ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — An proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage moved closer to getting on Minnesota’s 2012 ballot Monday, clearing a Republican-led House panel after its first Senate committee approval last week.

If both chambers approve the proposal, voters would be asked next year whether to amend the state constitution to define marriage solely as union of one man and one woman.

The amendment’s prospects have improved this year after last year’s elections gave Republicans full control of the Legislature for the first time in nearly four decades. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton opposes the amendment but doesn’t have the power to block it.

The 10-7 party-line vote by the House Civil Law Committee seemed almost preordained, with the panel’s Republicans voting yes and Democrats no. Minnesota law already prohibits gay marriage and prevents the state from recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states and countries. But Rep. Steve Gottwalt, the bill’s sponsor, said he wants voters to be the ones to define marriage in Minnesota, not lawmakers or judges.

“It is not about hate, it is not about discrimination, it is about defining in Minnesota’s constitution the definition of marriage,” said Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud.

The amendment’s opponents predicted it would unleash a divisive political campaign that could tear apart families and communities.

“How many more gay people does God have to create before we ask ourselves whether God actually wants them around?” said Rep. Steve Simon, DFL-St. Louis Park, drawing applause and shushing from panel chairman Torrey Westrom, R-Elbow Lake.

Religious leaders of various backgrounds testified on both sides of the issue about the importance of families.

Pastor Sergio Choy of Bloomington’s Ministerio Maranatha Church spoke in favor of traditional marriage, adding that redefining the institution to include same-sex unions would be comparable to trying to make water out of hydrogen or oxygen alone.

“It is one mother and one father, one man and one woman who make up the foundation of the family,” Choy told lawmakers.

Gay-rights supporters warned legislators they risked overstepping their role and going against the tide of history as acceptance of gay relationships increases.

“This is not the religious law committee — this is the civil law committee,” said David Cummer, an elder at Grace Trinity Community Church in Minneapolis. “You guys have not been elected to the College of Cardinals. You are not members of the state church of Minnesota.”

The bill now heads to the Ways and Means Committee, its last stop before reaching the full House. The Senate version will go before a rules panel before reaching the floor.

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

Comments (120)
  1. kev says:

    Let the people speech in the vote…….

    1. Josh of St. Cloud says:

      Rather let the people protect the natural laws that God has already established concerning man and women ie that they were made to be joined with one of the opposite sex otherwise no reproduction. Put a gay couple on an Island and they remain so put a straight couple on an island and they reproduce. Sorry it human nature as God established it and we should respect that. The institution of marriage has been for thousands of years been a union between a man and woman for the betterment of society and we think we are smarter than all those people and God how prideful.

      1. Amanda says:

        Yes, Yes, Yes, laws for the church, not civil laws… ans sure put them in the island and see who would be the one with a bigger SIN… the gay couple that can’t reproduce, or the straight couple that would have kids, and then in order to reproduce they will have to commit INCEST

        1. Fred says:

          Put the straight couple on an island and they produce more gays.
          Much ado about nothing.

      2. louise says:

        Its people like you that annoy me. This is government we are talking about, not religion. There is a separation between church and state for a reason. Please keep your religion out of my government as much as possible.

        Feel free to feel the way you do, but do not impose religion on the LGBT community. There are many people who are capable to reproduce, that does not make them good parents. Apply this to many aspects in life. Just because you can, doesn’t make it right, or just because it is “In the name of god” doesn’t make it right either.

        1. chrissy says:

          The separation of chruch and state was meant to keep the State out of the chruch’s affairs. Wow! I love it when morrons use this in an incorrect manner.

          1. Peter says:

            Try reading a history book Crissy. They did not want a church to have as much power as the Archbishop of Cantebury did.

          2. Ben says:

            Dummy. Try reading what James Madison, the creator of the establishment clause, had to say about it. Or Thomas Jefferson. Or Ben Franklin.

            Wow. I love it when idiots call people “morrons”.

      3. Mike says:

        Josh of the Cloud- If marriage is a Godly established tradition, than let’s make it illegal to divorce. That would really make God love you……..and while we are at, if you can’t have children for medical reasons or selfish reasons, than you can’t get married!

