MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Four mayors from Minnesota cities have signed a statement aligning themselves with a coalition fighting for marriage equality.

On Friday, the chairs for the bipartisan group Mayors for the Freedom to Marry announced they had the support of more than 75 mayors across the country.

Among those included were Minneapolis mayor R.T. Rybak, St. Paul mayor Chris Coleman, Duluth mayor Don Ness and Rochester mayor Ardell Brede.

The group announced their goal: “Securing the freedom to marry and upholding equal rights for all citizens.”

One of the groups chairs is San Diego mayor Jerry Sanders (R), who said, “Allowing loving and committed couples to join in marriage has benefits not just for couples and their families—but also for society. Marriage encourages people to take responsibility for each other, provides greater security for children, and helps our country live up to its promises set forth in our founding documents.”

Currently, there are a number of cities in Minnesota that recognize same-sex domestic partnerships, including all four of those whose mayors have signed Freedom to Marry’s announcement.

Comments (62)
    1. Phid says:

      Not sure how it’s a “good deal” by any stretch of the imagination.

      1. Tom says:

        @ Phid

        Its a Good Deal as there are mayors in cities who are saying that gov’t has no business getting into people’s personal business which is something that conservatives are supposedly to believe in but don’t.

  1. maxey says:

    Just plow the snow and fix the potholes, please.

  2. I wish i could live in liberal land says:

    Hey lets get involved in this mess we have nothing better to do the streets are perfect potholes are filled crime is at the lowest rate its ever been sun is high in the sky its 71 degrees not a cloud in the sky every body has a rainbow over each home birds are singing children are playing.

    1. Jim says:

      Republicans promised to focus on jobs after the last election, but funny, I haven’t seen much from them in that area. Instead, I hear about how they want to protect the sanctity of marriage while they have affairs with married staff members. Republicans should get off their high horse and allow adults of any sexual orientation to get married, and focus on the economy like they promised.

      1. dan says:

        I guess you missed yesterdays news that Unemployment claims fell to the lowest levels since 2008 yesterday. I guess that was all Dayton’s work right?

        1. Jim says:

          No dan, I certainly don’t give the governor credit for the recent jobs news. I didn’t vote for him and don’t think government executives have much control over jobless rates, so I’m not sure what your point is. Do you have one? Do you think the Republicans in state government have focused on the economy as they promised?

      2. Grynch says:

        We can tell Jim has got priorities straight. Let gay people get married then focus on the economy.

        If it’s some sort of constitutional right for gays to get married… then freedom of religion and speech gives those who are opposed to it every right to detest it no matter what their reasons may be. Am I wrong?

        1. Chris F. says:

          While I may detest your opinions I respect your right to have them. You may detest how I was created, but I have to right to exist and marry the man I love. You can cry out against my rights all you want, but you DO NOT have the authority to take them away.

          1. Grynch says:

            Freedom of speech and religion is in the constitution, gay people having the right to marry isn’t so technically it’s not your right (depending on what state you live in), at least not yet.

            I honestly don’t really care if gays can get married or not, I just think the Government should have other agenda’s above this one that’s all.

            1. Chris F. says:

              Actually it is in the Bill of Rights. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law.

              1. Grynch says:

                Yea I suppose.

                I find more importance in plenty of other growing problems in America is all.

                You’ve got a smaller group of people who aren’t all getting their right to the 14th amendment quite yet and then you have issues that are affecting everybody as a whole including gays.

                It’s not always effective to take care of the smaller things first (not that I think gay people are smaller and if I did I’m entitled to my opinion even if it makes me sound like a complete jacka**).

              2. Phid says:

                Oh, please. That is *your* interpretation of it. Don’t forget that.

                My interpretation of it is that gays can already get married to anyone they want of the opposite gender; ergo, they already receive equal protection. What they really want to do is redefine marriage.

                1. Chris F. says:

                  Oh I see only your interpretation of the 14th amendment counts.

                  The whole “you can marry anyone you want, so long as they’re the opposite sex,” argument is just so pathetic. It truly shows that the side supporting discrimination is running out of excuses to justify their ignorance.

                2. Kilgore says:

                  Phid…your interpretation is naive and shows an ignorance in the understanding of sexual orientation.

