By Esme Murphy

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — A recent poll shows more people are favoring same sex marriage.

The Survey USA poll shows 47 percent of those surveyed say they favor same sex marriage. While 39 percent said they were against it. Four percent haven’t made up their minds.

The state legislature has placed on the ballot this November a proposed constitutional amendment that says: “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.”

On WCCO Sunday Morning, Esme Murphy interviewed officials on both sides of the matter.

Minnesota Sen. Scott Dibble is a leader in the fight to defeat the amendment. He said the proposal hurts several Minnesotans and should be defeated this November. Watch his interview below.

Sen. Scott Dibble

Jason Adkins is the executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference and a board member of Minnesota for Marriage. He said marriage should remain between a man and a woman, only. Watch his interview below.

Jason Adkins

Comments (119)
  1. Kevin says:

    Just vote NO………..

    1. Just vote YES............ says:


    2. No sheep here says:

      Let the people vote. Majority rules. If it’s right, it will come to pass?

  2. Keithh S. says:

    Incorrect ,more people are not “FAVORING same sex marriage.” More people are supportive of same sex marriage, favoring implies that want to be part of a same sex marriage. Learn to write for god sakes.

    1. Greg Loose@nu$$ says:

      I want it allowed.

  3. worryfree says:

    If someone could give me just ONE valid reason how a gay marriage could possibly hurt my hetero marriage I might be more inclined to vote yes…with over 50% of traditional marriages ending in divorce we seem to hurt our own marriages quite well without help from gays…

    1. Keithh S. says:

      This issue is moving the line from what has historically been acceptable. What is next? Marrying 13 year olds? Marrying your sister? Having 2 husbands? 4-way marriages 2 men + 2 women? Marrying an animal? Marrying dead people? Many on this list were legal, or are legal in many parts of the world. why not here? Divorce rates have dropped dramatically since the 70s and 80s (google it yourself.) You might be surprised that “committed” gay relationships end in “divorce” at 150% of heteros (google it yourself.) I don’t think the government should be in the business of marriage. Churches marry, states should recognize legal commitments/partnerships.

      1. scott says:

        I always love it when someone make up facts. Very easy to do. I am just surprise you didn’t make up a larger number. And again, believing everything you google, no wonder.

        1. bisquet says:

          Ok Scott, repute the facts beyond saying they are made up….didn’t think so. Facts, are facts. Oh that’s right the “books” in libraries, where librarians make 180K only reflect the opinions of the winners. Regardless of their political affiliation. If you had the skill you could find studies published by your liberal university colleagues (paid 250K a year to do nothing.)

      2. Joe says:

        I’m so glad that people are bringing this up. When we start voting on our neighbor’s rights, what is next? Voting on your neighbor’s right to own a gun? Voting on how they organize their family? Should it be up to a community vote before you can have another child? How deeply involved do you want total strangers in telling you how to live your life? Where does the deep invasion into our neighbors telling us how to live our lives want to get? Once you start, where does it end?

        1. Franzia says:

          We voted on run-off elections. The liberals loved this idea. Couldn’t ever get through the legislature though. We vote on tax referendums for schools…come on we voted for our representatives, do the hard work. You liberals are something…your ideas for referrendums are good…the other sides are bad. How stupid are you?

          1. Tom says:

            @ Franzia

            The difference is that us liberals live in the REAL world while Conservatives live in a bubble!

      3. uoiea says:

        75% of African countries allow polygamy. These are all subjects for the “issue” as you call it. I have nothing against legally recognized relationships between 2 or 3 or 4 people. Churches marry, States recognize partner benefits. Your shallow thinking has been stumped by your single-issue mentality of a dumbest of liberal thinking. You only want to unlimited rights, for those you believe to fit your religion (a.k.a liberalism.) Separation of church and state for god sakes!

      4. Pfhiiiid says:

        The point is that if you start to tear down the definition of marriage, you can’t pretend to preserve your new definition. If you claim that the man-woman marital requirement is arbitrary, then you have to also say that other requirements are also arbitrary. You can’t limit marriage to just two people, or to humans in general, or simply to adults.