        1. swerver says:

          Please explain to me what selfish reasons would be? If someone chooses not to have children they’re selfish? I have never wanted children and my fiance knows that, The shape the world is in now, i actually feel kinda bad 4 people with kids. Where are they going to work, how will they afford everything

      4. Ryan says:

        This has nothing to do with being able to reproduce!

      5. kim says:

        let the people vote whether or not a person can enslave someone. Slavery has been around since Moses

      6. Gail says:

        Put an elderly man and woman on an iland and they won’t produce either. Does that mean that once women are menopausal, they shouldn’t be allowed the benefits of marriage?

      7. Superchik1017 says:

        Maybe we shouldn’t let senior citizens get married either, or people who are infertile. They wouldn’t last very long on that island either. OH! And it has not been for the betterment of society, Josh. It has been for the betterment of the family’s wealth. Now-a-days, marraige through the church is a ceremony, not a legal action. Your marraige was legal when the clerk filed your certificate at City Hall, not when your said, “I do”.

    2. irkedminnesotan says:

      How bout the legislature works on important issues, like homelessness, veterans sleeping under bridges, gang violence in Mpls, how MN looks like hell, property tax, how to create jobs– I guess they are bored.

      1. Josh says:

        They’re not bored, they’re pandering.

  2. Amanda says:

    Let us vote…. I am sure that people in Minnesota will show them how well do we embrace equality….

    What I am not sure of, if that, some people think, just because we don’t have the legal right to be married, we will still share lives together, still raise kids in families full of love and values, and we will continue more importantly to EXIST…

    1. Victim Du Jour says:

      DefIning the word “Marraige” does not stop gays from forming the same exact domestic partnership as heterosexual couples.

      Civil Unions are still perfectly legal for gay couples in the State of California, and Civil Unions fall under the same exact family codes and domestic partnership laws as Marraige.

      I always get the impression gays hate religion anyway, so why spend so much effort fussing over a word? Most of this is a response to gay lawsuit abuse against religious institutions.

      Defining the word Marraige insures people have the 1st Amendment right to practice religion freely without being harassed by gay activist lawsuit bully’s.

      1. Amanda says:

        Yes, we fight cause we want the same rights, and no I might be gay, but I certainly don’t hate my religion, I am a Catholic, and I do believe in God and I don’t believe that he hates me.

        I am not trying to harass anybody with my beliefs, why does other people want to harass me with theirs?

      2. griley says:

        Why do you insist on inficting your beliefs on others? We are talking about marriage in a non secular manner. No church has to marry anyone tho do not wish to , but civil marriages should have the rights and benefits no matter who marries who, INDEPENDENT of anyone’s religious beliefs. To have it any other way runs against the pronciples of this country.

      3. Abby says:

        Are you really using your “impression” that gays hate religion? SERIOUSLY?! How audacious of you to make such bold statements on an “impression.” I bet you have never met one gay person in your life. Or if you did, you felt the need to shower after. That’s just my “impression.”

        Defining the word “marriage” really should also include the part that each party actually intends to stay together until “death do us part” and make divorce illegal and defining the word “marriage” ENSURES people to practice their religion freely without being harassed by anyone which includes you just harassing gay activists.

  3. Troy says:

    Hey GOP wheres the jobs???? Obama got Bin Laden…he kept his word…now keep your’s…wheres the jobs???

    1. captainobvious says:

      Obama got bin laden, what a comical statement, he had nothing to do with it other than being prez. at the time it happened. I have a job, maybe you should get off your butt and go find 1..

      1. bob says:

        Obama had the final call if you could read news stories.
        He is the commander in chief. Gets the credit, gets the blame.

    2. Just sayin says:

      @Troy—If you could stay on topic you might be able to find the job issue elsewhere.

  4. smb says:

    Constitutional amendments are supposed to fix inequalities not create them.

  5. Steve says:

    That’s from the bible, right? Sounds like Jesus to me. I guess I’ll see you in hell. I’ll be the one winking at you.

    1. Sarah in Outstate MN says:

      The poster who has sense been deleted has the wrong idea. Actions don’t send people to hell. Non belief does. I am a Lutheran and was offended by what that poster wrote.

      1. markH says:

        Sarah- It’s delusional, self-centric thinking like that which has damaged the minds and reasoning faculties of millions of children for so long. In all likelihood, Jesus is a myth. Regardless, by your claim Hitler could have accepted Jesus on his deathbed, yet good and moral people who do not believe are destined to burn in hell. Not only is this patently ridiculous and absurd (not to mention man-made) it is absolutely immoral and indefensible. Peace.

