By Pat Kessler, WCCO-TV

ST. PAUL, Minn. (WCCO) — A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is one step away from landing on Minnesota’s 2012 election ballot. But a Republican state representative is bucking his party to stop it.

“I’m an absolute, firm no. I’ll vote to do whatever I can to defeat it in any way, shape or form,” said State Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove.

He said his party is wrong to interfere in the private lives of Minnesotans.

Kriesel is a war hero and a freshman Republican state representative. Now his GOP colleagues are discovering Kriesel is also unpredictable.

He is breaking ranks from Republicans to vote against a ban on gay marriage. Outspoken on Twitter, Kriesel is not just saying no, he’s saying “Hell No.”

“You live once in your life and so if someone finds someone they love and they’re happy with them, why are we trying to take that away? That’s not what government should be doing,” he said.

Kriesel’s aggressive stand against a gay marriage ban came on the same day a Republican House Committee approved it amid protest, anger and tears.

The freshman lawmaker from Cottage Grove said he’s not worried about political repercussions for bucking his party’s anti-gay marriage stand. It’s because of perspective he earned while serving in Iraq.

“I’ve learned the hard way how precious life is,” said Kriesel.

In Iraq, two of Kriesel’s fellow soldiers died in a bomb blast. Both his legs were blown off. He said that experience changed him to understand what matters.

“I love my wife more than anything. I couldn’t imagine my life without her. She makes me happy. I could not ever live with myself to vote to take that away from someone else,” Kriesel said.

So far, Kriesel said he’s not getting any pressure from Republican leaders to change his vote.

The gay marriage constitutional amendment has already been approved by the Senate. The House could vote on it sometime Thursday.

If it passes, Minnesota voters will be asked in 2012 if marriage should be defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Pat Kessler

Comments (165)
  1. Also a Citizen says:

    Anyone who votes in favor of this ban – Dem or GOP should be ashamed.

    1. Jim says:

      They aren’t voting on a “BAN” they are voting on the citizens of this state to define a man and woman as eligible for marriage in this state. People have as much right to add this to the constitution as they did to vote on the legacy law and add it to the constitution. Minnesotans elect the officials to vote, aren’t they competent enough to vote on a topic like this? There is a difference between not getting the outcome you want, and trying to suppress other people’s rights.

    2. Jeff says:

      Why should gay marriage fall on the shoulders of any one politician trying to get the states work completed? Many times in my life I have seen politicians vote on things that the people don’t want, a good example is sport stadiums and now we’re going to have three! Same with abortion it should be laid out for the majority of the people to decide and not any one politician? I am not a religious person, but have learned through my life on how religion views gay people and how god disapproves of this life style. WCCO labels this decision to let the morality of people decide this fate as a gay ban, when it hasn’t even taken place yet? Nobody’s rights here are being taken away, the way I see it as clearing the desk to focus on the real issue’s of business which should be the State of Minnesota. While opinions’ very, our votes are heard!

  2. Jake says:

    Rep. Kriesel does not appear understand what he is voting on. There is no “ban on gay marriage.” The question is whether the state will be compelled to recognize gay marriage. Same sex couples are not prevented from loving who they want (as Kriesel seems to think is at risk), and they may be “married” by a commitment to each other or in any church that considers it appropriate to deem them married. The issue is whether the state has a reason to recognize the relationships and provide them subsidies.

    1. Brandon says:

      Not just subsidies, but also the right to choose medical decisions, money decisions, and life and death decisions.

      I think that should be given to anyone that loves another person, and the state should recognize that two men, two women, and a man and a woman can all love each other equally the same and be provided the same respect and opportunities across the board. There was a time that blacks and whites couldn’t marry; how is this different?

    2. mary says:

      Jake I’d like to know what subsidies your talking about? Please explain. I don’t know any gay couples that are getting any subsidies of any kind! I believe the only thing they want is to have to same rights as Heterosexual couples. What is wrong with that? And what are people so afraid of? How does this issue effect the general population? I can only see good coming out of this. Whole families being recognized as real Familys with real rights. It’s in our constitution, no discrimination because of sex, religion, color ect…

    3. Leo says:

      Rep. Kriesel does not appear understand what he is voting on. There is no “ban on gay marriage.” The question is whether the state will be compelled to recognize gay marriage.

