The Debate Over Marriage Amendment Heats Up

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — The debate over a proposed marriage amendment, which would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, is heating up.

A statement issued by the Minnesota Rabbinical Association says it cannot condone using the constitution to deny civil rights. The group is made up of 35 rabbis and 15 synagogues and it represents the majority of the state’s Jewish population.

They signed a statement urging Minnesotans to vote against the change to the state constitution that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Orthodox rabbis did not sign the statement.

Elizabeth Glidden, a Minneapolis city councilwoman, said the conversation around the proposed amendment is very painful.

“It’s a very divisive thing to do,” she said.

Glidden does most of the lobbying for the council at the Capitol. She made the motion that lead to the position the council now stands by – it, too, wants no part in the amendment.

“This is something that we are 100 percent unified on,” she said. “We feel very strongly that this is a wrong way to govern. What I encourage people to do is: we have to be able to separate our personal beliefs and our faith from how the law operates and how our constitution operates.”

Groups like Minnesota for Marriage disagree.

Chuck Darrell, director of communications for the group, says the city council’s action won’t sway a single person.

In a statement, Darrell said, “The people of Minnesota don’t want a bunch of ambitious politicians to tell them how to vote on the core institution of civilization– marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Darrell said the group’s polls show 60 percent of Minnesota voters support the legislature giving them the right to vote on the definition of marriage.

Gov. Dayton has said he thinks Minnesota will be the first state to reject such a ballot question. He said the state appreciates individual differences.

The amendment initiative is slated to be on the ballot on Nov. 6.

More from Reg Chapman
Comments

One Comment

  1. kd5757 says:

    Those that support the amendment are attempting to subjugate other human beings to second-class status. Given that there are no secular rational reasons for denying same-sex marriage and given the large role socially conservative religions have in supporting the amendment, it is safe to say that these people are attempting to write their religious beliefs into our public laws making the rest of us involuntary followers of their faith. Whenever any group tries to sell us on the idea that it is okay to harm other human beings in the name of God, the rest of us should be very concerned and not take these overtures lightly.

      1. Brett says:

        Oh, OK, if you say so…..

    1. Chris Martyn says:

      I agree, 100%

      1. Chris Martyn says:

        Marriage is a CIVIL RIGHT, and as such, religion is of no concern to this matter.

        1. Jim says:

          Where in the US constition does it say marriage is a right?

          1. jackactionhero says:

            Irrelevant

    2. Tom says:

      @kd5757

      Very true! And they are telling their followers that if we allow gays to marry that the divorce rate among straight couples will go threw the roof, well the divorce rate among striaght couples was already high before the gay marriage issue started up in MA. And their other argument is that gay couples can not have kids, while true there are straight couples who don’t have kids. whether by choice or medical reasons. And their other arugment is that marriage is a 5000 year tradition. While that is true society has evolved and are becoming more acceptable, these people just refuse to change for anybody and want to hold the rest of us back.

    3. NO on the ammendment says:

      kd5757, while I DO NOT support the amendment, your argument is flawed. You are doing what they are doing. You are trying to use a collection of beliefs to support what you are calling a right. “Human Rights” is a religion. Like it or not…a collection of beliefs and tenants is a religion. Religious organizations have the rights to make their own rules. The State should stay of “marriage” but recognize legal agreements between parties (commitments.) Churches should have the right to continue to do their thing (or not do it) based on their beliefs. Problem solved!

      1. kd5757 says:

        While you may think the government should not sanction marriages, the fact remains that they do and they are not getting out anytime soon. In the meantime, the “equal protection under the law” clause is relevant. Interracial couples were relegated to second-class status when it came to marriage until 1967 when the US Supreme Court vacated state anti-miscegenation laws. Ultimately the US Supreme Court will deal with same-sex marriage as well. Since there is research that shows that same-sex marriage is not harmful to society, there are no secular reasons to deny legalizing gay marriage. No religious beliefs or tenants here. Religious groups can make their own laws that their members must follow. You have no argument from me on this issue. However, when certain religious groups attempt to write their beliefs into public law, I have a big problem with this and I think the majority of our society does as well.