        1. Amanda says:


          Why do you care is I will burn in hell… as long as you are saved so you say… why do you care if I am not???

          think about that one!

          1. markH says:

            Amanda- You appear to be confused about the nature of my response; what I am saying is that not only are the claims of Christianity untrue, they are positively harmful. I am not claiming I am “saved”, as I do not need saving. Christianity has succeeded in convincing otherwise good and moral people that they are defective, wretched, or otherwise in need of “salvation.” Naturally, (and quite profitably I might add) Christianity offers a solution of its own creation-salvation by human sacrifice and torture. Now I ask you, is this good for anybody? Can this be proved beyond reference to some ancient text? The problem is that the ban on gay persons marrying each other is explicitly religious (read: Christian based) and is divisive, exclusionary, bigoted, and immoral. The Christian doctrine convinces its followers that they have an interest in the private lives of those around them, and allows them to feel no shame in dictating their version of what is right and what is moral. Peace.

            1. Norge says:

              Your mocking of religion doesn’t change the fact that this is to be decided by the Rights of the People, not the religion du jour, or lack thereof. You can mock and defile and blasphamy all you want, after all it is your soul and everyone has the right to go to hell, but the issue of marriage will be decided by the Rights of the People…so to bad, take your hate somewhere else, and cry on your pity-pot to someone who actually gives a hoot about you.

              1. jeff says:

                yes norge you are right….it will be put to the voters unfortunately, the vast majority of which claim to be christians……but nooooo religion won’t have anything to do with it……just as long as these rotten republicans get something done while they’re in office. ohhhhh wait…..yeah they’ll probably take credit for all of your hateful votes anyway. hahahahaha keep suckin the teet boys and girls.

              2. griley says:

                The problem is that you all basically say that your way or no way. Wow, thought this was supposed to be a free country, guess that only applies as long as I agree with you.

            2. Just sayin says:

              Somebody here is moral phobic.

              1. Just sayin says:

                @MarkH–Somebody here is moralphobic.

                1. Norge says:

                  Love that ‘NEW’ word; moral-phobic….Brilliant!! The fear of having a moral code of values….it explains so much about what ails and defiles the left. A left that at one time was the standard bearer for the admvancement of the Rights of Man, but has descended into hate and name-calling, and all but openly demanding a tyranny of their choosing to dictate to the rest how and what to believe and to ban a moral value-stream to be a guiding code of behavior. Bernie Madoff, Denny Hecker and Tom Peters where probably followers of this code. You have managed to distill an entire movement down to its pure essence with one word…good one!

                2. jeff says:

                  and as we all know the only [place that you can get morals from is the bible right? talk about brilliant. porge…..that is all you have and all you will ever have. you will never know anything beyond it because your simple mind cannot understand the concept of free will…..all you understand is gods will…..which he has actually spoke to you about right? i mean you invited him over for dinner and ya’ll just sat at the table and talked about what he wants right? and that your soul purpose for being here is to make others believe in him and if not at the very least make their time on this planet as difficult as possible?

            3. jeff says:

              mark i love you! you rock…..(not in a gay way) hahahahaha 😉

      2. Tom says:

        Sarah in Outstate Mn

        I ask the same question of you as I did with Josh of St. Cloud

        Can you make your argument without using religion?

        1. Pete says:

          Yes, she could – how about the breakdown in the family? Men and women are very different and children need to be offered the benefits of both a man and a woman in growing up. Yes, we all know dysfunctional families – but those are different sins, not less significant but different. Having two moms or two dads is something that isn’t easily changed and is physically impossible to do without technology or adoption. If you can adopt a child into a healthy familiy rather than an unhealthy one, you would choose the former. Sarah is obviously a decent person that feels there’s more to life than ourselves and there is certain behavior that is abhorrent and recognizes it. Morals come from God and not ourselves. We are essentially self serving people and if we didn’t have God in this world we would be left to our selfindulgent behavior and foolish thinking.