      No, Jake, you’re the one who doesn’t understand. The bill pending would not require the state to recognize gay marriage. Instead, the vote is to either keep gay marriage illegal in Minnesota, as it is now, or to make gay marriage both illegal and unconstitutional in Minnesota. Some choice

      1. Jake says:

        @Leo. Not true. It is about whether same sex marriages will be recognized by the state. The state does not have the power to prevent people from considering themselves and calling themselves “married” by their own definition. Likewise, if a church, synagogue, etc. chose to perform a religious ceremony to declare a same-sex couple “married,” the state cannot and should not prevent that. The issue is whether the state and subsequently private individuals and entities have to “recognize” that as the same “marriage” as the traditional marriage between people of the opposite sex. That doesn’t prevent anyone who wants to to recognize the relationship however they choose.

        The state does not recognize the Lutheran Church (for instance) as the one true religion, and is constitutionally prohibited from doing so. That doesn’t prevent you from being Lutheran.

        1. Leo says:

          You’re still mistaken. If this amendment passes, the constition will say that marriage in Minnesota is between only a man and a woman. If this does not pass, the constitution remains untourched, but gay marriage will remain illegal as it was passed by the state government years ago.

          The voters are NOT voting on whether or not gay marriage should be legal here. They are voting on whether or not to add a constitutional amendment to reinforce the fact that gay marriage is illegal here.

          1. Logan says:

            What they are doing is trying to make it next to impossible for future law makers to overturn the current bigoted law. By adding it to the constitution, there would have to be a new amendment to remove it. Hopefully all the bigots will get their reward this Saturday and Rapture away and leave the lovers in peace.

            Maybe the next Amendment will be to define redheads as non-human demons?

            Do people not realize how utterly stupid and unAmerican this is?

            1. Jason says:

              Jake, I petty your ignorance and your refusal to recognize the what everyone is trying to explain to you here. It doesn’t matter how we frame the debate to individuals like you, you’ll never accept our point of view…

              On the issue of subsidies, why it is ok for GLBT people to pay for your benefits. Do you think that’s fair?

              On the issue of church and religion, isn’t the GOP trying to institutionalize religion into our government/Constitution? They’re forcing their religion onto people’s live. What happened to the separation of church and state???

    4. stace34 says:

      Is heterosexual marriages get subsidies why shouldn’t other marriages get those same benefits. Either we are going to take away the benefits from all types of marriage, or we make access to those benefits available to all. If 2 consenting adults marry their gender should be irrelevent as to whether they get access to the benefits. Either we are a nation that beleives in equality or we aren;t.

      1. Jake says:

        @stace34. Your second sentence makes the most sense. I assume you cannot legislate fertility between same-sex couples, so the historic rationale for the subsidies is clearly different. Single people are the losers in the subsidies, as they choose by nature, nurture, or circumstance not to take advantage of any of the benefits provided to married people.

        Let’s face it. Same-sex couples are not the same as hetero couples, at least from an evolutionary standpoint. There’s no way around that, even considering sterile couples and those who choose not to have kids. Does that mean the state should dictate who can be a couple? Of course not. But does “fairness” or any other public good demand recognition and subsidy of same-sex relationships as marriages? I don’t think so. The better alternative is to extend supporting benefits to any two-adult household (hetero, homo, platonic, etc.) with minor children or special-needs individuals requiring care where one person provides the care. Otherwise, a “marriage” is between individuals, their friends and families, and their religion if they choose one. Otherwise, everyone should pay their own way, which is where society has already moved to on it’s own.

        1. Christopher Gable says:

          It’s not about “subsidies” — it’s really about the ERISA laws, which only recognize “married” couples. So unless your employer has “domestic partner” benefits in their health plan, a gay couple can not get each covered. Can not get the coverage they have earned in the private sector. — because of how the gov’t allows them to be defined and what GOv’t allows businesses to do in employment law.

