Dayton Vetoes Marriage Amendment In Symbolic Move

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — Gov. Mark Dayton has vetoed the bill that calls for a statewide vote next year on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but acknowledged it’s a symbolic move and he can’t keep it off the ballot.

Last week the Legislature put the marriage amendment on the 2012 general election ballot. Dayton says even though it doesn’t cancel the vote, he’s vetoing the bill because he considers it “mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American.”

The amendment asks voters if the constitution should be amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman only. State law already prohibits gay marriage but supporters say the amendment is needed so voters can decide instead of judges or legislators.

Dayton says he will campaign against the amendment and believes voters will reject it.

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments

One Comment

  1. M B says:

    What happens if the voters strike this amendment down? Is it going to keep showing back up until we say yes, just like a stadium bill? That seems to be how politicians seem to work here. They just can’t take ‘no’ for an answer.

    If we say no, are the right-wing conservatives going to just sit back and be quiet? I doubt it. I hope they do, but I seriously doubt it.

    1. oldguy4444 says:

      What if the voters say yes? will you just sit buy and say nothing?

      1. klmk says:

        It’s ‘by’ not ‘buy’. Let’s spell correctly people!

        1. phil says:

          Who made you the english teacher on this site?

            1. wally says:

              hahahaha! those corrections totally made my day!😀

              1. markHT says:

                An Exclamation point also denotes the end of a sentence, in which case you should have capitalized “those”. Peace.

        2. Gary Lee says:

          No, for conservatives it’s “buy”. If they can buy it, then we are supposed to accept it. Sort of like when a conservative legislator has been bought by a lobbyist, and then is supposed to “sit buy”.

      2. M B says:

        I would hope that the People of Minnesota have enough common sense to see this for what it is and vote no. If they vote yes for this, I will be greatly disappointed in the ability of Minnesotans to be free thinkers.

        What this is is nothing short of infringing on one group’s rights for the benefit of another group. If you feel uncomfortable about homosexuality then you need to understand why you are, and the answer shouldn’t be, “Because my religion says so.” If that is your answer, then it’s already been established that either you treat others as you’d like to be treated, especially those that are doing no harm to yourself or others, or you have to accept your religion as hypocrisy. You can’t believe in the fair treatment of others while depriving them of their rights, especially if those rights don’t infringe upon yours.

        People keep using the religious definition of marriage to argue this instead of the civil one, but yet trying to play it off as a civil thing. It’s not. The only reason most are uncomfortable about this is because of their religion, because of what their church rammed down their throats. I have yet to see a passage that outright forbids it. I believe that as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, then God wants us to be happy.

        1. Christian and Free says:

          I’m voting ‘NO’. Free thinkin’ and willing to treat ALL people with dignity and respect, that’s what I believe in.

          1. M says:

            no matter what you vote it doesn’t really matter. It is like the Subject English So We should Change the Word Man/Boy and Women/ Girl to mean both sexes because it’s not fair can’t people twist it to be wrong too? The definition is the definition leave it alone! Marriage is between a man and woman. You don’t see animals choosing same gender unions do you?

            1. Gary Lee says:

              Actually, yes, several species of animals do engage in “same gender unions”.

              So now the question becomes, are those animals which were created by Satan instead of by God (the implication of which is itself sacreligious), or are they just animals who watch too much of the liberal media? That’s actually a trick question. The conservatives will just deny the scientific evidence and say it never happened.

      3. M B says:

        I would hope that the People of Minnesota have enough common sense to see this for what it is and vote no. If they vote yes for this, I will be greatly disappointed in the ability of Minnesotans to be free thinkers.

        What this is is nothing short of infringing on one group’s rights for the benefit of another group. If you feel uncomfortable about h0m0s3xuality then you need to understand why you are, and the answer shouldn’t be, “Because my religion says so.” If that is your answer, then it’s already been established that either you treat others as you’d like to be treated, especially those that are doing no harm to yourself or others, or you have to accept your religion as hypocrisy. You can’t believe in the fair treatment of others while depriving them of their rights, especially if those rights don’t infringe upon yours.

        People keep using the religious definition of marriage to argue this instead of the civil one, but yet trying to play it off as a civil thing. It’s not. The only reason anyone is uncomfortable about this is because of their religion. I believe that as long as they’re not hurting anyone else, then God wants us to be happy.

        Also… WCCO. I am offended that your filters reject the term that the article is all about. Hence my mangling of the term above. How do we comment on something without mentioning it by name?

        1. heather says:

          sorry I disagree with you 100%!!! I do not believe that marriage is between a man and a man or a women and a women. It is a sin, God did not make us to be with the same sex. I am not offended or treat gays any different then a straight person, I just stand by what the bible states.

          I am tired of people like you putting people like me down because of what I believe. I have rights as a Christian to believe what I believe…that doesn’t make me a bad person it just means that I stand strong in my belief in the Bible, and I am tired of people like you and the government trying to say that I am a bad person.

          People keep taking the truth of the Bible out of everything and that is why this world has become so immoral and sinful!