          1. Mark says:

            Morals come from our need for other people. Why do you think wealth corrupts? When you need other people less, you cease to do what is best for everyone. Society creates morality, not God. We are selfish and self indulgent only to the extent that our society allows us to be. If you have to live next to your neighbor and his children are friends with your children, how likely are you to sell him a bad mortgage and hope he defaults so you can take his house? Now what if instead you are a big international bank with no ties to the community? It is God that keeps us honest, it’s being connected to each other.

            Additionally, Men and Women are not polar opposites and no man or woman is entirely gendered one way or another. There are plenty of masculine women and feminine men who are straight as well. Classic gender roles are a myth. A loving family is more important, equally mixed gendered parents have no demonstrable significance. I’ve met plenty of straight christian atomic families and they all seem to be as or more dysfunctional than the rest.

            1. Mark says:

              edit:It is NOT God that keeps us honest, it’s being connected to each other.

          2. Tom says:


            So you are saying that if 2 gay men or 2 gay women are allowed too get married that some how that will lead too the breakdown of your family or other famalies? That kind of sounds too me that you and others would like too blame someone else if your marriage or others end in divorce. When in reality the answer as to why your marriage would fail or others would fail would be looking back at you when you look at yourself in the mirror. It wouldn’t be a gay persons fault if the husband or wife strayed they made that choice. It wouldn’t be a gay persons fault if the husband or the wife decided years down the road that they got married for the wrong reason, they made that choice.

            And “morality” went out the window years ago along with “traditional marriage” but you have people who choose too ignore facts that don’t fit their so called “reality”. And the church fell of the “morality wagon” years ago.

            But here is a question for you and others like you. If gay people should not be allowed too be married then should they have too pay taxes?

  6. Sarah in Outstate MN says:

    Actions don’t send people to hell. Non belief in Jesus as Savior sends people to hell. By faith alone you are saved.

    1. Flower child says:

      I’m glad you believe this, Sarah. However, most of the rest of the world does not agree with you and Christians are in the minority. Are you saying that the people of all other religions are damned and doomed? You are narrow-minded and judgmental if you think that.

    2. Ben says:

      I sure am glad I don’t believe in your hate-filled religion. If I believed in God, I’m sure he would be a lot more appreciative of ethical non-believers than bigoted, so-called “christians”.

  7. Alyce Estrem says:

    Let the people vote!

    1. Linda says:

      I agree with Alyce. Let’s just vote on this!


    What’s healthy to you, while we have a high divorce rates in the world. Reproduce to whom, under god?! God doesn’t discriminates any of his children. go sucks on ‘urs pacifier.

  9. so tired... says:

    People that are against gay marriages are confused, don’t understand so they attack it and listen to lies from religion. Books are outdated and who’s to say people back then just make things up to transform society into how they like it. This will only create more discrimination in the world and more hate. How is it any different from bullying someone because of their race or color, disability. Wake up call people, stop the hating and God would never send someone to hell because we were born this way. So recognize and get out of your little bubble that you live because it’s getting old.

    1. HUMAN IGNORANCE says:

      I’m with you!

    2. Tom says:

      so tired

      Very true statement!

  10. ES says:

    wow…..all I can say is that I believe that people as ignorant as you should be going to hell. and as jesus said, LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE…. what does being gay have to do with kids? I researched it for a school semester long project, and studies show no difference in well being, and in fact many kids raised by gay parents thrive. (and are statistically no more likely to turn out to be gay than children of straight parents!) are you saying that single mothers or fathers cannot possibly raise kids by themselves then, that according to you only a man and woman together can raise kids ? (p.s both men and women are gay and can reproduce so if being fertile and reproductively capable is your qualification for parenthood then your argument is useless) do you think the hundreds of thousands of children who are starving and neglected in orphanages around the world would not be better off with two parents who love them? a real marriage is a marriage of love. what I would like to know is not how gay people can raise kids, but how someone as selfish and narrow minded as you could ever raise healthy well rounded children? And at the end of the day as my dad says, who cares? he is the first to say that the “sanctity” of his 25 year marriage to my mother is wrecked by fools like tiger woods, not two gay people who truly love each other. NEWS FLASH: you can get married in a non religious civil ceremony, so there is no reason to use your personal religious values to define everyone else. You can believe in personally not being gay, the way I am individually against abortion, yet I feel it is not my place or right to tell other women what to do with their bodies and beliefs. people like you fill this world with hate, when we have REAL issues to face as a people. Shame on you, and as I said before, LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONE

    1. Jesus says:

      ES- Stick your divisive and bigoted religion where the sun doesn’t shine….
      And please do us the favor and jump off a cliff so you can join your bigoted friends in hell…..