  2. s says:

    While I oppose the amendment, it’s a valid issue. Marriage isn’t a personal issue (like two dudes wanting to bang each other), it’s a societal issue. Otherwise there’d be no requirement of a marriage license from the government. Basically, the issue is all about these two questions:

    1. What IS a marriage?
    2. What are the limits of marriage?

    1. Dictionary.com:
    1. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.

    and a more recent addition:
    b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

    But dictionary definitions and legal definitions are two very different things.

    2. In this country, marriage to multiple partners is a no go. Marriage involving people under 18 is generally not allowed (although there are a few exceptions). Marriage involving immediate family is out. Marriage among less immediate family (ie first cousins) is either illegal or REALLY frowned upon. And yes, I’m aware these examples have other reasons why they’re illegal (tax reasons for the first), but there is precedence for making certain types of marriage illegal. Until 20-30 years ago, the vast, VAST majority agreed that same sex marriage fell among these instances. Even now, all of the states where it has been put to a vote have agreed.

    Personally, I think the best thing would be for government to get out of marriage all together. Give couples civil unions, and let churches handle marriages.

    1. Matthew says:

      s, The only problem with your argument is that as marriage pre-dates religion, it is religion that ought to be getting out of the marriage business altogether. Why should I not be allowed to use the term “marriage” when religion hijacked the term to begin with?

    2. oNiSaC says:

      God gave us all a free spirit, to chose you own path.

      However, Ephesians 5:3 “Since you are God’s people, it is not right that any matters of sexual immorality or indecency or greed should even be mentioned among you. 5:5 You may be sure thatno one who is immoral, indecent, or greedy (for greed is a form of idolatry) will ever recieve a share in the Kingdomof Christ and of God. 5:6 Do not let anyone deceive you with fooloish words; it is because of these very things that God’s anger will come upon those who do not obey him. 5:7 So have nothing at all to do with such people. Romans 1;24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shamful things with each other.”

      There are several more verses in the New Testament that advise us to walk a straight and narror line. Not because we are forced to do so, but because we chose to do so, within our gift from our ceartor we call “free will”.

      Few will enter. If it was easy all would enter. Think about it and then chose your path carefully.

      1. jackactionhero says:

        What is this even supposed to mean?

        I don’t believe in your book or the words in it. You can choose to follow that path if you want, but when you think you can create laws for us all to follow, based on your book, that is where we must draw the line.

  3. becca says:

    why should it be anyone elses choice? it shouldnt be a law in the first place….people should be able to marry whom ever they chose! everyone pulls the religion card…but what God says should have nothing to do with how two people feel about one another…..

    1. Jesse says:

      Thanks for the permission. Now I’ll go out and marry everyone I choose (one blonde, one brunette, and one redhead).

      You’re using typical libertarian and liberal logic BS…I’m sure you’d fall back to the old “if all else fails, say this is a waste of time and the state should be “making” jobs”.

      1. jackactionhero says:

        Your response was nonsensical. There is no movement for what you suggested. So what are you talking about?

        1. Jesse says:

          This whole argument is nonsensical. There’s no movement for what I suggested YET!

          More typical libertarian and liberal bulloney…

          People should accept that two men/women can love each other but when they want society to accept their definition of what a family is to suit their beliefs that’s where I draw the line.

          Oh, BTW I’m not religious…

  4. Iron Ranger says:

    i cant believe the republicans are doing this. I hear from them that this is a session where we need to create jobs. i can see they are off to a great start. Gay marriage, Right to Work and voter ID. After these pass we will have created more jobs than anyone in the world. This is why the republicans are going down along with all these job creating ammendments.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Iron Ranger

      It is not a huge surprise that the Republicans are doing this as they are scoring brownie points with the Social Conservatives in this state and telling them that they share the same “morals and values” and “family values” that they do, even though Mrs. Koch got caught doing the exact opposite of what she preaches. I am surprised that she didn’t try to blame gay people for her fling. There is no such thing as “morals and values” or ‘Family Values” anyway. It only exists in the little bubble they live in.

