on the real issue’s of business which should be the State of Minnesota. While opinions’ very, our votes are heard!

  • Jake

    Rep. Kriesel does not appear understand what he is voting on. There is no “ban on gay marriage.” The question is whether the state will be compelled to recognize gay marriage. Same sex couples are not prevented from loving who they want (as Kriesel seems to think is at risk), and they may be “married” by a commitment to each other or in any church that considers it appropriate to deem them married. The issue is whether the state has a reason to recognize the relationships and provide them subsidies.

    • Brandon

      Not just subsidies, but also the right to choose medical decisions, money decisions, and life and death decisions.

      I think that should be given to anyone that loves another person, and the state should recognize that two men, two women, and a man and a woman can all love each other equally the same and be provided the same respect and opportunities across the board. There was a time that blacks and whites couldn’t marry; how is this different?

    • mary

      Jake I’d like to know what subsidies your talking about? Please explain. I don’t know any gay couples that are getting any subsidies of any kind! I believe the only thing they want is to have to same rights as Heterosexual couples. What is wrong with that? And what are people so afraid of? How does this issue effect the general population? I can only see good coming out of this. Whole families being recognized as real Familys with real rights. It’s in our constitution, no discrimination because of sex, religion, color ect…

    • Leo

      Rep. Kriesel does not appear understand what he is voting on. There is no “ban on gay marriage.” The question is whether the state will be compelled to recognize gay marriage.

      No, Jake, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. The bill pending would not require the state to recognize gay marriage. Instead, the vote is to either keep gay marriage illegal in Minnesota, as it is now, or to make gay marriage both illegal and unconstitutional in Minnesota. Some choice

      • Jake

        @Leo. Not true. It is about whether same sex marriages will be recognized by the state. The state does not have the power to prevent people from considering themselves and calling themselves “married” by their own definition. Likewise, if a church, synagogue, etc. chose to perform a religious ceremony to declare a same-sex couple “married,” the state cannot and should not prevent that. The issue is whether the state and subsequently private individuals and entities have to “recognize” that as the same “marriage” as the traditional marriage between people of the opposite sex. That doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to to recognize the relationship however they choose.

        The state does not recognize the Lutheran Church (for instance) as the one true religion, and is constitutionally prohibited from doing so. That doesn’t prevent you from being Lutheran.

        • Leo

          You’re still mistaken. If this amendment passes, the constition will say that marriage in Minnesota is between only a man and a woman. If this does not pass, the constitution remains untourched, but gay marriage will remain illegal as it was passed by the state government years ago.

          The voters are NOT voting on whether or not gay marriage should be legal here. They are voting on whether or not to add a constitutional amendment to reinforce the fact that gay marriage is illegal here.

          • Logan

            What they are doing is trying to make it next to impossible for future law makers to overturn the current bigoted law. By adding it to the constitution, there would have to be a new amendment to remove it. Hopefully all the bigots will get their reward this Saturday and Rapture away and leave the lovers in peace.

            Maybe the next Amendment will be to define redheads as non-human demons?

            Do people not realize how utterly stupid and unAmerican this is?

            • Jason

              Jake, I petty your ignorance and your refusal to recognize the what everyone is trying to explain to you here. It doesn’t matter how we frame the debate to individuals like you, you’ll never accept our point of view…

              On the issue of subsidies, why it is ok for GLBT people to pay for your benefits. Do you think that’s fair?

              On the issue of church and religion, isn’t the GOP trying to institutionalize religion into our government/Constitution? They’re forcing their religion onto people’s live. What happened to the separation of church and state???

    • stace34

      Is heterosexual marriages get subsidies why shouldn’t other marriages get those same benefits. Either we are going to take away the benefits from all types of marriage, or we make access to those benefits available to all. If 2 consenting adults marry their gender should be irrelevent as to whether they get access to the benefits. Either we are a nation that beleives in equality or we aren;t.

      • Jake

        @stace34. Your second sentence makes the most sense. I assume you cannot legislate fertility between same-sex couples, so the historic rationale for the subsidies is clearly different. Single people are the losers in the subsidies, as they choose by nature, nurture, or circumstance not to take advantage of any of the benefits provided to married people.