    2. Bob says:

      You should add public education to that list. I don’t think anyone ever taught you about punctuation or spelling.

      1. You're just like the rest of em says:

        Yea because that person’s punctuation and spelling is so much more important than the issue at hand.

        Typical Liberal… focuses on the small irrelevant things and neglects anything that has any significance or real value.

        1. Jim says:

          “Significance and real value,” like pushing male/female family values as the law of the land while having sex with a married man who is not your husband? Is that the kind of thing that a typical conservative thinks is a valuable use of our government’s time? If so, you must love what’s happening with the GOP in this state right now.

          1. sarn says:

            You act like having affairs with staff members is just a GOP thing. Were people like Clinton, and Sen. Wiener falsely accused?

  3. Thoughtful says:

    Very sad indeed.

  4. Andy says:

    Come November the state will vote in approval for same sex marriages anyway. It will be a great day for the sate.

    1. JoseCuervo says:

      No, they won’t. The vote is to amend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage. Even if it doesn’t pass, Minnesota law does not allow SSM.So, nothing will change either way.

  5. Sensible says:

    How does it effect YOU if homosexuals are allowed to marry? Does it ruin your life? Doe you lose all your money? Will fireballs crash down on to your house? If religion is your big argument, then let them sin and go to hell. Why does it matter to you?

    1. See BS says:

      Yes it does interfere with my life — because Gay Activists want to use the word “Marraige” to impose lawsuit abuse on public schools.

      Public Schools are State sponsored religious institutions for liberal religious nuts — it’s money laundering on the taxpayer dime.

      We’re suppose to pay more taxes to support lawsuit abuse.

    2. Phid says:

      That is a ridiculous argument, yet one which keeps making the rounds. It is not simply who is affected by something, but instead what we should promote as a society. It would be a grant of marital privileges to a whole class of couples who inherently lack the ability to procreate as a rule, giving such unions equality with normal unions which are infinitely more valuable because of their ability to procreation. I simply fail to see how unproductive unions can ever possibly achieve the same level of social benefit provided by normal, productive unions.

      1. jackactionhero says:

        So being married doesn’t create a more stable family unit? Being a single swinger (straight or gay) is preferrable? What is it you’re arguing here?

        “Productive”? My wife and I aren’t going to have kids together. Am I in a gay (unproductive) marriage and I didn’t even know it?

        Shouldn’t you ban my marriage?

        Is it wrong to be gay, Phid? What should be done to those who refuse to stop being gay?

  6. Andy says:

    Where do you get this from Jose? Please don’t say the bible.

    1. freddie boy says:

      The Bible. Have a nice godless day.

    2. V says:

      Yes, Jose thinks he is a priest… LOL he is soooooo clueless

  7. freddie boy says:

    Thank you, Senor Cuevo.

  8. Ace says:

    So, you’re saying that if one or both partners can’t reproduce, they’re inferior? You sound like a Nazi

  9. Adam says:

    No matter how you feel about gay marriage, it is unconstitutional to let the majority vote to take/keep rights from a minority. No matter the outcome in November in a few years same-sex couples will have the right to be married. Churches can turn them away if they want. Currently churches can turn away hetero couples for marriage if they choose. The court should have no interest either way and just marry them.

  10. Captain Awesome says:

    Ahhhh, so sweet! I could hardly care less, if gay people want to get married and be miserable like most other heterosexual couples, then I say have at it

  11. Centered says:

    No you don’t get it straight, apparently you don’t possess the intellect to grasp such a complex thought. Let’s see, 4 mayors of MN cities that account for approximately 1/2 the population of the state might have a little more influence than the 100 mayors of Baudette, Downer, Upton, Lake Park, Wrenshall, Mountain Iron, etc., etc., etc.

    1. Center of Left and Right says:

      interesting “centered” A typical Liberal act is to attack the messenger when they can not argue a point. We all know that the most liberal cities will sign on to this, but that does not mean that the people in those cities are that liberal as well. What you are failing to admit is that our political system is set up to bring forth the most extreme from each party, thus why if someone is in office they are either far right or far left and no where near the mind set of the MAJORITY of the people they represent. Also, it does not and should not matter what people in California think of our constitutional ammendments, we vote or should vote for what we believe in, not for what a mayor in some far off city thinks we should. Are we really that incapable of our own thought that we have to be told by others what to think?