  5. Chris Martyn says:

    “When it comes to God’s position on gay marriage, the evidence verges on the nonexistent. But when it comes to God’s position on injustice, the evidence is both abundant and clear. Again and again and again Jesus rails against selfishness and greed and intolerance.”

    1. oNiSaC says:

      Chris, Here’s you evidence.

      However, Ephesians 5:3 “Since you are God’s people, it is not right that any matters of sexual immorality or indecency or greed should even be mentioned among you. 5:5 You may be sure thatno one who is immoral, indecent, or greedy (for greed is a form of idolatry) will ever recieve a share in the Kingdomof Christ and of God. 5:6 Do not let anyone deceive you with fooloish words; it is because of these very things that God’s anger will come upon those who do not obey him. 5:7 So have nothing at all to do with such people. Romans 1;24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shamful things with each other.”

      Now what?

      1. jackactionhero says:

        Irrelevant. We don’t put your biblical words into American laws.

        1. progressive counterpt says:

          Thou shall not kill. Oops we did make a biblical law into an American law.

  6. Patrick Stevens says:

    Why would we define “marriage” in our Constitution? Do we define “hunting” or “fishing”. Marriage is a licensed activity. That is all it is to the state. It registers the participants so that the state can deal with them within the context of that activity. Why is it that we would want to dictate who can marry another? If churches want to deal with limiting marriage to one man and ome woman, let them. Those that prefer that arrrangement can join that church. Keep the state out of it.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Patrick

      You are correct a couple goes and gets a marriage license and then its up to them where to get married. And to answer your question Social Conservatives believe that they should have a right to decide to who does and who doesn’t get married. The next thing you know they will want a law passed that only marriages done in churches will be recognized.

      1. oNiSaC says:

        Patrick, It isn’t just social conservatives that see marriage as between a man and a woman. Look here:
        Chris, Here’s you evidence.

        Holy Bible, Ephesians 5:3 “Since you are God’s people, it is not right that any matters of sexual immorality or indecency or greed should even be mentioned among you. 5:5 You may be sure that no one who is immoral, indecent, or greedy (for greed is a form of idolatry) will ever recieve a share in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. 5:6 Do not let anyone deceive you with fooloish words; it is because of these very things that God’s anger will come upon those who do not obey him. 5:7 So have nothing at all to do with such people. Romans 1;24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other.”

        Now what?

        1. jackactionhero says:

          What if someone doesn’t WANT a “share in the kingdom of christ and of god”?

          You plan on forcing them?

    2. progressive counterpt says:

      Marriage is a licensed activity, but the term “marriage” is far more than a licensed activity. The term “marriage” allows for legal tax benefits on both the state and federal levels. It’s why gays want the term “marriage” and not a civil union. Why were tax benefits given to married couples in the first place? If the original reason for giving a man and woman married couple tax benefits due to procreation so as to insure a future tax base, then since gay couples can’t procreate, they shouldn’t gain the same tax benefits. But if you grant gay couples the “marriage” term, then they legally gain the “married” tax benefits. The “benefits” provided by “marriage” is the hidden agenda that gays are fighting so hard for.

  7. JD says:

    The other thing to think about is how it will affect Minnesota’s pocket book. If this abomination goes through, there are many affluent GLBT people who will leave this state and take their money(and taxes) with them. You might be surprised at how much that might be.

    The politicians are going to cut their noses off to spite their faces.

    1. Brett says:

      Don’t let the door hit you on your way out. We don’t NEED your money.

      1. jackactionhero says:

        Who is “we” Brett? You don’t speak for me, kiddo.

  8. Jill says:

    If two gay people want to pretend to be married, they can. No one is stopping them.

    However they want the government to recognize their charade. The question is why do they care?

    Because they want spousal benefits. This is all about money and nothing else.