        Let’s face it. Same-sex couples are not the same as hetero couples, at least from an evolutionary standpoint. There’s no way around that, even considering sterile couples and those who choose not to have kids. Does that mean the state should dictate who can be a couple? Of course not. But does “fairness” or any other public good demand recognition and subsidy of same-sex relationships as marriages? I don’t think so. The better alternative is to extend supporting benefits to any two-adult household (hetero, homo, platonic, etc.) with minor children or special-needs individuals requiring care where one person provides the care. Otherwise, a “marriage” is between individuals, their friends and families, and their religion if they choose one. Otherwise, everyone should pay their own way, which is where society has already moved to on it’s own.

        • Christopher Gable

          It’s not about “subsidies” — it’s really about the ERISA laws, which only recognize “married” couples. So unless your employer has “domestic partner” benefits in their health plan, a gay couple can not get each covered. Can not get the coverage they have earned in the private sector. — because of how the gov’t allows them to be defined and what GOv’t allows businesses to do in employment law.

        • Christopher Gable

          When the state says “you are not legally related to this other man nor can you be” and then goes on to predicate many state interactions that are part of one’s intimate life on being “family” as they define it. That is where the discrimination comes in. You say we can call ourselves whatever we want but if my employer won’t allow me to add my spouse to my insurance because he is a man and relies on the state for support in it’s view . That’s where your opinion of gay couples conflicts with the rights of those couples.

    • James

      yes, equal protection uder the law, the Federal 14th amendment compels it. Romer vs. Evans 1996

    • Tom


      Every media outlet in town has been using the word “Banning” gay marriage. Nobody has menioned that this amendment has anything to with recognizing gay marriage.

      • Jake

        The amendment states “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.” That is in relation to the state’s recognition. The state is not able to “ban” people or their religious entities from considering people to be “married” in whatever context they want. It is a matter of whether that claim has a legal significance. Other than financial subsidies grounded in historic support for child rearing (admittedly not going exclusively to those raising children), the other trappings of the marriage contract are already available to same sex couples by contract and under statute.

        • Nick

          @Jake, If you look at the 515 (I think is the number) rights that go with a Marriage License issued by the State. The cost of having even the rights you can get from legal documents filed (thousands of dollars in legal fees) is an unfair and unjust burden to put on some couples because the state is selectively saying we only offer rights to this conformation (one Man one Women). If the point of the benefits child rearing, shoulded we being issuing parenting licenses as opposed to marriage licenses? Also why should the heterosexual couples get the benefits of marriage if they have intention of having children?

          • Jake

            @Nick. You and I agree on your points (except the parenting license, and I doubt you were serious about that). I would support a proposal to allow anyone (husband/wife, husband/husband, daughter/mom) regardless of whether it is a romantic or merely supportive relationship to have the ability to contract with the state for certain rights as a package akin to what happens when heterosexual couples marry under the law. It should not be more expensive for others to secure those rights. I have stated elseweher in this discussion that I believe the subsidies should be tied to child raising (and not just child having, which would be tough for same-sex couples). If people want someone to be able to stay home and raise a child, I’m comfortable with some state benefit to aid in that. Sterile hertero couples, like all same-sex couples, can choose to adopt, so nobody is fundamentally discriminated against. People who choose not to raise children need to financial benefits from the state.

        • Christopher Gable

          You realize that makes any kind of “civil union” illegal too.

    • eastside_evil

      Boy did you fail to read or comprehend the situation. Yikes.

      • Jake

        Who are you calling “Boy”? What exactly do you mean by that?

        • eastside_evil

          I’m calling you “boy” and the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks, tiger.

          • Jake

            You might brush up on your punctuation rules a bit for question marks.

            • Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski

              A grammar nazi AND a bigot, I see. Boy, you’re just winning points all over the place, aren’t you?! (Now did I mean “boy” as a condescending term or otherwise? You decide.)

    • eastside_evil

      “The issue is whether the state has a reason to recognize the relationships and provide them subsidies.”

      Please explain what the reason would be to not recognize them.

    • Christopher Gable

      A benefit such as allowing partners access to each other in the hospital, or even as Pawlenty vetoed allowing a gay man to claim his partner’s body in the morgue. These, and other things, are what you take for granted. They are the areas where the state depends on marital status or family relationship to determine who you can out on your health insurance (which you’ve earned), etc. It’s very cruel to make the lives of other loving couples — people who are probably people you know — your neighbors, part of your family — exponentially more difficult.