      1. Frank says:

        That is not the real Jesus. That is Satan

  11. Josh of St. Cloud says:

    Those who profess their belief in Jesus Christ but do not live their lives according to the faith and laws he has established by his church are hypocrits and do not deserve the glories of heaven

    1. Amanda says:

      OK, point taken…. but wait, that is why we go to church for. so we can learn that! I do not need any religious stuff in the constitution, nor in the way I live my life. you are free to have your believes, I am free to have mines.

      1. griley says:

        Unfortunatly most that are pushing this do will only agree your afree to have the arts of yours that agrees with theirs

    2. Dave Campbell says:

      The God that I love and worship will judge me. Not some clown in St. Cloud! I have been married to the same wonderful woman for 31 years and I certainly don’t profess to know anything about your life or how you live it. All I am certain of is that Jesus didn’t ask you to keep an eye on things until he got back. Perhaps you should leave the judging up to GOD!

    3. Tom says:

      Josh of St. Cloud

      Can you and others like you make your argument without using religion?

      1. smb says:

        No, Tom, they can’t.
        They can only argue using the limited interpretation of the bible they have been taught.

        1. Tom says:


          I know. Sometimes I just feel like challenging people like that. They can never use a rational reason for anything.

  12. Dave Campbell says:

    Apparently the GOP has the budget balanced and all the jobs created that were needed. Isn’t that what the promised in their campaign speeches? I guess I need to pay closer attention to the news. I’m sure it was reported on when they did all of this and I just missed it!


    What is “your” so called Religion?! Religion as been killing so many lives throughout the history of this planet. We’re heading into a new era, an era full with intelligence, spirituality, high vibration, and PEACE.

    How many years did the people fight over “ur” what so called Religion?

    Those who not realize of whom they really are, and was trapped inside the so called parenting and its brain washed. Where is your intellect?!

  14. Mary says:

    So you think the divorce rate will LOWER when gay marriage becomes legal? That same sex marriages are somehow stronger? No, what’s happened is that the institution of marriage has become weakened by people throwing insults at it. No one wants to “work hard” anymore; I will be surprised if we see marriages lasting 50 years in the future.

    1. HUMAN IGNORANCE says:

      Marriage only last after 120 from their Honey moon. It’s because of our lack of Understanding and Nourishing for each others. It’s all about “me” but not We.

      1. Mary Ruhland says:

        I’m sorry, what now? I don’t understand what you’re saying . . .

        1. Happily married for 22 years says:

          @Mary. I think ignorant thinks marriage lasts for 120 days (maybe months) because people only think of themselves. It could be a valid point for more than one marriage besides the (many?) marriage of ignorant. But if ignorant was truly ignorant than there would not be a problem in a marriage as ignorance is bliss, just like a good marriage. Did I confuse you or help?

    2. Superchik1017 says:

      No Mary, but people like you seem to think that gay marriage will make the divorce rate higher. Same-sex relationships last just as long as heterosexual relationships. Why wouldn’t they? We’re all human.

      1. Mary Ruhland says:

        People like me?

        I didn’t say anything that gay marriage will make the divorce rate higher. I was just commenting on the unspoken assumption that heterosexual marriages mainly end in divorce. It’s the same across the board.

        1. Superchik1017 says:

          Wrong Mary. You’re “Mary Ruhland”. I was commenting on “Mary’s” comment.

  15. successNOT says:

    Do none of you people remember how cruel kids can be in school. think what you want but when 2 guys drop off their son at the school, That poor child will face years of physical and mental abuse, im not saying its o.k. but you have 2 realize the damage that could do to a child. I can;t believe no1 ever reaLIzes this

    1. Amanda says:

      it’s call teach your kids about diversity… not raise your kids to believe that is wrong! perfect solution

      1. captainobvious says:

        Do you live in a glass bubble? You think people are taking time to tell their young children about gays, do you think a 10 yr=ear old will recognize those thoughts, there kids they dont care about other kids feelings, i hope your not a parent because you have no idea how it really is these days in school. no1 else responded because they know it would be a horrible life for that child

        1. smb says:

          Well, I do have a 10 year old and he is already more tolerant and accepting than you are. And yes, he has been raised by straight parents.