    1. CF says:

      My dog is getting old & also needs spousal benefits, why can’t I marry him?

      1. Tom says:

        @ CF

        Marry your dog who cares! Why do conservatvies always bring animals into this discussion?

        1. The Crux of the Buscuit says:

          Good question. I believe it is because there is something about dogs and horses that Conservatives find very appealing, in a marriage kind of way. I bet it’s the consumation aspect that gets them the most worked up.

          Dear Conservatives – Please have your Preists and Pastors stop having sex with small boys and then we can talk about other issues. Also, please tell all of your gay Republican Polititians to come out of the closet…..

          1. Heath says:

            AMEN and LOL so true.

        2. aeiou says:

          You forgot polygamy, a hetero institution. Both animals and multiple wives are brought up by heteros.

          I don’t understand your lifestyle.

    2. Niki Cooper says:

      It’s all about money? Wow, that’s one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. Did you get married because of money? Do most men and women get married because of money? If so then why can’t the LGBT community do the same. And if that wasn’t your reason, or others reason for getiing married why should you or anyone be so ignortant and selfish to assume that’s why the LGBT community is pushing for the equality of marriage. Damn ignorance.

      1. Niki Cooper says:

        Because the government is the one that issues those licenses, thus the government involvement. Funny thing is that I know heterosexual couples that have gotten married for exactly that “money” and “spousal benefits” reason, so why is that justified and in our society seen as ok but two people who are of the same sex can’t get married cause they are money grubbing? If churches don’t want to do the ceremonies that’s fine, but a person should be able to marry the person they love regardless of their sexual orientation. How are the heterosexual couples any more deserving of this than anyone else?

      2. Brett says:

        This *IS* all about money, otherwise there wouldn’t be all that much to argue about.
        There are many advantages to being married legally, under the law, taxes, health benefits, estates, and control of assets. It’s just another POWER GRAB by the gay community. Then they will have even MORE money to throw at corrupt politicians.

        1. Niki Cooper says:

          Haha…is that to assume that all those corrupt politicians are being financially supported by only the LGBT community and not straight people? Then nobody needs to get married if it’s just about money, why make it an option for anyone gay or straight?

    3. kd5757 says:

      Why do they care, Jill? For the same reasons that heterosexual people like myself care. I’ve been married for 30+ years with two children and to say that it’s all because of the spousal benefits is ludicrous. There are no real reasons to deny same-sex marriage so people like yourself need to fall back on making asinine comments.

      1. kd5757 says:

        Jill…tell me why heterosexuals “care about what the government thinks” and you’ll have your answer.

      2. Just Say'n says:

        So having multiple wives is asinine? 10 years ago, most americans would say 2 men marrying was asinine. Why can’t I have two wives? Or my sister have 2 husbands? And can 2 gay brothers marry? How about 2 gay sisters? You are choosing to draw the line to suit your own fancy and denying the rest of us the human right to marry whomever we love! You should be ashamed!

        1. kd5757 says:

          @Just Say’n…I didn’t say having multiple wives is asinine…you did. But since you bring up the issue, in legal matters like marriage the government gets to have a say in what is best for society. I don’t know if there is any research that shows any negative effects of polygamy on society or on children raised by polygamous parents but the current available research on same-sex marriage does not show any negative effects on society or children. Thus there is no rational reason to deny the legalization of same-sex marriages. I’ll leave it to you to make a case for advocating incestuous relationships.

    4. Tom says:

      @ Jill

      Why is it a charade?

      1. Jill says:

        Do you have a dictionary handy? Look up marriage.

        1. jackactionhero says:

          You think gays should be discriminated against because of what you think the dictionary says about the word marriage?

          Is it gay marriage that is wrong, or is it actually wrong to even BE gay? If that is what you’re against, why don’t you come out and admit it?

          What should be done with gays?

          Should we allow gays to be Kindergarten teachers? Daycare providers? What else should gays not be allowed to do, because of your bible?

    5. max says:

      Jill, what makes you the expert on this? Are you a GLBT person? If not, how can you possibly state what is in the hearts and minds of GLBT people?