        1. jackactionhero says:

          Tear down the definition of marriage? You’re caught up on the red herring here. Why do we need a constitutional amendment to restrict rights for American citizens? There is NO precedent for this.

      5. CommonSense says:

        Why do people always then move it on to bizarre things like marrying animals or marrying dead people!?! (Really? Are you serious?) You know that’s not what we’re talking about. And really, it’s insulting to all people that you compare two people in a committed same sex relationship to those other things you tossed out there.

      6. Tom says:

        @ Keithh S.

        You must a Social Conservatives because they are always the ones who bring animals into the issue. So Social Conservatives must have an animal fetish. And yes in some nutty religious groups here in the states they have those beliefs about marrying 13 year olds, etc. If people choose to do that regardless of how nutty it is that is their right. We should restrict some of the nutty things that Social Conservatives believe in that offends the rest of us. I dont think you would like that, but people like you feel you should restrict others from doing things that offend you which is just about everything.

      7. aeiou says:

        Wow, All of these issues have nothing to do with being gay except that some will end in divorce.The rest come from hetero-normativity which created all these perversions. Not one gay person I know even considers such idiocy. Get a grip!

    2. Tom says:

      @ worryfree

      Gay marriage would not affect your marriage all. It is one of scare tactics that Social Conservatives are trying to use to stop it. Of course one of their other arguments is that gay couples can not have children, while that is true there plenty of straight couples who choose not to have kids whether its a personal choice or medical reason.

      And you are correct the divorce rate among staight couples was high to begin with before the gay marriage issue first came up in MA many years ago and last time I checked nothing has changed in MA or any other state where gay marriage is now legal.

      Their other argument is that it is 5000 year old tradtion. Well traditional marriage went out the window years ago.

      Social conservatives have not found a solution to the divorce problem so instead of blaming themselves they would rather blame gay marriage for that problem. Social conservatives have a track record of blaming others if they can’t live upto the “golden rules” they claim that they live by.

      But if you think about it is pretty pathetic that one group of people believe they should have the power to stop to consenting gay people from getting married because they don’t view gay people as normal. But the fact is there is no such thing as normal!

      1. Pfhiiiid says:

        Keep this in mind, always: gays cannot have children as a rule. Straight couples who cannot have children are an exception to the rule. This makes all the difference in the world. Straight unions are far more valuable than gay unions; therefore, the former are deserving of protection, whereas the latter are not.

        1. Ace says:

          I beg to differ. Only most but not all couples between the ages to 18 and 50 can have children, how many couples do you think are over 50? Should they just separate because they can’t reproduce anymore? Who cares anyway? And why do you think couples that have children are more valuable than couples who do not? There are plenty of couples who reproduce and don’t have employment, housing or money to support children and don’t even take care of their own children. Do you think they’re more valuable and why? You bigots are something else!!!

        2. Brian says:

          Wow you’re stupid. Nice that you can judge which unions are more valuable.

        3. Tom says:

          @ Pfhiiiid

          Well technically two gay woman can have children if they find a male donor. And your argument that straight couples who cannot have children are an exception to rule is ridiculous. If you read my posting I also mentioned there are couples who choose NOT to have kids. And we should stop two gay couples from getting married because of that. And why do straight couples deserve the protection?

          Nex thing you know social conservatives will want to pass a law that only marriages done in churches will be recognized and others will not!

        4. jackactionhero says:

          Gays can have children just like anybody else can. They aren’t born sterile, Einstein.

        5. diiiihfP says:

          Phfiiid, consider this. Any children that have same gender parents are “truely wanted” and never an accident. You can’t same the same about your counterparts. And, as an argument, it’s immaterial.

    3. Just Sayin says:

      I think the biggest possible factor is if churches will denied the right to keep gay marriages out of their places of worship. I really can’t see Muslims being okay will gay people getting married in their Mosque or Hasidic Jews in their Temples. So if this is a non-factor then why not people in France can marry dead people but yet again they are French…

      1. Joe says:

        Churches have never ever been forced to marry anyone they don’t want to. My own sister had to convert to Catholicism before she could be married in a Catholic church and no one could have forced them to do otherwise.