          1. Amanda says:

            @ heather….So According to you, I don’t have any rights?? since I am not a Cristian and I am gay.. then I do not have any rights??? maybe in church, but in the state I do… I am like any other citizen, I obey laws, and pay taxes…. Now according to your beliefs what I am it’s a SIN.. OK let’s talk about SINS… you only have intimacy with your Husband with the only intent of procreation, right? cause otherwise it’s a SIN and a Capital one… you don’t know that? it is call LUST… so as you can see, I may be gay but also I know the bible pretty good… and I am not asking the church to marry me, I know they won’t do it, and you know what, that is fine by me, I have a close relationship with GOD and what I do or not do it’s between God and me…

            So the only thing we are asking is separate state from the church… simple as that

            1. Believer says:

              What this issue comes down to is not religious beliefs, or laws imposed on people by government. Ultimately, sin is nothing more than the violation of the moral code that is written on the hearts of men and women. As creatures with souls, we know when we do something to violate that moral code – a gift given to us by our creator called guilt. Those fighting against the passage of this amendment tell themselves that there is no guilt in what they do – perhaps they do not fully understand the meaning.

              I am the first to admit that I am a sinner – we all are! That does not make me hate myself, and I definitely do not hate others because of what they do. But I do hate the sins! I hate the evil that exists that causes us all to fight! When we do, the evil one wins. Our creator wants nothing more than for each and everyone of his children to come home to him – we all need to thoroughly examine our consciences to determine what changes we need to make.

              1. M B says:

                That moral code of which you speak is impressed upon you by HUMANS from a book written by HUMANS, and thus subject to all of humanity’s faults, foibles, drives and weaknesses. In short, that moral code is not instilled by God, but by humans. Because of this, while they are good guidelines to live by, they are not the direct word of God, but rather human’s interpretations of same. We have repeatedly established throughout history that humans are fallible, power hungry and greedy, yet we accept the word of the church (made up of humans) as if God himself said it. What does that say for us?

                But, calling these people sinners just because they don’t conform to your biblical programming (yes, programming, just like a computer. IF this THEN this ELSE that. If you believe then you go to heaven, else you go to hades.) is a greater sin. I have yet to still see anybody point out the passages that forbid being gay, almost s if they are afraid of it being questioned.

                As said earlier, this boils down to a religious argument that is trying to be passed off as a civil one. If they aren’t hurting you, then why do you care? Judge Not Lest Ye be Judged. Is it not the providence of God, under the Bible, to be the Judge? Let him deal with it. From a civil standpoint, they aren’t hurting you or your person, so why do you care? Do you think they represent a change in society that you personally can’t deal with, and are trying to use God as your personal bludgeoning tool? That what it looks like to me.

              2. stace34 says:

                I find it morally reprehensible that you would not stand up for equality. I find it morally reprehensible that you would use the same argument s used by those who stood for ban in interracial marriage. Those are my morals. Can you really stand by the ones you claim to have knowing they are the same as those who tried and voted to keep interracial marriage illegal? It that really what your morals tell you to do.

              3. Good Ol Boy says:

                @ Believer:

                Fine, but being gay isn’t a sin, and you don’t get to be the one to say it is.

                And since I don’t subscribe to your tenets of faith, I can say I am truly without sin. I’d ask for a rock to throw, but it just isn’t my way.😉

          2. Jim says:

            heather, I have no interest in your bible. Keep it in church and your home and out of government.

            1. Literally/theoretically says:

              Do you watch the Vikings? According to the Old Testament, anyone who touches the skin of a pig on Sunday should be put to death. Do you want to kill all the football players? Slavery was ok in parts of the Bible too. Do you want slavery back? According to the Bible, a father can kill his daughter for doing certain things. Should we allow that too?

            2. King says:

              Your so right Jim !

          3. SO SAD says:

            @ Heather – Where is the Bible does it state marriage is between a man and a woman? Still can’t find it……….

            1. Believer says:

              Genesis 2:18-25; Leveticus 18:22 (actually all of Leveticus 18 is worth reading!); Mark 10:6; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-10

              1. Believer says:

                Oops, meant Leviticus not Leveticus

              2. stace34 says:

                The bible also states that if the bride is not a virgin she should be put to death. Should we make that the law as well?

                1. MARK says:

                  stace, I think we should put it up to a statewide vote. I mean, if 51% of the population wants to put non-virgin brides to death because of what is says in some really old book, then it must be the right thing to do. Right?

                2. ALS says:

                  LOL , Mark!!

              3. Joe says:

                This amendment bans shellfish? But I love lobster!

              4. Christian and Free says:

                I believe that the bible also states that anyone who plays with the skin of a pig shall be put to death. So, believer, have you ever played a little football in your life? On no! You did? Well, it says in the bible….

            2. overlogical says:

              I think she’s got the Bible confused with the dictionary definition.

              The formal union of a MAN and a WOMAN, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

              1. Joe says:

                According to Webster’s dictionary: marriage (n) (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

                1. Gary Lee says:

                  So now the Webster dictionary has the force of law? It does, hoewever, contain the “contractual” part, which is really the part which was considered most important in Webster’s day, as it was the part which transferred rights to the groom’s land inheritance to the male children of the bride, which was the only part all the law cared about anyway.

            3. King says:

              The Bible needs to be changed again !