      1. Jill says:

        You don’t have a logical cohesive argument so you are changing the subject, making it personal. Nice try liberal.

        If it isn’t about money, why do gay people want the government to recognize their pretend marriages?

        Focus on that and don’t waste my time with anything else..

        1. Tom says:

          @ Jill

          Why it is it a pretend marriage? It just isnt just about money. But if you are going to try and make this argument about money then you can apply the same argument about straight couples as well. Gay people love their partners just like straight couples do, and I know that straight couples who want gay marriage banned because they say that gay couples don’t love their parter the same way straight couples which is total BS.

          I thought this is the land of the FREE? But apparently not to some!

          1. Jill says:

            Why is it a pretend marriage? I already answered that. Can’t you read? I’ll repeat the answer for you: Look up marriage in the dictionary.

            You still are avoiding my question and I don’t blame you.

            If this isn’t about money, why do gays want the government to recognize their pretend marriages?

            Answer that. Oops wait, you can’t. This is all about money. All you can do is try to change the subject again.

            1. Niki Cooper says:

              I took your advice Jill and looked up the word marriage on dictionary.com. What I found was this…

              noun
              1.

              a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.

              b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.

              2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.

              3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

              4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

              5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.

              So if you can read Jill, I am sure you can see that your husband and wife thought is not the only correct way of thinking. Honestly, how is gay marriage gonig to hurt you? Oh wait, it’s not…it’s going to do nothing but give members of the LGBT community the opprotunity to be legally married to the person they love just like any hetero couple would want.

    6. Jack says:

      Jill, the same must be true for your marriage too. $$$ and that is all. No love there. No love lost.

    7. jackactionhero says:

      Jill, how long have you been pretending to be married in your little marriage charade?

      I assume you did it for spousal benefits and money, correct?

  9. mark says:

    As a Catholic I support this, but that should only be in my Church, the State has no right to tell people who they should marry. The people of Minnesota need jobs, lets work on that. This is a waste of time.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Mark

      But who pushing the state into telling us who can marry or who can not marry? The Catholic Church. and NOM and other social conservative groups!

      1. mark says:

        Tom, Did you even read my whole message? You missed my point

        1. Tom says:

          @ Mark

          I read your post ! You support the amendment, but it should only be in your church. That is true about gay marriage. But the catholic church believes that gay marriage is a sin so your church has nothing to worry about. And in some states some churches want to protected from lawsuits so that when they act like bigots they can be protected. Yes you are right that the State has no right to tell people who they can and can not marry. Well who is pushing that charge?

  10. Stupid Minnesotan says:

    Why is it that all these groups feel a need to tell us how we should and should not vote? Are we so dumb that millions of dollars need to come in from outside groups to tell us how to vote on this one issue, to educate us? It appears to me that the rest of the world thinks that the education of the voting population in Minnesota is so much more important than the education of our youth and future leaders. What a sad statement that is on society. If you must sedn money to Minnesota, I hear Mary’s Place can use some cash, or United Way, Salvation Army, food shelves, …

    1. Brett says:

      They aren’t trying to “educate us”. They are using propaganda, atheistic mantra, and peer pressure, with the media’s blessing, to try and shame most of us into submission.

      1. peace be says:

        Brett, you must be talking about the socially constrictive conservatives, the neo-puritan types who tried to ban Christmas long ago, the killjoys of liberty.

  11. Mimi says:

    Even Mississippi people were smart enough to reject this piece of garbage

  12. it the end of civilization says:

    If marriage is the “core institution of civilization”, we were totally boned a long time ago. Actually, the exaggeration is a sad attempt to give marriage a status it has never had in any civilization. But then, the term civilization itself is a label we made up to exagerate our own status in the world. If we’re so blasted “civilized” how come we can’t even come to grips with our own nature as a species?

  13. Geo says:

    Opions don’t matter any more. Not government, not religious, not organizations. Society will decide in November and rightfully so. Marriage is not a right it is an institution condoned and encouraged by society and will be defined by society.