    • Nan

      of course what ever

    • Colin

      You are clearly the one who don’t understand.

  • Gianni

    You don’t vote on how “you” feel. You represent your people. You vote on how “they” feel. Otherwise, get the hell out of office.

    • mary

      Gianni, I could’nt of said it better myself!! Soooooo Sick of the rhetoric on this issue!!! Let the people VOTE!!!!! Live and Let Live!!

      • Tom


        Then lets the citizens for vote for everything and not just certain things.

    • stace34

      Polls say the majoirty of people, the majority of Minnesotans do support Gay Marriage. So he did vote what they want. He is also an American who understand that we don’t discriminate in this country. Perhaps he may not have voted the way you want. Perhaps you approve of discrimination, but I don’t think the majority of Americans do.

      • Jim

        Actually he didn’t vote for what Minnesotans want. According to you, he is against gay marriage because he doesn’t want the citizens to put down this law, but rather push it to the side till another governor who can sign it is in.

  • another citisen

    no to marriage, you don’t have to be married to love someone.

    • Chris

      Yes, we agree with that point…

      Mariage is to have kids? What am I missing?

      • eastside_evil

        “Mariage is to have kids? What am I missing?”

        Chris, are you being serious?

        If you are, that is a lie.

      • Tom


        Not every couple who marries want too have kids! Some can’t for medical reasons and choose not to. Do you an amendment for that next ?

  • yep

    Look how young he is. It’s the old dried up prunes that are holding the country back.

  • Brandon

    Where is the morality in keeping two consenting adults from having their love recognized by the state and be given the privileges afforded to married couples? How can what happens in someone else’s bedroom, not your own, even concern you?

  • Max

    Sen Kriesel was a hero in Iraq and he continues to be a hero in St. Paul. A man of integrity! Bravo to him for standing up to the reactionaries who seem to dominate the state legislature these days.

  • st paul

    There ya go – a GOP who supports it… now where is whats her name that was complaining yesterday that she hasn’t seen any support from a GOP…

    hmmmmm… interesting huh?

    • Claire

      st paul,

      No kidding. Do you think any of the DFL would ever break from party lines? They all have the same bug eyed look as the Govenor

  • Jim Kosmo

    John Kriesel is a true man’s man, and apparently the only Republican in St. Paul who is standing up for the Republican philisophy of keeping government out of people’s personal lives. Agree or disagree it’s great to see at least one legislator think for himself and not ask the party how to vote.

    • Jake

      @Jim. The irony is that he is actually putting government into an area that it doesn’t currently get involved. As it stands, whether same-sex couples want to consider themselves “married” is a private matter. Now John wants the state to get involved and recognize same-sex couples as “married” as a legal matter.

      If you don’t consider the current recognition of only hetero couples as married to be fair, then getting government out of that business as well is the way to address the unfairness, not by more government intrusion by sanctioning (and requiring others to recognize) a new same-sex “marriage” as Rep. Kriesel wants to do.

      • stace34

        Why should some marriages of 2 consenting adults be recognized by the state and some not? Isn’t that the ver difinition of discrimination? Can we as Americans support discrimination? Isn’t that something we oppose? Are we not a land of equals? This is not a new definition of marriage. This is recognizing relationships that have always exhisted. We are just not catching up and facing this discrimination.

        • Citizen

          stace34. In the GOP’s world someone always has to be a whipping boy. Right now its the gays’ turn. They need to put some class of people down to make themselves feel superior.

          • Jake

            That’s just silly. O.k., so I want the government to pay my mortgage and send me on a vacation. What?!? They won’t do that? I guess I’m the new whipping boy.

            Nobody is going after same sex couples or trying to take away rights that currently exist. It is a matter of whether to create a new right – that is, to have a state sanctioned marriage of same sex couples entering a contract akin to currently recognized marriages of heterosexual marriages. And yes, Stace34, it would be discriminatory to the extent it provides an opportunity to everyone that not all people choose to take advantage of. To that extent, I am discriminated against by the fact that the state pays for and offers everyone the opportunity to go to Itasca State Park yet I am not interested in going there. We all may go there, some choose to go there, but I don’t. We all may marry someone of the opposite sex, some choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and some are not interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex. That is only discriminatory in preference, not rights.