          4. stace34 says:

            Should other religions be allowed to push their religious beliefs on you? Should we make laws based on American values of equality or should we make laws the way they do in Iran an base them off religious beliefs? No one is asking to infringe on your rights not to like same sex marriage or believe that it is a sin. No one would require you to attend a same sex marriage or get married to someone of the same sex. All that people are asking is that as an American you put the ideals of how this country is a plural society and believes in equality be the matter of law and that your personal beliefs be just that personal. Same sex marriage in no way would infringe on your rights, it would in no way affect your life.

          5. Good Ol Boy says:

            Heather, no matter what you believe, you don’t get to create laws based on it and force us to live by them.

            Gays marrying doesn’t affect you.

            If it does, I want to know how.

          6. Leon Hunter says:

            If people were so bent on saving marriage as an institution why isn’t there anti divorce laws or adultery laws or or cohabitation laws ? Vows that include ” Til Death due us part ” should mean just that.

          7. American says:

            Amen Heather! If, more people followed the Lord this world would not be in such a mess.Check out your physical make up people,do we need to say more! Society keeps loosing it’s moral fiber and this is what is going to bring this country and world down.

            1. stace34 says:

              I find it morally reprehensible that you would not stand up for equality. I find it morally reprehensible that you would use the same argument s used by those who stood for ban in interracial marriage. Those are my morals. Can you really stand by the ones you claim to have knowing they are the same as those who tried and voted to keep interracial marriage illegal? It that really what your morals tell you to do.

            2. Good Ol Boy says:

              American “loosing” is not a word.

            3. Gary Lee says:

              If more people followed the Lord when writing laws America would be insdistiguishable from Iran. Typically each theocracy works out to be pretty much the same in the end. The only noticable differences are which book the judge keeps on his desk while pronouncing sentence, and how they carry out the executions.

          8. ALS says:

            It’s hard for me to believe you “just stand by what the bible states” in every situation. I bet you thought the world was going to end last weekend too, hugh?

            I hope that someday everyone has the same rights towards marriage that you and I do Heather. They should have a right to marry whomever- it’s not a religious thing. Not everyone in this wold is Christian, so why should Christians rule the world and why should Christianity help define the laws? Same sex couples should have every right to a spouse- not just for the sake of being married, but so they can be granted the same priviledges as married couples- it’s not just about the marriage license.

          9. Conal says:

            With all due respect, Heather, hating someone for who they are is no better than what the Nazis did to the Jews.

            How does it really affect you in your life if a friend or coworker of mine wants to marry someone of the dame sex. Sin is part of -your- moral code not mine so please do not force these beliefs upon me. If your god is so petty and spiteful then it is you who should be ashamed.

            Separation of church and state must stay true.

            1. me says:

              Hate? Really? I don’t see the word hate any where in Heather’s post. Let’s fight fair here people.

              1. Good Ol Boy says:

                Discrimination against a group of people based on beliefs they don’t share and saying they’re going to burn in hell (but they ain’t mad atcha!) isn’t hate?

                LOL!!

              2. James says:

                ME, implication or inference is the same as saying it. She loves me by being a stumbling block to her faith, by taking law and caging me, without regard to my self reliance and self determination, both of which are American values. The free marketplace of ideas, is a secular arena enjoyed by ALL. And that’s the world we share. Our private lives, are, private. (well as much as one can be) And her right to say whatever she wants in any attmept to persuade me is fine. But do not tread on me. Big difference.

          10. Otto says:

            The Bible (leviticus) also says that eating shrimp and lobster is an abomination against the Lord. Right after it states that a man shall not lay with another man. It also says that clothing made of multiple or blended fabrics is also an abomination. It goes on and on. These anti-gay marriage folks just picked out the gay marriage because it makes them feel the most uncomfortable

          11. Good Ol Boy says:

            “I have rights as a Christian to believe what I believe”

            So?

            What you DON’T have is the right to tell gays they can’t marry.

            See how that works? You can be a christian and be proud of it if you want, but do it in the privacy of your own home where it doesn’t F WITH THE REST OF THE WORLD. You don’t get to make laws restricting the rights of others just because you believe stupid fairy tales. Got it yet?

            1. Jake says:

              True, nobody has a right (or they certainly shouldn’t, anyway) to tell same-sex couples they cannot marry. We all do, however, have the right to participate in the discussion of whether a union of same sex couples is the same as a hetero union for the purpose of recognition by the state. The fact is, the two are very, very similar, but they are not the same. Objectively, one has two different sex organs present, and the other does not. Subjectively, there are differences in terms of the role in perpetuation of the species and the roles of the genders. Hetero relationships have some inefficiency in that some do not yield children. Same sex relationships are 100% inefficient unless a third party steps in (at least at our current scientific capacity).

              Whether one thinks the similarities overwhelm the differences to warrant the same recognition of the relationships by the state is a matter of opinion, whether or not it is influenced by religious belief. Currently everyone, gay or straight, has the right to marry someone of teh opposite sex. Whether that right should be changed to permit one to marry whoever they choose regardless of gender hinges on what the benefit is of recognizing same-sex couples as “married” other than making people feel validated in their relationships or giving them access to financial benefits historically created to support the raising of children.