    1. Geo's friend says:

      Geo, thank Gawd we live in a representative republic and not a democracy. Otherwise the tyrannic majority would crush the minority. As it is, the harder social neo-puritans try and push gays out, the more of a case they make for their equality.

      Voting on people is not like voting on a tax. Let us know when we can vote on you.

      1. Geo says:

        We do this as individuls all the time. We condone people dating multiple people at once but we don’t condone Polygamy. We condone young teens to date but we set an age for marriage. These are things that we as a society feel will benefit the whole and not the individuals wants. We enbrace these things, promote them, educate our children about them, and rejoice them.

        1. Geo's friend says:

          Geo, not sure why you bring up Polygamy as it’s not a gay issue, rather it’s something that heteros deal with. Swinging seems to have taken care of that.

          Yes though, we bring up our hetero or gay youth to lead a good and productive life and rejoice in that. We support them and give them all they deserve, our best.

          Thanks for voting no. It’s our children who will benefit. Peace

  14. Kevin says:

    I am ok with gay marriage…as long as both chicks are hot….

    1. Zing says:

      What if one or both of them is a minority Kevin? I imagine you might find your self conflicted at that point. I think we all want to know which is the bigger motivator in your life: Your tendency to be a typical perv man child or your tendency to be a cowardly trolling r@cist?

      1. Kevin says:

        What are you talking about? You must know another Kevin.

  15. Andy says:

    Common sense you have to be one of the of the most ignorant people ever, you must be from the south. Know one wants attention, they just want the basic right to marry the person they love, and don’t come at me with the marrying an animal should be ok then. Idiots above, know one is talking about marrying animals,we are talking about human beings, get real. Keep your religious beliefs out of our public laws. People should not have to involuntarily follow your form of religion! Another thing, do you really think if gay marriage is legalized people will be taking it in the pooper on the street? Again, grow up and get real.

    1. Brett says:

      On the street, in an elevator, on a plane, in the back seat of a car, they will do it whereever and whenever they can.

      1. manu script says:

        This not about Larry Craig, John Edwards, or Amy Koch.

  16. oNiSaC says:

    The United States will one day realize that mother nature knows best.

    We need not continue to endorse, or appease minorities, judges, and vote seeking legislators whom have drifted away form commen sense and the principles of the very nature of mankind.

    1. jackactionhero says:

      Mother nature created gays and mother nature still doesn’t get a vote, dufus…

      1. Jesse says:

        @jackactionhero:
        You say that mother nature doesn’t vote but created gays. Well, mother nature does vote because gays don’t reproduce. They’re a genetic dead end so what you state is weak. Try thinking before calling someone a dufus, dufus.

  17. Reality says:

    Easy answer to the solution. Outlaw all Marriages. Marriage is a joke. Hate to say it that way but between 50%+ divorce rate, paying the government to get married and if you get divorced pay for that. Possible have to pay more in taxes. I saw no one gets married I bet that would help out on Domestic situations.

  18. Jesse says:

    Many of you state that this is an attempt at the religious conservatives trying to force their beliefs on others then can anyone explain why I am for this amendment? I’ve never had any religious affiliation for my entire life. I suppose you’ll call me just a “hater” instead of a “religious hater”.

    Enough with the equal protection arguements as well, otherwise we might as well get ready for polygamy to be legal. People can now argue that the government has no right to tell them that they can’t marry more than one person.

    Oh, and one more thing…I went to my child’s parent-teacher conference and was informed that the parent who has the same gender of the child has the most effect on the child’s development. Maybe we should pass a law stating that same-sex couples can only adopt children that are their same gender? This gets pretty complex when you have to consider transgender individuals in this concept.

    Enough already…keep marriage defined as being between a man and a woman.

    1. ho hum says:

      Why do heteros bring up polygamy as if it’s an argument against same gender equality?

      Polygamy is a hetero issue, not gay. Many heteros on the down low swap wives. So problem solved. It’s still between men and women.