            • stace34

              They are not asking for new right they are asking for equal rights. If we don’t support giving same sex couples the same opportunity to have their marriage recognized by the state then you are supporting discrimination against them. Either the state recognize all marriages between 2 consenting adults or the don’t recognize any.

              • Al

                Stace34, you say that the Constitution guarentees that “all men are created equal…” which it does. However, you need to check you history books and you will see that this great country was founded on Christian values. In Cristianity they follow a book called the Bible. In that book it specifically states that “man shall not lay with man nor woman with woman…”. Just because the state refuses to honor these marriages doesn’t mean that you can’t go to another state and get “married”. Many benefits that are offered to married couples are already offered to same sex couples, so what’s everyone getting worked up about?

                • Todd W. Olson

                  Where is Christianity mentioned in the Constitution, Al? As it happens, the Constitution does mention that religious tests are not applicable in public matters.

                • stace34

                  Actually if you know your history you would know how adimate our founding fathers were that our country not be based on any religion. That is why there is separation of church and state. No church should be able to force their personal beliefs in what they view as God’s plan on others. So perhaps you should learn about this geat countries history.

                  If you add the fact that some Christian churches accept and perform same sex marriages than supporting same sex marriage is in line with Christianity.

                • stace34

                  The bible contains 6 admonishments to same sex relationships and 362 admonishments to opposite sex relationships. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t love straight people. It just means they need more supervision.

                • stace34

                  Marriage means you have a say in medical decissions, you can be in the hospital room, you can inheirate your spouses assets without penalty, you are entitles to survivor benefits. The spouce can change their last name as part of the marriage without added expence. There are a lot of legal benefits to having a marriage recognized by the state. To act like there aren’t is rediculous.

                • Rick Betts

                  Got some bad news for you, Al – The United States was not founded on Christian values. It was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The first European settlers here were seeking freedom from the oppressive Church of England, and they wanted to be able to live by the tenets of their own religious beliefs.

                  In case you ever come out of your cave, you will notice different religions and different sects (for lack of a better word) within these religions look at this issue differently. For example, the conservative Hasidic Jews – as shown by the Rabbi who testified the otehr day – seem to be against gay marriage. However, the Reform Jew congregations don’t seem to have a problem with it. Different segments of the over-arching Christian faith are the same way, some for and some against.

                  Unfortunately, people like you cannot separate RELIGION from REALITY. You are certainly entitled to live by the tenets of your faith, but you should also respect others’ faiths and points of view.

                • eastside_evil

                  Al, your book has no bearing on the conversation.

                  You can’t force me to live my life based on YOUR beliefs. I don’t believe what you believe and you can’t legislate from the bible, no matter how you want your revisionist version of history to be told as a lie.

            • Eliot

              I think I’m going to vomit…….not the same, dude! Its not taking away rights…..there are rights that Heteros have and Gays don’t……so simply make them equal.

        • Tom


          Because the Social Conservatives just have a hard time dealing the changes in society. They want to keep everything status quo. They can’t understand why the rest of us don’t want to see society they way do, or chooose too see it the way they do. They think everybody would be much happier if they lived their lives like they do. But not everybody wants too be that nuts.

      • eastside_evil

        No. John Kriesel DOESN’T want the state to get involved.

        How can we be this far into the issue and you still don’t even know what the issue is???

      • eastside_evil

        “requiring others to recognize”

        In what way will you personally be “required” to do anything at all if gays can marry?

        Please be specific. If you have nothing, then retract your opposition.

    • DJ

      Very well said. I’m all for less goverment which I’ve always thought was a core republican principle. There is absolutely no need for a constitutional amendment on marriage.

      • Citizen

        @DJ. Less government is WHAT the GOP tells you it stands for. If you look at the reality of the laws enacted by GOP-led legislatures over the last decades since Ronald Reagan, you will see quite a different picture. The party is the party of hypocrisy.

  • st paul

    Oh, it was Eastside-Evil who was looking for a GOP member who supported it…
    How ya feel now?


    • eastside_evil

      Incorrect. I did not make that statement.

      • st paul

        YES you did. YOU DID. YESTERDAY. On the floor vote page…
        Don’t deny it… YOU LIE.

        If there is one thing I hate most, it’s liars… don’t f-ing lie.