        1. Huh? says:

          Okay, so that was a lie. Catholics do not force non-Catholics to convert before they are married in the Catholic church. I married a Presbyterian in the Catholic church 20 years ago, and he is still Presbyterian.

          1. Tom says:

            @ Huh:

            Yes you are correct the Catholic Church does not force non- Catholics to convert. People choose to do that on their own.

      2. Chris F. says:

        Freedom of religion is guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. No church has ever been forced to preform a marriage ceremony they have not wanted to perform. A church still has the religious liberty to deny a inter-racial couple if the so desire, as happened in November of last year @ Gulnare Freewill Baptist Church in Kentucky. The argument that your church will suddenly be forced to perform marriages it does not want to perform is nothing more than a scare tactic.

  4. John says:

    It’s about money. Spousal benefits. When two men have sex with each other, they feel that they are entitled to your money.

    The poll is nonsense. Every place gay marriage has been put on the ballot it has failed. Even in liberal California.

    1. Joe says:

      “Has failed” being the operative term. They have been “winning” by smaller and smaller margins. Eventually that means one day they will lose. In Washington State, a law that gave same sex couples all the rights of marriage won. In New Hampshire, a state with 74% of its representatives as Republicans couldn’t even get a majority of -Republicans- to vote against same sex marriage.

      Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, and you ignore that at your own peril. It is just a matter of time before it fails at the polls too. And when “the people have spoken” in favor of same sex marriage, what will your excuse be then?

      1. oej says:

        Nice lie Josey. NH is not 74% republican, try 54%. And your reference to what was voted on is so far from the truth, I won’t waste my breath.

        1. Joe says:

          74% of the representatives in the NH state legislature are Republican, and more Republicans voted to keep same sex marriage legal than voted to repeal it.

          1. Franzia says:

            Wait you are quoting an internet source. NOT to be trusted. Your liberal a-hole words, not mine. But reading the INTERNET story I found that you are still lying. This was not a ban of gay marriage, but a reclassification. If it would have been a full on ban, it would have passed. Voting to put lipstick on a pig, does not change it from being a pig.

            1. Joe says:

              Are you saying that even the “internet source” of the New Hampshire’s own government isn’t to be trusted?

    2. Tom says:

      @ John

      So you believe that you should have a say of who can and can not walk down the aisle because you dont agree with it?

    3. jackactionhero says:

      Are you arguing against gays having sex or getting married? Your comment is only about their sex lives.

      Life is too short to live unhappy. Why force people to be unhappy, John?

    4. aeiou says:

      John, you sure seem to speak from experience here about two men having sex. Would you please share how you aquired such expertise?

  5. fred says:

    yeah i was wondering where the information was about the actual poll, but they dont seem to have much

  6. transparent says:

    “shall be valid or recognized as…”

    This means that any form of equality, even civil unions, or domestic partnerships will not be allowed.

    And the author of this amendment said that civil unions could still happen. B.S. It goes far beyond the surface. Our constitution is supposed to be sacred, not profane and changed like some high-school essay.

    I’m voting no on ALL of the amendemnts.

  7. angus says:

    Have you noticed how the remarks of those individuals against gay marriage are remakably similar to the arguments about whites marrying black people? Hate and fear doesn’t disappear, it just finds new targets

    1. RightUnite says:

      Link?? Didn’t think so…..

      1. Joe says:

        “Race mixing is communism” – KKK
        “Gay marriage is socialism” – Steve King, 2009

  8. Kilgore says:

    It’s only a matter of time before same-sex marriage will be legal. There continues to be a major shift in attitudes especially among the younger generations. More states are getting on board and this is only the start. Even those that have been taught to fear same-sex marriage will eventually see that the impact on their lives will be nonexistent except maybe in a positive way if they have loved ones who are gay.

    1. Joe says:

      I keep waiting for the end of the world to come after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed too. All these reports of our impending doom seem incredibly unimpending.

  9. What a thought says:

    Seems to me that there should be a church marriage or a municiple marriage. Churches are always saying how municiple marriages are not ordained by God, or some other difference. Oh, thats how its always been.

  10. RightUnite says:

    II can’t wait either, because it’s sure to fail.

  11. Matt says:

    I thought all Men were created equal. I guess not in the eyes of the Republicans to be considered a person with full rights you have to be white and straight.