      Enough already, let’s stop sidestepping the second class citizen issue

  19. Billy says:

    There will be a lot more killings and hate crimes in Minnesota if we ever let same sex mary each other. It would be a huge mistake if we ever allowed same sex to marry each other..

    1. jackactionhero says:

      Will you be one of the rednecks committing the killings and hate crimes? You seem to be insinuating that you will be.

    2. Heath says:

      How does it affect you? Are you close to coming out and can’t deal with it?

  20. oNiSaC says:

    God gave us all a free spirit, to chose you own path.

    However, Ephesians 5:3 “Since you are God’s people, it is not right that any matters of sexual immorality or indecency or greed should even be mentioned among you. 5:5 You may be sure thatno one who is immoral, indecent, or greedy (for greed is a form of idolatry) will ever recieve a share in the Kingdomof Christ and of God. 5:6 Do not let anyone deceive you with fooloish words; it is because of these very things that God’s anger will come upon those who do not obey him. 5:7 So have nothing at all to do with such people. Romans 1;24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shamful things with each other.”

    There are several more verses in the New Testament that advise us to walk a straight and narror line. Not because we are forced to do so, but because we chose to do so, within our gift from our ceartor we call “free will”.

    Few will enter. If it was easy all would enter. Think about it and then ‘chose your path carefully’.

    1. Andy says:

      Great, but this has to do with people’s civil rights and constitutional law of this country. Congress will make no law establishing religion. Stop imposing your religion on people. For the record the bible also says, you can stone your children if they over eat, or drink, women who are mensturating are not allowed to even touch a man for one week because they are unclean. I could go on, and on with more ridiculousness from the bible. These are perfect examples of why we have a separation of church and state. Why is it people like you pick and chose what you are going to follow out of the bible? How can you base anything on a book that has so much nonsense in it?

  21. Mike Ciresi says:

    Why does anyone care who marries who? People need to mind their own business and pay attention to themselves. You people need to be careful for what you wish for because someday somebody might decide who you will marry. And if you people are going to put God into the equation, remember what Jesus said about being judgmental.

  22. anti bachmann says:

    why cant everyone just mind there own fu**ing business and let people get married if they choose to

    1. oNiSaC says:

      Because it sends the wrong message to young people.

      Holy Bible, Ephesians 5:3 “Since you are God’s people, it is not right that any matters of sexual immorality or indecency or greed should even be mentioned among you. 5:5 You may be sure that no one who is immoral, indecent, or greedy (for greed is a form of idolatry) will ever recieve a share in the Kingdom of Christ and of God. 5:6 Do not let anyone deceive you with fooloish words; it is because of these very things that God’s anger will come upon those who do not obey him. 5:7 So have nothing at all to do with such people. Romans 1;24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other.”

      Now what?

      1. anti bachmann says:

        oh so your the one that met god and talked to him all about it
        all you are is the problem get over it

      2. Andy says:

        Take your bible and shove it up your a$$

      3. aeiou says:

        Time for you to go to bed. Posting the same thing over and over must tire you out. Thank Allah that this social jihad will be found unconstitutional, eventually. I just keep asking who Muhammed would stone? OH wait, I know, gays. And since Jesus has been declared a true conservative republican, he’d stone them too. Nice work.

      4. Heath says:

        Most do not believe your lies.The bible is a fictional piece. Do should not judge peoples behavior on a fictional piece of rubbish.

  23. Coco says:

    For those of you who have thought of getting married, are engaged, or are married, ask yourself this. Why do/did you want to get married? Your answers will vary as they will for gay couples. I think for most people, the core reason is for love and wanting to make a commitment to that special person who you can’t imagine living without.

    Sure, you might attend a church or a family that is all for this amendment, at the same time maybe you’ll think of your gay nephew or other acquaintance and what a good kid he is and how hurt he’d be if he knew you voted yes. If you’re on the fence about this question, just leave it blank. You don’t have to vote yes or no.

Leave a Reply

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

Trees Of Hope
Good Question

Listen Live