              1. stace34 says:

                Jake, When do we all get to participate in the discussion about your marriage? And if we are going to participate in a discussion about marriage why stop at just banning same sex marriage? Can we invalidate marriages of infertile couples since that without the help of a third pary they are 100% ineffieient? If same sex couples want to marry only to validate their relationship as you claim then the same can be said for opposite sex couples. There is also more to marriage than child raising. There are inheritance rights, rights to medical decisions, rights to be with the person you love in the hospital. Also, same sex couple that do have children and are raising a family should they not get the same “support” as opposite sex couples?

              2. Good Ol Boy says:

                Stop justifying your belief that you can create laws to restrict other American citizens’ rights by talking about your genitalia.

                We are NOT talking about genitalia.

                We are talking about a loving, mutually supportive relationship, which is the core of all that is right and good and appropriate.

                Now tell me. Who among us should enjoy that concept? Just you and your wife? If it was my opinion that you and your wife shouldn’t use marital aids in the sack and I convinced 50.1% of the population to agree with me and vote on it, would you agree that we can throw you in jail if we find evidence you still have that double-headed pleasure device in your naughty box under the bed?

          12. dphilips says:

            biblethumper

          13. markHT says:

            heather- You are in the uncomfortable (to say nothing of impossible) position of being unable to prove any assertion you just made. Attempting to infuse your own personal religious beliefs into civil law is not only a recipe for disaster to those who do not hold such views (or any religious views whatsoever) but is also an assault on our Constitution. By all means, have your beliefs and feel free to let others know your personal convictions if you must-but at the end of the day they are nothing more than ancient stories (there are thousand, check your history) that have no place in shaping public policy. Peace.

          14. BB says:

            You have rights as a christian to believe what you want, where those rights need to end is when it affects the rights of others that believe differently. Religion should be left in the church and home, it should not factor into legislation. Separation of church and state is a very important part of our constitution. I find it very arrogant of any one group being able to vote on the constitutional rights of another, it is discrimination, plain and simple. Not a dime of tax payer money is paying for two people to get married, gay or straight. So you really cannot claim that it is anything more than your personal beliefs. Keep those beliefs, but don’t try to legislate them and push them on the rest of us that do not agree with you. By the way it is people like you that are costing the tax payers money by constantly pushing legislation of morality as you see it in your own little world. That is why we get down on you, quit costing us money by insisting on bringing legislation that discriminates against others in this society, your beliefs should not trump the rights of others.

          15. Jeff says:

            The bible is not truth. There are missing books because of the organized church didn’t like it. Stop controlling me with your god.t

          16. Christian and Free says:

            Hmmm. I’m Christian. I’m voting ‘NO’. I’m willing to treat you with dignity and respect too. I disagree that a family who loves one another, who is faithful and supporting, is immoral and sinful. It’s that simple. We are all human beings, each of us need love, and so I vote ‘NO’.

          17. King says:

            If you don,t like gays, don,t marry one !

          18. King says:

            The Bible is for people that can,t use there own brains, its alot harder
            to think whats right and whats wrong on your own.
            The bible is old and needs to be updated again.

    2. Liberal Insanity says:

      So M B, you would rather have government officials just put things together and not have The People of the state vote on it? How is having a vote amongst the people not the fairest, majority decision? Just because conservative politicians bring it forward does not mean there are not people in the state that agree with it.

      Seems like you are scared about how Minnesotans really feel on this issue. Just because conservatives aren’t out acting like lunatics and protesting day in and day out, does not mean they don’t exist. Get out of your bubble.

      1. Jim says:

        Bigotry such as this should not be allowed to happen, even if 51% of the population is misguided enough to support it. Discrimination should never come up for a vote.

      2. stace34 says:

        The same argument was used to justify bans on interracial marriages. The majority got to vote on it so it must be right. You should be proud of the company you keep in your ideaology. Actual Conservative would never vote to on people personal lives. This is the very definition of big government and government interfearance in personal lives. It is the exact opostie of conservative.

      3. Good Ol Boy says:

        “How is having a vote amongst the people not the fairest, majority decision?”

        I say we get to vote on how you have s3x with your wife. If we don’t like it, you can’t do it. EVER. PERIOD.

        Also, I don’t like what you watch on TV and how you talk to your kids. From now on I get to decide. That’s what we voted. Tough luck for you.

    3. Jake says:

      I would assume that a “no” vote would be the end of it. Even the religious conservatives understand the shifting tide on the issue. If it’s a “yes” vote, I would expect the legislature to put it on the ballot for repeal any time the Democrats and Republicans who agree with them are in the majority of both houses until the matter is reversed.

      If the state would stop looking to the idea of “marriage” to determine legal rights, standing, and subsidy, the point would be moot.

  2. Jim says:

    Daytime polling and message board support shows who supports this bill. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on who you vote for, they do let people out of work to go to the polls.

  3. Johnson says:

    I’m so tired of the right wing bigotry…. and they call themselves Christians!

    Disgusting! Can’t wait until that pie gets thrown back in their face in 2012!

    Hoo Ya!

    OBAMA 2012 We’re going to give those sickos a lickin!

    1. Jim says:

      Does being a christian mean allowing anyone to do anything?

      1. stace34 says:

        Jim, No but it does mean treating others how you would like to be terated. So do we all get to cove on the validity of your marriage? Being a Christian means loving your neightbor, not spew out lies and hate. If you were a Chirstian you would know these things.

      2. Good Ol Boy says:

        Being a christian means you don’t get to tell anybody else what they can do. It isn’t up to you.