    1. Tom says:

      @ Matt

      Yes all men are supposed to created equal. But not in the minds of the Republicans or the nutty Religious Right.

    2. Pfhiiiid says:

      How does having a one man-one woman requirement for marriage make people “unequal”? It is absurd to think that certain people who choose that they don’t like this requirement are being treated “unequally”. Using that line of reasoning, polygamists, or adults who want to marry children, are also being treated “unequally” because they are not allowed to get married like they want.

      1. Joe says:

        Then how does having a one man-one woman of the same race requirement for marriage make people “unequal”? Blacks and white would have the same rights to marry within their race. Would interracial couples also be treated “unequally” because they are now allowed to get married like they want?

      2. Tom says:

        @ Pfhiiiid

        If you had your way would you let a Black Man marry a White Woman or White man marry a Black Woman? Many years ago they were not allow to marry. Voters back then were not asked to vote on that. It was made into law that they would be allowed to marry.

        We know people like you love to use the word “Traditional” when making your argument, but “Traditional” went out the window years ago, but it still exists in the bubble that most Social Conservatives live in. Social Conservatives do not like change. So instead of embracing change in society, you want to hold the rest of us back. If you and people like you dont want to leave your bubble that is fine, just leave the rest of us alone.

      3. Matt says:

        so you are comparing a gaya person to a pedophile? how stupid are you.

  12. angelcarver says:

    normal moms and dads raise their children in hope that their children will be normal healthty people and all that.

    1. Joe says:

      My parents said the same thing. That’s why they were so happy when I grew to be a well-adjusted adult, went to college, got a job, found someone to settle down with and want to spend the rest of my life with. That sounds about as normal and healthy as could possibly be.

    2. Tom says:

      @ angelcarver

      There is no such thing as normal!

  13. Joe says:

    You can’t cure what isn’t a disease.

    1. Joe says:

      No one has ever been able to change their sexual orientation. Ever.

      1. Just Sayin says:

        Tell that to the Eunuchs, Trans-genders, and Trans-sexuals.

        1. Joe says:

          That’s changing their sex, not their sexual orientation. If they’re attracted to a certain gender, they’re always attracted to that gender.

          1. Tiki Dahl says:

            Still more lies from Joe. Speaking on behalf of every person on the planet who has even wondered. Wow, you are quite a man, er woman, er ….

      2. Kevin L. says:

        More lies from Joe. Tens of thousands of people have chosen. You just choose not to honor or respect their choices.

        1. Joe says:

          Well there is a choice. No one chooses who they’re attracted, but they can choose what to do about it. They can choose to be honest and open about it, not to lie about it and live true to themselves. Or they can choose to lie, ignore it, perhaps even pretend to be something they’re not. Although the latter is extremely dangerous and more people commit suicide than succeed in doing so, and even then, most people eventually go back to the first open, which is the all major scientific organizations recommend. It’s not that I disrespect their choices. It’s just that they’re extremely dangerous because they deny the true self.

          Sorry if you don’t like it, but every single major scientific organizations agree with that, that’s the truth, even if you don’t like it.

  14. Tom says:

    @ Johnson

    Isn’t it amazing that those , not all mind you, believe that gay people are the pedophiles. So then when you ask should priests be labeled pedophiles they say no. They contradict themselves all the time.

  15. Kilgore says:

    “Their types” angelcarver? Are you talking about the perpetually fearful and intolerant? If so, I hope there is a cure for them as well.

    1. Joe says:

      “Intolerant” means “willing to grant rights,” not “disagree with.” If you are unwilling to extend rights to gay people, that makes you intolerant.

      But that’s funny, calling people names AND calling them intolerant. Good one.

      1. Farm hand says:

        Joe you seem to think that intolerant only applies to things you believe in. I want to marry my sister. My other sister wants 2 husbands. My nephew really likes his dogs…where is the tolerance? My brother wants to smoke crack…what none of them is hurting anyone. They are all grew up well adjusted, college education, tax paying citizens. Why not grant their wishes..their urges?