          When the DADT debate was going on and I explained the policy to him he thought it was the dumbest thing he’d ever heard of.
          When we received the marriage DVD from the Bishop it was my son who told me to return it.

          Kids don’t have to be taught love, acceptance or tolerance but they do have to be taught hate.

          1. stillobvious says:

            Earth to you, I could care less what gays do it effects me none, i know none. I just can’t believe you’re so far disconnected that u think other kids will understand and accept it, kids dont have 2 be taught tolerance? they’re children they learn by what they see, I just can’t believe in this day and age of bullying you think these children wouldnt have a horrible time at school. Where did i say i wasn’t tolerant? im not a 6th grader, they will not understand

            1. smb says:

              Exactly, they learn what they see. Kids only have to be taught tolerance when they first learn intolerance at home.

              And, bullying is very important to me, we’ve dealt with it. That’s why I’m so against an amendment saying that a segment of our citizens isn’t equal.

              What does that teach our kids?

            2. Citizen says:

              Amazingly enough, polls already show that most young people don’t think gay marriage is a big deal. It appears that this amendment will get voted down if it goes to the people of the State. Will the GOP FINALLY accept that? I’ll bet lunch, they won’t and will continue to shove this in peoples’ faces. The GOP just has to be right and in the moral high ground over everyone else.

    2. smb says:

      And what about the kids growing up in a family with gay parents? You want to write into the constitution that their family is some how less than their friends’ families?

      By approving this amendment you are endorsing state sanctioned bullying.

  16. Tom says:


    It is not a sin if you love your life, are not ashamed of the life you are living. And you don’t try too live a lie too make others happy.

    It is a sin if you are not living a happy life if you are trying make others happy first and you second. It is sin when people can’t think for themselves and rely on someone else too to do their thinking for them. It is a sin when you try too keep people from being happy because what they are doing or trying too do offends you.

  17. Valerie says:

    You pretty much said it SARAH. If we believe in the Bible we know that certain acts are a “sin” . No one is perfect so therefore we all “sin”. It’s not up to us to decide which “sin” is worse than the others. Besides- like you said -by faith & belief in Jesus is what counts.

  18. Ken says:

    You know whats more damaging to the sanctity of marriage than 2 gay people? Divorce… yea… lets just pick and choose what parts we should listen to of the Good Book, as long as it benefits me…

  19. Valerie says:

    I think we should recognize civil unions between gays, but not marriage in a church. markH- as Christians we should hope that Hitler accepted Jesus on his deathbed. Does that mean that everyone would be considered the same in Heaven or next life- probably not. But that’s not MY call. Read the Left Behind series- if for no other reason than curiosity & good reading. Not every sentence or even page mentions God. Consider it a good mystery.

  20. Mark says:

    I am an atheist and I married my wife (another atheist), and that is okay because I am a man and she is a woman, and now we have an unbaptized lovely baby giirl.. Now, if a dude christian were to marry another dude christian, it isn’t okay on religious grounds? That some of you propose instead, maybe they can do a ‘civil union’ to protect the ‘sanctity of marriage’? No, that is all hogwash. There is no sanctity in marriages that the government performs and recognizes and there will never be. Your CHURCH and Religios beliefs have ZERO place in the government and ZERO influence on what is and isn’t marriage. Let gay people get married so that they can live their lives like the rest of us, and keep your religous hands off of our secular government.

    1. the anti-gay says:

      where does your misguided hatred for god come from? what happend to you as a child mark? it’s ok mark,it wasnt your fault, let it go and embrace god,he’s waiting.

      1. Amanda says:

        @ the anti-gay…. If you are saved, be happy and leave us ALONE>… you are allowed to believe in your god. I am not! leave us ALONE

      2. Citizen says:

        I don’t remember Mark saying he hated God. The definition of atheist, I believe, is that he doesn’t BELIEVE in God. Just as a lot of posters here can’t believe there ISN’T a God. Anti-gay bias is the product of religion, and religion is separated from the State. Please keep YOUR religion out of my life because the U.S. Constitution guarantees my freedom FROM RELIGION as well as freedom for those of you to practice it.

    2. Just sayin says:

      @Mark—Me thinks you live in the wrong country. If you are so passionate about your thoughts go live where they are accepted Holland perhaps? Norway?.In other words: Put your body where your mouth is.