        So yes. You must allow everyone to do as they wish. That’s how this works.

      3. Christian and Free says:

        Maybe being a Christian means you do not judge least you be judged yourself. Treat others with dignity and respect. Imagine if that’s what our world was like, day in and day out. Protect the most vulnerable of human kind, the disenfranchised, the poor, the outcast. Did I attend a different Sunday school than the rest of the world? Jeez. Vote ‘NO’.

  4. ZoeBoeDoe says:

    Governor Dayton said it perfectly: “mean-spirited, divisive, un-Minnesotan and un-American.” It’s unconstitutional to put civil rights to a vote. AND it’s unconstitutional to amend the Constitution to limit rights. Of course, since Republicans don’t care about the Constitution, it’s not surprising that they violate it. Constantly.

  5. kevin says:

    you ever see two male dogs get married

    1. Believes in the Freedom to pursue Happiness says:

      Ever see dogs or any other mammal besides humans get married? Did you know that some species carry both sex organs, like flowers? Did you know that Bees only have one woman that lays the eggs and a select few men for breeding, like in many colonies (ants,etc)? However these species are not considered to be civilized or advanced but still you think with advancement in the species chain people wouldn’t be so petty.. right? Kevin?

    2. Ryan says:

      Yes, let us get our morals from animals. If so I’ll get down on my knees and start humping the nearest person to me.

      1. PongStar*69 says:

        Stop wasting my tax dollars on this . With so many other problems out there that are more important like getting a new Vikings stadium!! If gay guys don ‘t like girls then why on earth do they act so much like them in such a prissy way?

    3. klmk says:

      I’m pretty sure dogs don’t get married….

    4. Amanda says:

      Do you ever see a female dog and a male dog getting married? I haven’t seen that one either… I am not sure what’s your point here

    5. Good Ol Boy says:

      That isn’t the issue here. Please stay on topic if you’re able at all.

  6. Dante says:

    When are people going to see the truth! No one but some of the G and L and people who just can’t see things for what they are believe that this is mean spirited and that somehow defining marriage as between one man and one woman means that if one doesn’t believe that to be true then we must all hate the G and L — No one is saying that at all that I know of.
    This is about what marriage is – creating new life. Where is there “hate” in that!

    1. Not worth the Money to put on constitution says:

      Marriage doesn’t create new life. It is a union of two people agreeing to respect and take care of each other. Life can be created with or without it. It happens in nature and out of wedlock all the time. So it is mean-spirited to single out a definition of all the things to define. Marriages usually take place in some sort of religious-type place so I think it would be better to have greater separation of church and state. Let those institutions of people’s faith define marriage for them but I do not want legislature spending money on it.

      1. klmk says:

        I whole-heartedly agree.

        1. PongStar*69 says:

          If their parents were gay they might not have ever have been on this earth?

          1. Mark says:

            Yeah, because surrogate mothers, adoptions and sperm donors don’t exist. Life is only ever created by 1 man and 1 woman having sex. Get real.

            1. stace34 says:

              Apparently only married couples create life. So any life outside of marriage between one man and one woman should not count either. Sorry all you single parents you did not creat life that can only happen in a marriage between one man and one woman.

    2. Patti says:

      The hate is in condemning people becaue of who they are. The hate is in telling them their union is not as important as a straight persons. The hate is in not allowing them to have rights when their loved one is hospitalized or dies because they are not legally bound together. The hate is the bigotry that causes 3 young men to beat up a man because he’s gay.

      I could go on but you wouldn’t understand because you live in a world where “Christianity” is equavalent with judgement. You can’t listen to what I have to say because you’re too busy being righteous.

      1. PongStar*69 says:

        Yaaawwwwwnnnn!!!!

      2. Windsunsurf says:

        What do you know about being Righteous or not. Having bias or different view.

    3. Amanda says:

      @ Dante… so by your theory, people that by medical problems can’t create life, then they can’t get married, or the ones that choose, that they are plenty of them, not to create life, therefore can’t get married? is that you argument??? seriously?

  7. Garrick says:

    As symbolicly nice as that is, we’ll still need to wait till 2012. Just need to find my ear plugs before all those commercials come on about the amendment. Hopefully someone won’t try and through a bible in my face either regardless of how funny that would be.

    Wake up soul brother to a face full of Jesus! *Bible smack*

    1. Virgil says:

      Why not put on the constitution that women should wear loose fitting clothing and a veil on their face.. *Koran Smack* ???? really not everyone reads the same addition to the bible or the bible for that matter.. Freedom of religion.. I believe that is a constitution amendment.. Hmm…think about it..

      1. Garrick says:

        If the state votes for something like that, so be it. Then the majority of the state would have voted for it. Don’t think it’ll happen anytime soon but always something to hope for if you want it.

        I think we’re still missing a few books. *Torah smack* This is fun!

        1. stace34 says:

          So when the souther states used to vote to keep their bans on interracial marriage we all should have sat back and said “so be it” You should be proud of who you share your logic with.

          1. Mark says:

            Indeed, civil rights of the minority are not up to the majority. Up next, free speech for Christians only amendment. Then the Christian marriage only. Then only Christians can own property and vote. Majority rules remember.

            When you listen to fools, THE MOB RULES!