        1. Kilgore says:

          @Farm hand…same-sex marriage, marriage between siblings or first cousins, polygamy, etc. need to be argued on their own merits. The following organizations support same-sex parenting based on research: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Bar Association, American Sociological Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry to name a few. The following organizations support same-sex marriage based on the research in their respective areas: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Sociological Association, and the American Anthropological Association to name a few. Now please show me similar respected, secular, research-based organizations that, based on their expertise in human behavior/social structures, etc., go on record indicating that incestuous relationships, polygamy, etc. are not harmful to society and/or parenting children.

        2. CommonSense says:

          So, what you’re saying is, yoiu want to marry your sister? And that other stuff is all ok with you too then? Well this subject here is just about same sex marriage, not about your perversions.

          1. Your common sense is missing. says:

            Same sex marriages are about perversions, so if a law were to require us to consider your perversions, why would you not consider theirs?

            1. jackactionhero says:

              Marriage is perverse?

              In what way?

            2. Common Sense says:

              It’s not a gay issue. Same gender equality has nothing to do with hetero-normative sideline behaviors. How you spin the issue is to load the argument and try link all of these ideas to being gay. They come from your head.

        3. Joe says:

          When a dog can sign a consent form, get back to me.

  16. Pfhiiiid says:

    Because gays cannot naturally procreate as a *rule*, whereas straight couples can naturally procreate as a *rule*, the latter are inherently more valuable and worthy of state protection than the former. A large part of the modern-day, liberal argument that supports gay marriage is predicated on the idea that marriage is nothing more than a voluntary “club” which anyone should be able to “join” by act of will. This is an erroneous assumption.

    Marriage is a social institution through which children are created and raised. Families are the basic building blocks of communities, and then of nations. Gay unions can only hope to mimic straight unions, but they will never be able to measure up. This is not my opinion, but a simple statement of fact. Treating both type of unions as “equal” is nonsense, since they are not equal in what they are able to achieve (even though the persons in those unions are equal in terms of their innate dignity).

    1. jackactionhero says:

      That is really your argument for restricting rights through a constitutional amendment? That is about as weak as it gets, buddy.

      1. desert eagle .50 says:

        And this astute observation from the kingpin of weakness, JAQ.

        God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. How you got here, well, that was a colossal error of judgment on someone’s part.

        1. Joe says:

          Adam and Steve are a lovely couple and certainly didn’t raise a murderer! Honestly, that’s your idea of an ideal couple?

  17. marilyn says:

    Kids no longer say the pledge of allegiance because of the phrase 1 nation under God, religion has been taken out of the schools,it should not be taken into consideration while passing bills and making laws..Who is anyone to say who can and can not get married? I’m heterosexual and the thought of 2 people of the same sex not being allowed makes me angry,If that is the case then just out law marriage altogether,plain and simple,allow absolutely no one to get married.

  18. marilyn says:

    I really don’t see how “their abnormal chosen behavior” (as you put it) affects anyone else s life in any way shape or form.We all need to take the blinders off and realize that not everyone is the same,the world would be pretty darn boring if that were the case.Who are any of us to Judge others,or to determine what is and isn’t normal.

  19. Joe says:

    No one chooses their sexual orientation.

    1. J Sikma says:

      Just as no one chooses to be violent, or steal, or hate, it all comes from within. We should all act on what comes from inside, otherwise we are not being true to ourselves. If I have an urge, I should follow it…it is only natural. How can we look ourselves in the mirror if we are denying who we are?

      1. Kilgore says:

        @ J Sikma…people do not choose to be violent, steal, and/or hate. Plus, unlike a loving relationship, these things hurt others. You don’t choose your sexual orientation. It would be as unnatural for someone attracted to the same sex to establish an amorous relationship with someone from the opposite gender as it would be for you to have an amorous relationship with someone from the same gender (although I’m just speculating here as I don’t know you.).

  20. Joe says:

    There hasn’t been any such correlation because it’s completely normal to begin with. Seriously, learn the slightest bit of science.

    1. Just Sayin says:

      Although if entire groups of a certain types of animals stopped procreating wouldn’t that be classified as a problem. Not that you have to procreate to be human but if this was happening with dogs for instance I think people would be worried.