      1. Nigel says:

        We are a country founded on the belief that you can practice what belief you want (except if it causes harm to other living creatures). So with your logic, why don’t you move to a church state kind of country where you have to practice their religion or else.

  21. Valerie says:

    That’s true too MARK

  22. the anti-gay says:

    stop with your anti-mainstream are the shame of america.better people than you have done with less and still are happy. you are a product of a society where the extreme minority believe they should get results simply from screaming the loudest. you aren’t born gay anyway, your condition is a brain issue that you people continue to ignore.anything but the obvious.

    1. Amanda says:

      Sure, I wake up every morning, and DECIDED to be gay, why? so I can be harass? so I do not have any rights? so people can judge me, like I am hurting them? Sure, it actually sounds like a very good way of living life. so I will keep “choosing” this.

  23. Bert says:

    Why are we wasting taxpayer dollars on such a stupid subject? We have schools that are underfunded, people that have no jobs, gas prices that are too high, soldiers that are being killed. Wake up!

  24. HooDatIS? says:


  25. Allah says:

    Gay in…..Gay out…..Gay in…..Gay out……

  26. Norge says:

    One can see they hate of the so-called “liberals” quite plainly here. Equally plain is their position that the ‘people’ should not have any say in the definition of marriage, and that it should be left up to “the right kind of people, and judges’ to decide for the rest of us…who don’t obviously have the same ‘value-stream’ as the all knowing, self-annointed saviors of the left. Why do they hate the ‘rights of the people’ to decide so deeply? Where does this hate come from? Who is fanning the hatered that radiates from the left-wing ding-bats like heat from a welder? The DFL is no longer the party of ‘tolerence, but the party of hate, the inciters of violence, the bringers of death and destruction to the “Rights of the People”.

    1. Happily married for 22 years says:

      @ Norge The self anointed saviors of the right like you are showing much more hate. Whenever I see your name next to a post I read nothing but negativity or venom towards someone.
      What violence has the DFL begot? Is it not moving towards inclusion of all to include anyone who wants to get married to be married? That is not exclusion or hatred. Limiting who can and cannot get married is hatred and shoving your all knowing opinion down someone’s throat.

    2. Tom says:


      You are NUTS and without a doubt on drugs!

      Which party wants to ban Gay Marriage? The Republicans and the Relgious Right!

  27. Jake says:

    GOOD!! ’bout time.

  28. Norge says:

    The “RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE” is the only thing the left-wing needs to understand when it comes to deciding the issue…the left wants people to try to justify the decision by decieving you into bringing religion into it..hence they will mock religion, call Jesus gay, and quite simply stop at no depth of depravity to try to complete the deception that the issue is about religion. It is is about the Rights of the People to establish our own constitutional definition…one that all judges and courts and lawmakers must abide by. The left hates the Rights of Man, (which are derived from our Creator, not from governments) because they hate the Creator and morality, but the Rights of Man shall trump all the depravity and mocking of the left, and there is nothing they can do but name-calling…..a sure sign of their maturity, and lack of wisdom. Don’t fall into the trap, it is not about religion, but the Rights of the People to decide the destiny of their State.

    1. Dirk says:

      There is not a single comment on this board that can even justify your comment. Please see your religious representative maybe for a long talk about tolerance for people. The hate you spill in any post with your name on it is alarming.
      If indeed gay marriage is a left wing issue it would be expanding the rights of people. If the will of the majority is put upon the minority as you would have it then discrimination is legal. There would be no civil rights. There would be no vote for women. There would be no voting for people who did not own land. Now if you want it to be about religion. Each church defines itself. Keep the church out of the government, keep the government out of the church. Keep your sanctimony as you spew your hatred like you have the right to judge others

    2. Superchik1017 says:

      It is the Rights of the People to decide their own destity, not the right of the majority to vote on the Rights of the Minority.

    3. Josh says:

      Seems to me that the left is mocking your religion because you are using it to perpetuate bigotry and hatred. In the same post where you say that it has nothing to do with religion, you invoke the creator as justification for your stance. I don’t think you’re fooling anybody: the left is trying to stand up for rights that have no reason to be withheld. If that’s your definition of depraved, then I’m proud to be depraved. If the definition of being deceptive is treating others the way that I would like to be treated, then I am incredible deceptive.