        2. Good Ol Boy says:

          Garrick, in AMERICA, the majority CANNOT create laws to oppress any minority.

          PERIOD.

          That is why there can not be a vote.

          What if blacks and mexicans and asians could all go vote that whites had to give up their houses with whichever minority told them they did. Boo hoo, eh?

          1. Jake says:

            Um, actually I’m pretty sure the Governor is fine with looking to a small minority (the wealthiest 2%) to pay for all the additional spending he would like in the current budget cycle. If he had a majority of the Legislature, he could, in fact, take their money, which would seem pretty oppressive. The majority (non-wetland owners) vote all the time to restrict the minority (people with land that includes wetlands) from doing what they want with their property. Pretty oppressive. The majority often imposes its will on minorities.

            Blacks and Mexicans and Asians could, in fact, all vote to take away the property and rights of whites, but first they would have to change the U.S. Constition, which takes a lot of work and pretty significant majority voting power. It is actually a testament to all races that whites chose to eliminate those same biases (despite some hiccups along the way) even though the white population had such enormous majorities that the country could have imposed such rules by fixing them in the Constitution.

            1. Good Ol Boy says:

              “Um, actually I’m pretty sure the Governor is fine with looking to a small minority (the wealthiest 2%) to pay for all the additional spending he would like in the current budget cycle. ”

              Absurd analogy. Absolutely irrelevant and off-topic.

              We are talking about restricting RIGHTS of fellow Americans. We are not talking about taxes. Again, stay on topic and discuss the topic, but don’t try to use stupid analogies that aren’t even relevant.

  8. wtdbuck says:

    I believe we should have a law that makes all people equal.
    oh wait we have that.
    iT’S CALLED THE CONTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    I WISH YOU REPUBLICANS AND HATERS WOULD READ IT SOME TIME.

    1. @wtd says:

      We’re not all equal, do not compare a father of 11 children ranging from 1 to 21 my equal, He chose to bring 11 kids into this world living in poverty. Im the same as a person who robs and shoots people? We’re not all the same please realize that some people act like animals

      1. Mark says:

        We all begin with the same rights. Harming people means you sacrifice those rights. There is 0 evidence that being gay hurts anyone, it is simply against some religions. So your strawman is up in flames.

    2. @ wtd says:

      All people are not equal, Do you consider yourself the same equal as a murderer or thief?

      1. markH says:

        Your examples have had the uniquely secular benefit of due process of law to determine their guilt, to say nothing of the obvious fact that these examples have actually harmed others. Perhaps you should work on your logic and critical thinking before you become convinced of your arguments.

        1. Christian and Free says:

          The topic. Please, attempt to stay on the topic. If you can. Thanks.

  9. concerto says:

    I am so glad that the Republicans took all their time to get the gay marriage on the ballot instead of working on the budget and taking care of the less fortunate as stated by their “christian” values.

    1. Jake says:

      This is silly. They forwarded a completed, balanced budget by the end of session. The Governor vetoed it.

      1. Amanda says:

        Completed, Balanced budget???? sure for the wealthy it is… not for the every day regular Minnesotan… glad to see what side you are on Jake?? and did you happened to read it too??? men you are special

        1. Jake says:

          No, I haven’t read it. Didn’t even say I supported it. The point is that a balanced budget was completed and sent to the Governor for signature. If a person disagrees with the provisions of it, that’s fine, but it is inaccurate to say the Republicans didn’t work on the budget.

          I’d also point out that claiming the budget is not consistent with Christian values is off point. First, I have not discovered a basis to believe Christ taught that government is responsible for taking care of people (the whole “render unto Caeser” thing) rather than the responsibility of individual Christians to do unto others, etc. Just as it is not the role of governement to mandate morality (other than preventing people from hurting others), it is not the role of government to mandate charity. Further, it is clearly an open debate about whether taking money out of the economy actually provides the benefits people demand. A stagnant economy providing 40% to the government may well produce far less for governmental spending than a robust economy providing 30%. Reasonable people can disagree on these points, but one position is no more “Christian” than another.

  10. kevin says:

    wtdbuck I wish you dem dogs would have remembered that when the republican convention was here. and I’m sure the DNC is going to pick up the tab for all the damage done by the dems.

  11. concerto says:

    I also feel that because a special session has to be called to fix the budget that no lawmakers get their meal or hotel per diems while in town. They weren’t able to do their job in the alloted time so the taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the special session or any costs for meals and hotels. Too bad, soo sad that you can’t work together. I say lets add an admendment to the ballot that if you have to have a special session cause you couldn’t compromise any extra costs will come out of their own pocket books. That would be fiscally responsible and make for smaller government. RIght?

  12. Machismo says:

    Well Minnesota, This is why I did not want this guy to be our Govener! “Gov. Mark Dayton has vetoed the bill that calls for a statewide vote next year on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, but acknowledged it’s a symbolic move and he can’t keep it off the ballot.”
    The poeple that voted him in can take responsibilty for their poor choice for Govener! and the lain brain policies he will put in place!

    1. Amanda says:

      and you are telling me that crazy Cristian EMMER was going to be the best choice???