      • st paul

        SOMEONE did.
        In that fairy throwing the glitter on Newt forum.

        This guy would get my vote in a second.

        • eastside_evil

          No. I don’t care about politics enough and wouldn’t have wondered if a GOP member crossed party lines. Sorry. Wrong guy.

          Don’t accuse me of lying. Do the checking yourself next time before going off the deep end over nothing.

  • stace34

    Actually he knows what being a conservative really is. A party of small government should not advocate government interfearing in peoples personal lives. Where are your American values? Are we not the nation that said all men are created equal? Would you rather it say all are created equal as long as they fit into your view of who they should be? If you truly value a family you should value and support all forms of the family.

  • PJ

    Bravo. A GOP rep. staying true to his party ideology: keeping government out of our private lives. I wish the rest would catch on and realize that conservative social issues may not be the best way to win the hearts of Republicans. This is an issue that crosses all party and demographic lines and it is too early to make a semi-permanent decision by embedding it in our constitution.

    • Family Values

      The Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. Kriesel is violating God’s law by voting against the amendment.

      • LP26

        Really? Is your marriage going to be threatened if gays are someday allowed to marry?

      • Hobbit

        The Bible also teaches us that Greed and Vanity are all sins. You want the State to pass some laws for these also? Truth is that we live in a country where the Bible does NOT dictate our laws. If you want that, feel free to move to Afghanistan.

  • Me


  • Brian

    Finally! A Republican that actually holds firm to the party’s belief in smaller government! Now fix the budget.

  • Tom


    Good 4 U ! I wish you and your dog all the happiness in the world!

  • Tom

    Family Values

    Yes he probably does have a Target on his back by people like you. And by the way Morality went out the window years ago, and the church lost their Morality a long time ago. People like you just have hard time letting go. Leave your little bubble and join the rest of us in the real world you will be much happier.

    But I will give him a little credit when he says he was elected to deal with economy not the social issues.

    • Family Values

      The Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. This nation is losing its way because it does not obey God’s word.

      • Michael Koppelman

        But the greatest of these is love. Try it.

  • Wow

    Yeah…except gay people aren’t animals. They are human beings like you and me. With thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, aspirations, etc.

    So nice you can find the tolerance, dignity and decent HUMANITY to treat your fellow man so kindly as to compare them to dogs.

    God bless you.

    • Jake

      Are polygamists people with thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, aspirations, etc.? If this is about validating relationships rather than the longstanding family unit for child raising, why do we choose to only validate relationships that fit into our little box? How about bi-sexual people? Why would we make them choose only one person to love when they were born with an attraction to both genders? Seems pretty hypocritical.

      • Chris

        Jake, this is about the state’s interest in monogomous two-parent households. That interest is advanced by allowing two people to marry one other person that they choose, regardless of gender. It has nothing to do with recognizing anything other than two-partner relationships, and you know it.

        And, by the way, bisexuals are just as capable of monogamy as anyone else. I don’t think they want you standing in as their disingenuous spokesperson. These straw man arguments only obscure the simple fact that what is being proposed here is UNNECESSARY legislation because same-sex partner marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, and serves only to further prove the point that gay men and women are the subject to hostile legal discrimination because they lack political power. Consequently, it is only making it all the more likely that these restrictions will be overturned as violation s of the guarantee of equal protection under the US Constitution.

        Best of luck in your polyamorous relationship, and your valiant fight for legal recognition thereof.

        • Jake

          Thanks, Chris. Unfortuanately the odds against finding a SECOND person to love me are pretty unlikely. In any case, this is not about the family unit. What percentage of same-sex couples are custodial caregivers for minors? Sure, there are some, but it’s pretty small. Who is arguing that the lack of same-sex marriage is about aiding same sex couples to raise children? The argument has always been about “fairness” and “the same rights” and validation. And you know it.

          I suspect you know why a point would be put to a general vote rather than rely on current legislation. People who want access to the financial components of legally recognized marriage are a well-organized group that will undoubtedly capture the legislature to extend a new right to marry anyone of any gender. The current public opinion (disputed by the recent poll, of course) has been against extending legal recognition to same sex marriages. That, too, may change. The U.S. Constitution is silent on both marriage and sexual orientation, but I reckon someone can find these rights in the shadows or maybe an emanation of the document.