      As far as rational, thinking people are concerned, we know what the REAL deception is: denying liberty to others and calling it “The Rights of the People” -The constitution, Norge, was not written to be a tool of oppression…as much as you’d like it to be.

      What color is the sky in your world?

  29. TW says:

    mark H. so happy to see that you now believe in God…..that’s great that you have seen the truth and turned from your anti God agenda.

    just kidding

  30. Jack says:

    Very well put, Norge. The left have morals up to the point that they “feel” that it is right. Nothing about a higher moral code for them, they will follow no one except their feelings. MOst people know gay people that are kind and funny – it doesn’t make their behavior acceptable and depriving children of a mother and father in some instances. Just because someone is engaging and otherwise decent doesn’t make certain behaviors acceptable to the point of protecting it legally. Think about the guy that sleeps around on his wife and treats her poorly at home – does that mean he should be able to marry all these women, because he’s otherwise a seemingly decent guy at work or for a friend? No, because it would cause a breakdown in the family and children would be deprived of a normal (as possible) upbringing.

    1. Superchik1017 says:

      A “normal (as possible) upbringing” doesn’t have to come from a mother and father: it can be attained by a single mother, single father, grandparent, uncle, aunt, guardian, foster parent – anyone who is willing and able to care and love a child. Your comment is a slap in the face to all the single parents, grandparents and anyone else who is raising a child the best that they can.

  31. jeff says:

    by the way, it wasn’t all that long ago that blacks couldn’t marry whites. what was cited as the reason? blacks were beasts and of another race and god never meant for the races to mix. well what the hell has changed people? did everyone start interpreting the bible differently suddenly? “ohhhhh that’s very different” no it isn’t. you use god again to deliver your venom and tradition????? don’t even get me started on that. there is no such thing. women were property, then they weren’t and had no property rights. blacks couldn’t marry whites, chinese couldn’t marry mexicans. that has all changed……….so you cite tradition as being the basis for your arguement? what freakin’ tradition are you talking about….there is none. marriage is ever changing……..people and their stupid fears…….”i don’t want marriage to change cuz then i won’t feel all warm and fuzzy any more”……..booooooooooo freakin hooooooooooo.

  32. jeff says:

    where are all the perfect christians with their 50% divorce rate? helllllooooooo. why don’t you make a constitutional ammendment to ban divorces?

    don’t worry all my christian haters you can still marry your first cousin in half of the united states you disgusting pigs!

  33. Ben says:

    why not let minnesotans vote about this issue?

    1. Superchik1017 says:

      Does it seem logical to have the majority vote on the rights of the minority?

      1. Mary says:

        That’s the way it’s always been. I didn’t vote for Obama but because the majority did, I have to deal with the decision to have him as president. Majority rules. The only time it sucks is when you’re the minority.

        1. Superchik1017 says:

          Apples to Apples Mary: How about the majority votes on taking away your right to vote since your vote won’t align with the majorities values? We’re talking about voting AWAY RIGHTS here.

  34. Citizen says:

    @Ben. If Minnesotans get a chance to vote on the issue, it will probably become moot because polls show 62% of Minnesotans believe gays should be able to marry. Do you think the GOP, tea partiers, and the religious right will stop when the people have spoken? Doubtful. They ABSOLUTELY feel the need to have the moral high ground so they can look down on the rest of the sinners and feel superior. Isn’t that what this is really about? Oneupmanship on the part of those groups? Being able to spit in gays’ faces? Being able to put down others for the lack of Christian beliefs? It’s the old playground bully syndrome taken to a new low…..

  35. Reasonable says:

    If they’d let the gays marry, at least they wouldn’t have to worry about abortions…

    Seriously though, are we still so caught up in the doctorine of the dark ages that we can’t allow two people that you’ve never met and who have no ill will against you personally be happy together in marriage?

    And time for another joke, if the religious right is so afraid of gay sex, shouldn’t they encourage the gays to get married? Everyone knows that you drop about 30% in the intercourse realm…

  36. Lee says:

    Don’t we have more important issues facing the state then to present legislation to ban what is already banned??

  37. Superchik1017 says:

    Wouldn’t it be great if this just blows up in the Republicans faces? 🙂

    1. Amanda says:

      I know it will