    2. stace34 says:

      Just like we should be proud of the GOP for voting for a bill to add discrimination to our state constitution. You should take responsibility for your vote. You voted for people who stand by the same logic that kept bans in interracial marriage in place. You voted for people who do not believe in equality, just rights for those who agree with them. Talk about “lain brain policies “

  13. Judi says:

    Mr. Dayton is just looking for votes from all the gays and lesbians when it is election time. So I pity him. Hopefully, he will not get another term. As for this real issue, it DOES affect all of us – not just the gays and lesbians. If you can’t see that, then you can’t see that. We are not dogs, we are humans. So get on the right road, and get the thinking straight, in every sense of the word.

    1. concerto says:

      So glad that you aren’t a part of the group that is being discriminated against. Hope you read that bible closely cause if you are wearing a poly-cotton blend you are breaking a biblical law. Thou shall not wear cloth woven of two threads. I also hope that your husband has totaly control of your house, that you only keep slaves of your enemies and that you burn any clothing, bedding or furniture that you sat on while menstruating cause all those are mentioned in the bible too. DO YOU follow those rules or do you just pick and chose the ones you think are valid in today’s time and with all the information we have learned since those rules were written. At least be honest about your discrimination. Gays being allowed to marry has absolutely no bearing on my hetero marriage and to think otherwise is just stupid.

    2. stace34 says:

      I am thinking correctly in that this is a country of laws and that we say we are the example to the world. So what is the example you want to set? Do you want to say that even though my religion says this is wrong as a rule of law I should not impose my religious belief on those who feel differently. Since there is no proof that allwoing same sex couples, who have been around since the begining of time to marry, would hurt anyone then they should be allowed to do it. You may never attend a same sex marriage ceremony, and that is fine. But why should 2 consenting adults not get the same rights based on their gender?

    3. Good Ol Boy says:

      Judi, please explain your comment.

      We are not dogs? What does that mean?

      You do NOT get to decide what “the right road” is for me. YOU DON’T GET TO. It isn’t up to you to decide what I do or don’t do.

    4. MARK says:

      Judi, do you know a lot of gay married dogs? If you do, and if those dogs’ marriages are negatively affecting your life, then you make a good point here. Please elaborate. If you don’t know gay married dogs, then your post is an epic failure and completely ignorant.

    5. Christian and Free says:

      Really? It affects you? How? Explain yourself rather than play with puns.

  14. dayoff says:

    Since the Bible is so important to some, why not limit restaurants and grocery stores from having shellfish? The Bible clearly says in a few places that they are an abomination and shouldn’t be consumed.

    God hates shrimp.

    1. Amanda says:

      So I say that we put it on the ballot for next election too… that will be illegal to sell shrimps! since the republicans want to put everything out for vote… how about we all Minnesotans get to vote on the budget..

  15. kevin says:

    dayoff, sounds to me that on Christmas day you’ll be going to work instead of receiving a paid holiday.Do I detect hipocricy?

    1. Good Ol Boy says:

      A paid holiday? That about says it. Now we know how deep the roots of your christian conviction run.

      Right up to the point where you wouldn’t get paid by your employer for not coming in. Nice.

  16. Bring on the test of the Constitution. says:

    Voting no on the amendment will not change the current law that is already on the books. I think the majority of the people in the state do not realize that the state already has a ban on same sex marriage, what this bill is going to do is prevent someone from taking the law to court. However even if this is added to the State Constitution one could still take this to court in Federal court and test the grounds that the State Constitution is in violation of the Federal Constitution. Yes you will have the argument for the those who will want to say that states rights within the Federal Constitution. This would be a good test of the 9th amendment versus the 10th amendment. In some way I do hope this gets passed so then we can have this tested in the federal court and then once and for all the ban on same sex marriages would be found unconstitutional throughout the entry country versus a state by state ban or approval of marriage.

    1. Jake says:

      I’m pretty sure you don’t need to wait for this one to take that challenge to the Supreme Court. A whole bunch of states already have it in their state constitutions.

      1. Amanda says:

        Yes and can and will be ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court

  17. YoMaMJ says:

    What ever happened to separation of Church and State?

  18. st paul says:

    Sorry to say, but this does make Dayton look kind bad in a demcratic aspect.
    A statewide vote, would probably have passed. We’re talking about big blue minnesota here. The only state to vote for mondale in 84!

    Think about it.

    1. stace34 says:

      How does him voting to say that a vote on denying a civil right and putting discrimination in our state constition is wrong? And if we are going to vote on what marriages we want to acknowledge why stop at same sex couples. I mean in the south they voted used to vote to keep bans on interracial marriage. So someone standing up and saying those votes were wrong made them look bad?

  19. Jan says:

    Mean spiriited – I suggest you read the comments here from those who “disagree” with the amendment.

  20. Barneyboo says:

    Unfortunately, none of us lives in a vacuum. If you think what you do and how you live does not affect your neighbor, you are simply mistaken. Our choices affect all of those around us – especially the children. There has to be a code of conduct for a society to function. America is being destroyed from within – not just due to this issue, but many issues of which this is just one. It does not matter whether you agree or not. Facts are facts. You can’t escape truth.

    1. stace34 says:

      Same sex couples have been around since the begining of time. Don’t fool yourself. So if society has not been destroyed by their exhistance before what makes you think it will now. The truth is same sex marriage really will not change you, your life, or our country other than that we would be keeping up with our ideals of equality. How is allowing 2 consenting adults to marry going to harm you oru “the children”. The facts are they won’t You can’t escape the truth. By the way your argument of it ruining society and harming “the children” was used to justify bans on interracial marriages. Are you proud of who you share that ideolgy and beliefs with?