        • Lindsey

          Why should it stop at two-person household? I grew up with polygamus families, underage/adult marriage, first cousins marriage that were perfectly healthy and normal. I also know of many hetro sexual couples that refuse to have anything to do with having a legal document determining their status.

          The underlying fight here is not legalizing marriage. It is acceptance. Marriage is not a right or a privledge but a preference. Marriage, now, is fit into the views of a Western lifestyle/philosophy. There is no denial of love, or of two people (regardless of gender) loving each other and having a home together. Quite frankly, even if you were trying ot brush off Jake’s comment as nonsensical, there will eventually be a flood gate of all types of relationships that want equal protection and acceptence as the rest.

          Love is a right, legal marriage is man-made.

      • eastside_evil

        Jake, this is not a slippery slope here. Allowing gays to legally marry will not mean they will then want to marry animals or 14 people.

        Why can you not discuss the issue without lying? Is it because you know there’s no reason it shouldn’t be legal, but you still really hate gay sex? Is that what this is about for you?

        • Jake

          I’m not saying gays would be inclined to polygamy (and I didn’t mention beastiality). How exactly am I lying? I posed a question. Chris raises a new argument that this is about same-sex couple raising children. Everyone else is talking about “fairness” and validation. When you talk validation and fairness, it inevitably brings up the issue of who gets to decide what is valid or fair. Can same sex brothers marry? There is no chance of inbreeding. It would only be your sense of “propriety” that might prevent you from supporting that right.

        • Jake

          Um, how was I lying when I posed a question? When did I say I hate gay sex?

  • Chris

    Please let me know when you can come over to my grandparent’s house and tell them how my uncle, their son, is like your dog.

  • markH

    Family values- On exactly what authority do you claim that it is immoral to marry someone of the same sex? Where did you get that idea? Please resist the urge to lodge your argument the foundational texts of ancient belief systems and tell us all how you KNOW it is immoral? Perhaps it could be said that judging the private lives of others is an immoral affront to human decency and restraint, yet you haven’t even considered that perspective, have you? Peace.

  • wondering

    It will be on the ballot and let the voters decide. I have heard the reason is the slippery slope concept…if men can marry men and women women…why can’t I marry my best friend and her husband…or perhaps several men..that sounds really fascinating. I am sure I can “love” a half dozen men. Will my rights be trampled?

    • MikeL

      wondering…It’s time for a new argument, this one is old and outdated. Go ahead and marry a half dozen men, it certainly doesn’t impact me whatsover. Which is exactly the point, why do you care who I marry?

    • stace34

      This is the same argument that those who were against interracial marriage used. Way to recycle the hate.

      • Me

        i agree about interracal marriage. I am in one and thinking on that is what convinced that people should be allowed to be married to the adult they love, even if of the same gender.

  • Gayle

    Welcome to divorce court…the only people that will profit with be attorneys. Once Pandora’s box is opened you cannot slam it shut. They dream may not be all you thought it to be. rush out get married and then OOPS get a divorce lawyer, lose your home, pay child support, lose you insurance (yes that will be GONE) the US has made consessions, domestic partners can have med ins, only if you are the same sex, I think that is discrimination, who are you to say the definition of domestic partner, who are you to tell me I HAVE TO GET MARRIED if I don’t want to. Jump in let the divorces commmence that should even it all out. Sorry but once you can you may choose not to and wish you had left it alone.

    • MikeL

      Who tells you that you have to get married? I don’t know of any law requiring marrige. However, I should have the choice if I want to get married and to whom. If I decide to get divorced like almost half of all heterosexual couples (because that certainly speaks volumes about the sanctity of marriage in this day and age), that should also be my choice.

      • Gayle

        Well I guess it is a big deal..concessions have been made for those who feel slighted cause they couldn’t get married. Many millions of $$$ have been spent , so once the state votes on it then hopefully this will all be put to rest for good and not have to be discussed in the state of MN again. I agree immensely let the people of the state of MN speak loud and clear with their vote, but if it is deemed one man and one woman then it needs to be over, if it is deemed persons of either or the same sex then again let it be done and over.

    • eastside_evil

      Gayle, what in the hell are you talking about?

      Seriously…. Make an effort to say something cogent, will you please?

  • Dave

    Your dog can never be a consenting adult. No child can be one either
    Nice try.