      1. Joe says:

        Are you insinuating that if same sex couples were allowed to marry that straight people would stop procreating? Has this happened anywhere that same sex couples have been allowed to marry? And with 7 billion people on the planet and 400,000 kids in foster care, is this even remotely a problem? And even if same sex couples were allowed to marry, they can still procreate using the same technology infertile couples use to do so (adoption, surrogates, sperm donors, etc). Honestly, are you worried??

        1. Tannenha says:

          Slippery slope Josey, slippery slope. Where will it end?

          1. Joe says:

            It ends where the people want it to end. The “slippery slope” is just a sign of a weak argument, because if you can’t argue something on its own merits, the “slippery slope” argument just “moves the goalposts.” By saying, “slippery slope”, you admit you have no good argument against gay marriage because you’re trying to change the subject.

  21. Joe says:

    It’s not full of hate. It’s full of noisiness. Leave people to run their own lives as they see fit and they’ll do the same to you. Live and let live. It’s un-Minnesotan to do otherwise.

    1. Kenny G. says:

      Your right Joe. My neighbor wants to sell meth to put his kids through college. What’s the harm? He only sells it to adults…who can make their own decisions…right? My other neighbor wants 3 husbands, not hurting anyone, it would be un-Minnesotan unless we live and let live. My kids kindergarten teach want to marry 2 14 year old boys…really she is a lovely liberal woman…she even has a PhD from the UofM. Why would MN stop here from doing such a thing?

      1. SO SAD says:

        Here’s a balloon, Kenny G. Try to blow that one out of proportion.

    2. Tiki Dahl says:

      Yes Joe, we’ll let everyone make their own decision on their behaviour and not hold anyone accountable. That would be a great way for society to live.

      1. jackactionhero says:

        What behavior are you trying to stop for our society? Gayness? Should it be illegal and punishable by prison time or death?

        How do you plan on stopping gays from existing?

  22. angelcarver says:

    “november” it should read and stuff.

  23. Kiza says:

    Go Joe!

    You couldn’t have said it more perfectly.

  24. Tenbears says:

    Why the peoples do that stuff?

  25. Tenbears says:

    Tenbears sure glad is so normal.

  26. Bunny says:

    It is their choice ! ! ! I don’t understand,but is is their life ! ! ! Good people are Good people . . . Go after the molesters, murderers, etc. They are the real threat . . . .

  27. Johnny says:

    Bottom line:

    Today, if two men love each other and want to pretend to be married they can. No one is stopping them. No one cares.

    But they want to force the rest of us to share their delusion and to get government benefits.

    1. Chris F. says:

      What government benefits, do you get a check from the government every month just for being married? No, of course not. Oh you mean the right to make health care decisions, end of life decisions, the right of inheritance, the right to file joint taxes, the right to each others property, the right to custody of children, the right to spousal benefits. Ya we should certainly make sure to restrict those benefits. Please…

      1. Niki says:

        The “benefit” line is often the argument against gay marriage and really it’s ridiculous. My brother and his girlfriend of 15 years got married for no reason other then those so called “benefits”…you know to be able to make end of life decisions and all those great things Chris F stated…so why should these be rights that only heterosexual partners are entitled to??? As for the religious wackos, they will always find something obscure to complain about.

  28. Barbara says:

    ALEC wrote the sanctity of marriage discrimination amendment. I don’t think we need big corporations from outside Minnesota to write laws about what we do or don’t do in Minnesota.

  29. A PATRIOT SPEAKS! says:

    FACT ALL DIVORCES START WITH MARRIAGE! Therefore I’m against marriage for EVERYONE because it leads to divorce and divorce is very expensive and diverts funds from the general economy plus the marriage penalty is unfair so IN ORDER TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC LIBERTY I’M VOTING NO ON THIS AND SUBMITTING A PROPOSITION TO ELIMINATE MARRIAGE FOR EVERYONE ENTIRELY! USA USA USA USA

  30. PoliticiansSUX says:

    why did the democrats not fix this during their 32 years in power? Why Marriage? What is wrong with Civil Unions? Same rights and priviledges to a life of monogomny, just leave the church out of it. So, why did the democrats not take care of this during their years in power? Appears to me the party you gave all that money to did not fulfill their promise to you. Time to give them more money I supose.