      1. Chris F. says:

        Freedom to Marry is a national coalition that is working for national change, not just Minnesota.

  12. Chris F. says:

    First off Minnesota does not allow civil unions so that argument is flawed from the beginning. Even if we did allow Civil Unions that would be the separate but equal argument which was found unconstitutional in Plessy v. Ferguson. Also we do not have the same rights with Civil Unions, we do not have to right to inheritance, the right to file taxes jointly, the right to hospital visitation and medical decisions, the right to each others property, the right to parental guardianship, the right to end of life arrangements, and the RIGHT TO MARRY to name a few so don’t give me this “same rights as everyone else” line, it’s nothing more than a lie used to make yourself feel better about denying other people of their rights.

    As for “bullying” religious institution with lawsuits please describe how. No church has been “forced” to marry a same-sex couple via a lawsuit or any other method.

    When it comes to children there is absolutely no legal requirement that if a couple wishes to get married they must have children. By your logic then sterile couples, those that are beyond their child bearing years, and those that just don’t what to have kids should be barred from legal marriage.

    1. Chris F. says:

      I meant to say Brown v. Board of Education, not Plessy v. Ferguson. Brown overturned Plessy.

  13. james2 says:

    Well except for Amy Koch, New Gingrich, Gary Hart, John Edwards, Larry Craig, all of whom think that adultery is fine and who’ve redefined marriage without a vote. (notice I didn’t pick on either major party but both).

    And JoseC, please leave out the period. That’s too personal.

  14. sarn says:

    A Liberal’s Political Agenda:

    1) Make sure gay’s can get married
    2) Spend money
    3) Decrease requirements for public assistance
    4) Give illegal immigrants more rights
    5) Do something that only benefits my supporters at the expense of those who don’t support me
    6) Give a productive citizens’ money to some unproductive citizens
    7) Feed hungry people in Africa
    8) Spend money
    9) Create jobs for public unions only
    10) Do something about this massive budget deficit, wait… never mind, we still need to make sure gay people can get married

    1. V says:

      The conservative agenda:

      1) Make sure I help the rich one with more tax cuts
      2) control all of the media
      3) censure everything I do not agree with
      4) Destroy GAY people
      5) Make everyone Cristian
      6) help out my rich friends with more tax cuts, and then let them send the jobs overseas
      7) disappear the GAYS

    2. DBSF says:

      liberals want to destroy a church’s tax exempt status as well. Therefore violating the first amendment.

  15. Del says:

    Hey genius one example of how they are unconstitutional. You are cleared by a jury of your peers so you are innocent, but you still lose your license for 6months because of implied consent. Even an accused murderer who is found innocent has no punishments. Another one, if you refuse a breath test they up your degree,or charge. I believe refusing falls under the 5th ammendment. Nice try idiot.

  16. Todd W. Olson says:

    Actually, the law can’t compel any church to marry anyone, nor is there a basis for a torte. You’re simply wrong. And, legally, Civil Unions and Marriage, by DEFINITION are not the same thing. You’re wrong again. It’s OK if you don’t like gays; that’s your right as an American. Don’t hide it behind a bunch of sophistry. Just be the bigot that you really want to be.

  17. See BS says:

    Mayors are suppose to be fixing potholes

    1. sarn says:

      No, we’re supposed to be paying public unions a boat load of money to do that.

  18. Billy says:

    …And let the hate crimes begin, killing,beatings,burning down houses.
    I tell you one thing, there better not be no gay couple that is my next door neibour.

  19. JoseCuervo says:

    I see my comment was sensored, I’ll repost it. Marriage will always be between one man and one woman, period.

    1. kelly says:

      Thank you for standing up for marriage!!

    2. Kilgore says:

      You make a very compelling argument, JoseCuervo. In a similar vein, here is my counterargument…Marriage is NOT just between a man and a woman. So take that.

  20. Kelly says:

    It’s not right to marry if you cannot procreate. God did not create it that way. I’ll support gay marriage when two same-sex people can get pregnant naturally. God is the ultimate authority on this matter because He created marriage! He is still Lord & Savior of this world, and you ALL are here because He allows it!