  • Josh

    We are only a few days away from a special session because our representatives can’t agree on a budget bill, yet creating an amendment defining marriage is their first concern? On top of that if we go to a special session these jerks still get paid. If I didn’t get my job done on time I would be fired.

    I think some priorities need to be re-examined here.

  • MikeL

    Jake – please just go away. Your continued blabbering to every comment only shows how small minded and incredibly arrogant you are. You are now comparing the right of a (or lack there of) gay couple to marry vs. visiting a state park. Really?

    • MikeL

      Who here is not being honest that the right to marry should be extended to permit anyone, gay or straight, to marry someone of the same gender. I think that is the point of everyone opposing this amendment. No argument needed. No reason needed. I don’t need to justify who I love to anyone.

      I personally think your point of ‘splitting hairs’ in this argument comes across as condescending, and I don’t take it as a compliment.

      • Jake

        Well, I certainly didn’t mean to insult you, if that is implied by you not taking a compliment. You do, however, already have the right to love whoever you want to. There is no “love requirement” for a legally-recognized marriage. You and I just disagree about the benefit to subsidizing same-sex couples as a matter of course in the absence of children. That doesn’t make a person antagonistic toward same sex couples.

    • T-Rock

      Wow Jake, usually anti-gay marriage advocates aren’t as well written as you, so props to that.

      I’m curious, with over 50% of heterosexual marriages ending up in divorce, what exactly are you trying to protect? The institution of marriage is no longer sacred, in fact, it’s a complete joke now.

      Do you also realize that due to MN’s large gay community, new wedding registrations with the state would increase revenue? Not to mention gay weddings would inject a whole new consumer base to wedding retailers.

      I’m assuming you are a Republican. How do you feel that the GOP gets the majority elected by stumping on jobs and the economy, then turn right back to their pathetic attempts as social engineering? Was this what you voted for? Do abortions and gay marriage affect you on a daily basis?

      • Jake

        T-Rock, you came so close to a reasoned debate and then fell into the name calling and adjectives. Anyway, you make a big assumption that I support the subsidies for hetero married couples. I don’t. I believe people should make their life decisions for the right reasons and be prepared to support those decisions with their own efforts and income. I support certain subsidies to any couple (whatever the relationship) that is responsible for custodial care of a minor child or adult with special needs. Everything else, such as health care decision making, inheritance, etc., should be available to people by contract (as it almost all is). After that, government should not be in the business of validating (or preventing) voluntary relationships.

        We used to legislate against divorce and adultery, but that stopped working, if it ever did work. The world has changed, and the traditional family unit is not nearly so prevalent. We should change our policy of subsidy to reflect this by focusing on child raising. A blanket extension of these subsidies to same sex couples takes us farther from a sensible policy and reasoned role for government, not closer.

        My partisan leanings have no bearing on the validity (or lack thereof) of my argument (nor do you know what they are). Focus on the message, not the messenger, and we will arrive at a better place as a society.

  • Dave

    On a personal level I am against same-sex marriage, so I guess I won’t ever marry a man.

    Still, I see no real harm to allow it to exist.

    • M B

      Most of these are RELIGIOUS arguments. MY religion says this, so all of you should follow it. I am a christian and I think this type of forcibly conformative mentality is anti-christian. If, say, muslims were here demanding us to conform to their religion, we’d be freaking out.

      As long as you’re not hurting anybody in the process, either financially, emotionally or physically, I don’t care what you do. I know this is an abhorrent concept to most conservative bible thumpers, but it is what I believe.

      If you want to marry someone of the same gender, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, then go for it. If you are able to love multiple men or women, as long as they’re all consenting and know about the situation, the relationship doesn’t hurt anyone, and anyone can leave without repercussion, I don’t care if you do it. More power to you. I personally don’t think I could keep multiple women happy, but I’m not going to care if you can. The bad thing comes when anyone is forced into one of these situations. I doubt any of these gay marriages are being entered into under any duress other than what our society places on them with religious, narrow minded objections.

    • Sam

      That’s exactly how I feel. I have no opinion on same-sex marriage and whether it is legalized or not isn’t going to affect people like you and me. I just don’t see a need to put it into the constitution so I plan on voting against it.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Weather App
Thursday Night Football

Listen Live