    1. Joe says:

      Why did it have to be in the past? Why can’t it be in the future? Why do we need a constitutional amendment preventing future generations from making their own decisions? And the church is already out of it. Any couple can go down to city hall, stand before a justice of the peace and be married, all without EVER involving the church. This is a civil institution, not the church. In fact, many churches DO want to marry same sex couples, and this amendments prevents their freedom of religion!

  31. MN Atheist says:

    I just can’t understand some of the arguments against gay marriage.

    It will lead to people wanting to marry dogs? Well since marriage is a legal contract, as soon as dogs can go to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, graduate and get a bank account and a job on their own, then sign the marriage license so be it.

    It will lead to people wanting to marry 14 year olds…well as soon as 14 year olds are afforded the right to vote, smoke, drink, enter into contracts, join the military, own corporations, gamble, buy a house, etc, etc…so be it.

    It will lead to polygamy? We already have that in the US. There is a TV show that follows a multiple wife family. It is rather absurd to me but they seem happy….I guess I am not sure if I agree with their lifestyle or not…the jury is out?

    It will ruin marriage? I am pretty sure my wife and I will continue on or fail just fine on our own. Two loving women or men that enter into a marriage will not affect us on bit.

    They only want insurance and tax benefits? So what. I have them, as do thousands of other hetero couples. Some heteros even marry just for the benefits! So if that is the argument, argue for a law that places a 7 year waiting period for marriage benefits…just in case one gets the “7 year itch” and the marriage crumbles.

    Point being, these arguments just don’t weigh a lot on most people. Come up with an actual argument that show just how detrimental gay marriage would be to our society. I say let the churches decide on their own if they will marry a same-sex couple. The court shouldn’t care either way and just marry them.

    1. sal says:

      Argument against? God designed it to be One man with One women. Period. Nothing Else Works.

      1. Chris F. says:

        According to which religion. Are you saying that only certain religions should be allowed to perform marriages so long as they conform with your religious beliefs. Now you’re getting into government telling the church what they can and can’t do. When you invite religion into government, you’re inviting government into religion.

      2. Joe says:

        Do Muslims have a right to tell you how to live? So I’m missing the point where anyone’s religion should tell someone else how to live.

      3. jackactionhero says:

        I don’t believe in your god, and you can’t force me to or obey laws you create based on your beliefs in your god. PERIOD.

      4. las says:

        Soloman had 300 wives, and numerous concubines. So traditional marriage at one point was nothing like today. It worked for him. Guess Soloman of the Bible had a different God, or did he? Maybe you do.

  32. christine says:

    So you are against gay sex, yet you want to know EVERY DETAIL? Ummm…maybe it’s time for you to come out of the closet…..

  33. christine says:

    To the “Yes” voters: If my sister wants to marry her girlfriend, tell me how that would affect YOUR life? Anyone?

  34. republican says:

    Legalize gay marriage, as long as I don’t have to marry or make my two tom cats get married at the alter.

  35. angelcarver says:

    this amendment has nothing to do with gay marraige and stuff. it is about defining a normal man and a normal women in a life long relationship and all that. it just confirms traditional family values and all those things.

  36. Ditch says:

    My vote – keep the definition of the term marriage as it is. New term for the rights appropriated to those who are in a joined relationship. Women and men should have equal rights, but that does not make them the same. I would not call a woman a man or vice versa. The same applies to this situation. Will this change lead to other unintended consequences, of course. That is the nature of change. 50 years ago the idea of gay marriage would have been seen as ridiculous by a significant majority, not at a near even split. If I were to guess I would say monogamy would be next, but who knows what will be around the corner. Maybe for tax purposes could an “adopted” pet and claim it as a dependent? Then should pet training, as it would benefit society, be paid for by taxes (Public Puppy Schools)? Change will happen, I wish it were a little less emotional and a little more thoughtful.

  37. papijump online says:

    I don’t even understand how I finished up right here, however I believed this post was great. I do not realize who you’re however certainly you are going to a well-known blogger in case you are not already. Cheers!

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

More From WCCO | CBS Minnesota

Good Question
Best Of Minnesota

Watch & Listen LIVE