    2. Good Ol Boy says:

      What code of conduct must there be?

      No being gay?

      That’s what you’re saying right?
      What should be done with gays, Barneyboo?
      Are you able to answer the tough questions too?

    3. Joe says:

      So gay people are to blame for all of society’s ills?

    4. Joe says:

      Which by the way, Protect Marriage, opponents of same sex marriage and the supporters of Proposition 8, just filed a brief which said in no way does same sex marriage affect existing married couples, even calling the idea “patently absurd.”

  21. Dante says:

    Barneyboo – Truth
    Thank you

  22. fanajmo says:

    i dont care if they get married or not because at the end of the day only god could judge them not us. and why waste energy on things like this because it is not your personal life and you cant control people personal lives .

  23. The Grynch says:

    Why vote on whether or not gay people should be able to marry as opposed to just letting them marry already? Well, technically it wouldn’t really be marriage unless the definition was changed, or they can just give it a new name like gayrriage. Why would sexual preference have anything to do with politics? Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that it isn’t an important issue or anything I’m all for pro choice but don’t we have a budget deficit to worry about? What a waste of time and taxpayers dollars. I guess I shouldn’t be talking though I just wasted five minutes of my life posting a comment in regards to the whole “issue”.

  24. tomtom says:

    even the uneducated animals in the world know what’s right. Without heterosexual relations, the species will become extinct. The “intelligent” beings on this planet are are the idiots

    1. The Gryinch says:

      Unless you think that being gay is contagious and eventually we will all be gay and become extinct then I wouldn’t worry about it. Last time I checked gay people are a minority. So if gays “are are” the idiots then according to what you’ve said they’ll just become extinct and that’s a good thing right? after all they “are are” the idiots.

    2. The Grynch says:

      Unless you think that being gay is contagious and eventually we will all be gay and become extinct then I would’nt worry about it. Last time I checked gay people are a minority. So if gays “are are” the idiots then according to what you’ve said they’ll just become extinct and that’s a good thing right? after all they “are are” the idiots.

    3. Joe says:

      Actually penguins are known to pair in same sex couples to take care of orphaned chicks when their parents have died, thus helping further their species.

      1. Christian and Free says:

        Excellent point!

    4. Joe says:

      So your argument is that if gays are allowed to marry, teenage boys will stop looking at teenage girls, they will no longer court each other, and no longer have sex, and therefore no longer procreate. So what did people before there was government, or even a government sanctioned heterosexual marriage? Why did people procreate then? And honestly, do you even realize how ridiculous that sounds? 6.7 billion people on the planet and growing, I hardly think this is even remotely a problem!

    5. Christian and Free says:

      Silly tomtom… I was born with female genitalia, I identify as a female, and I’m happily heterosexual. By treating others with dignity and allowing them to marry with the same rights that I have, I’m not setting our species up for destruction. Heavens no. This is the way it’s always been, now let’s stop being ‘idiots’ and recognize all loving human couples as equals. Silly man, you make me giggle.

  25. just an Average Joe says:

    It’s real simple. Marriage is between a Man and a Woman because that relationship alone can naturally make a baby, procreate, create another human life, continue the species, or however you want to say it. NO other relationship can naturally do that. Period. So that makes the Man and Woman relationship special. It should be held above all other relationships because of that ability. And the Institution Of Marriage is the way to honor that relationship.

    1. Christian and Free says:

      So many people who want to ‘honor’ my relationship with my husband only want to think about or talk about what we do in the bedroom. I don’t find that honorable at all. I’m offended. Our relationship is so much deeper and meaningful than sex. You are not an average Joe. No average person would come up to me and tell me that. It’s rude. What of those of us who are unable to bear children, or choose not to? It’s rude Joe. What about adoption? What about the simple fact that any two people who consider themselves family, simply are? It’s a human need to belong. Stop telling people they can’t choose to be a family and belong and get your mind off my bedroom.

    2. Amanda says:

      So @ Average Joe… if one person can’t have babies by any medical problem, or simply they don’t want to, they are not going to be allowed to get married??? at least that is what I understood from your comment

    3. Good Ol Boy says:

      @ just an Average Joe

      Honor it on your own, in your own home.

      You can’t come into mine and tell me how I have to honor it.
      P.S. My wife and I aren’t going to procreate. (oops???)

  26. jeff says:

    this all boils down to private parts. as i said before if you enact a law it must be applicable to everyone. so how would this law apply to hermaphrodites? what does god have to say about that?

    1. Good Ol Boy says:

      @jeff

      You are so, so wrong. What a sad, sad perspective you have on life and how awful to be so closed-minded. For shame. Honestly.

      Marriage is not about sex.

      I know mine isn’t.

      It’s a healthy, loving, supportive relationship. We also have combined assetts, possessions we can pass on to each other and our families legally, and a support structure of loved ones.

  27. WhoCares says:

    I think the entire issue is totally gay! If you want to be gay, married and miserable like the rest of us… go ahead! Just don’t do it in my front yard and I’m ok with it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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

The Leaderboard
Good Question

Listen Live