    1. jackactionhero says:

      I don’t believe in your god, and I will not allow you to create laws based on your beliefs that I have to follow, Kelly. Period.

  21. Trevor says:

    I am sick of this religious rhetoric being used to segregate people. There is no “National Religion” so don’t use it as a reason we should stop people from getting married. If marriage was simply a religious institution, then we wouldn’t have to file for a marriage license with the govt. Women, if you had sex before marriage, you should be stoned, because that is what God said! Stop with this bs and let people marry who they want to marry

  22. Kelly says:

    So, you’re saying that the government created marriage? Hmmm, why don’t you do a little research into where marriage exactly came from? And as far as dividing people, God created His laws (like the Ten Commandments) so we would have an easier time if we followed them! Take thou shalt not kill for example: is life going to be harder or easier for you if you kill someone? These laws are to be taken seriously, and even though we cannot be perfect because we are born in sin, we are commanded to try our best to follow the Lord’s commandments. We are also commanded to love those who do not know God, but we cannot condone their behavior/actions. When people choose the path of sin, that is why groups get divided, not from the Laws created by the Lord. God created those Laws for us to do our best to live by, not to divide us. Sin, however, is exactly what divides us because that’s what the Devil wants to accomplish. The only bs that is being said on this forum is to allow gays to marry, directly changing an institution that was created for one man and one woman. God also created families, and how did He do that?? WHEN MAN & WOMAN COME TOGETHER, THAT’S HOW!!!

    1. Patrick says:

      Put down your bible Kelly before you compromise more than your own life. The Bible represents one particular groups understanding of this life as they understood it between 2000 and 1500 years ago. It is outdated scientifically and in many ways morally as well. Lets not forget it endorses slavery and asks us to believe woman was created from a mans rib. Times change. Human understanding changes. You will hurt people if you continue to behave like someone born 2000 years ago. Modern humans are bad enough. The last thing we need is frightened, reactionary people like your self betting your life on an ancient cult. Grow up and deal with the fact you live in an uncertain and dynamic world.

    2. Kilgore says:

      Kelly, Kelly, Kelly..Where to start? First, families are so much more then “when a man and a woman come together” as you so aptly put it. Secondly, using your pseudo-logic, God must not want an impotent man or a “barren” woman to marry…or senior citizens…or couples not choosing to have children. At least could you see it in your heart to allow these second class citizens a “civil marriage?” Thirdly, people get divided, not because of sin, but because they have differing religious views and interpretations of the Bible, Koran, etc. You can’t see past your own arrogance that your beliefs are only one of literally thousands of differing beliefs world-wide. The fact that you want to impose them on everybody else exposes both your naivete and hubris. Finally (although I could go on), if you are a Christian can you find one passage (literally one) in your Bible where Jesus admonishes gay people? Spoiler alert…you won’t but you’ll find passages where Jesus admonishes the rich. That’s how malevolent being gay was to Jesus. Assuming that you are Christian, maybe you should spend a little less time judging others and more time doing some good in this world.

  23. Trevor says:

    I am not debating who created “marriage”, but once the govt requires licenses and the such, it no longer is just a religious institution. I am not saying that church’s must allow same sex couples to marry, hell, I doubt they would WANT to be married in a church. But the govt side of marriage isn’t fair in a country that states all man is created equal, thus should be given equal rights.

    If you want to talk more about God’s laws, we can, because I am sure you, like most Christian zelots, only pick and choose which of “God’s laws” they want to follow:

    Don’t wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)

    Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27)

    People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)

    And the one to top it all off, against your “thou shalt not kill”:
    Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

    I’ll end it with a few choice words, Kelly, please stop talking, because I am assuming you are a woman, and thus, me being a man:
    “I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Timothy 2:11

    Thank you and good night

    1. DBSF says:


      How about reading before and after the verse? Tell me what it says. Then read Ephesians 5. Tell what it says about the marital roles of husbands and wives. Also you can read Proverbs 31 for extra emphasis.

  24. Andy says:

    Awesome Trevor don’t forget you can stone your children if they over indulge I food and drink.

  25. Trevor says:

    Andy, if only that was true today! Might have a solution to child obesity!

Leave a Reply

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

Watch & Listen LIVE