        2. Christopher Gable says:

          When the state says “you are not legally related to this other man nor can you be” and then goes on to predicate many state interactions that are part of one’s intimate life on being “family” as they define it. That is where the discrimination comes in. You say we can call ourselves whatever we want but if my employer won’t allow me to add my spouse to my insurance because he is a man and relies on the state for support in it’s view . That’s where your opinion of gay couples conflicts with the rights of those couples.

    5. James says:

      yes, equal protection uder the law, the Federal 14th amendment compels it. Romer vs. Evans 1996

    6. Tom says:


      Every media outlet in town has been using the word “Banning” gay marriage. Nobody has menioned that this amendment has anything to with recognizing gay marriage.

      1. Jake says:

        The amendment states “Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.” That is in relation to the state’s recognition. The state is not able to “ban” people or their religious entities from considering people to be “married” in whatever context they want. It is a matter of whether that claim has a legal significance. Other than financial subsidies grounded in historic support for child rearing (admittedly not going exclusively to those raising children), the other trappings of the marriage contract are already available to same sex couples by contract and under statute.

        1. Nick says:

          @Jake, If you look at the 515 (I think is the number) rights that go with a Marriage License issued by the State. The cost of having even the rights you can get from legal documents filed (thousands of dollars in legal fees) is an unfair and unjust burden to put on some couples because the state is selectively saying we only offer rights to this conformation (one Man one Women). If the point of the benefits child rearing, shoulded we being issuing parenting licenses as opposed to marriage licenses? Also why should the heterosexual couples get the benefits of marriage if they have intention of having children?

          1. Jake says:

            @Nick. You and I agree on your points (except the parenting license, and I doubt you were serious about that). I would support a proposal to allow anyone (husband/wife, husband/husband, daughter/mom) regardless of whether it is a romantic or merely supportive relationship to have the ability to contract with the state for certain rights as a package akin to what happens when heterosexual couples marry under the law. It should not be more expensive for others to secure those rights. I have stated elseweher in this discussion that I believe the subsidies should be tied to child raising (and not just child having, which would be tough for same-sex couples). If people want someone to be able to stay home and raise a child, I’m comfortable with some state benefit to aid in that. Sterile hertero couples, like all same-sex couples, can choose to adopt, so nobody is fundamentally discriminated against. People who choose not to raise children need to financial benefits from the state.

        2. Christopher Gable says:

          You realize that makes any kind of “civil union” illegal too.

    7. eastside_evil says:

      Boy did you fail to read or comprehend the situation. Yikes.

      1. Jake says:

        Who are you calling “Boy”? What exactly do you mean by that?

        1. eastside_evil says:

          I’m calling you “boy” and the punctuation goes inside the quotation marks, tiger.

          1. Jake says:

            You might brush up on your punctuation rules a bit for question marks.

            1. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

              A grammar nazi AND a bigot, I see. Boy, you’re just winning points all over the place, aren’t you?! (Now did I mean “boy” as a condescending term or otherwise? You decide.)

    8. eastside_evil says:

      “The issue is whether the state has a reason to recognize the relationships and provide them subsidies.”

      Please explain what the reason would be to not recognize them.

    9. Christopher Gable says:

      A benefit such as allowing partners access to each other in the hospital, or even as Pawlenty vetoed allowing a gay man to claim his partner’s body in the morgue. These, and other things, are what you take for granted. They are the areas where the state depends on marital status or family relationship to determine who you can out on your health insurance (which you’ve earned), etc. It’s very cruel to make the lives of other loving couples — people who are probably people you know — your neighbors, part of your family — exponentially more difficult.

    10. Nan says:

      of course what ever

    11. Colin says:

      You are clearly the one who don’t understand.

  3. Gianni says:

    You don’t vote on how “you” feel. You represent your people. You vote on how “they” feel. Otherwise, get the hell out of office.

    1. mary says:

      Gianni, I could’nt of said it better myself!! Soooooo Sick of the rhetoric on this issue!!! Let the people VOTE!!!!! Live and Let Live!!

      1. Tom says:


        Then lets the citizens for vote for everything and not just certain things.

    2. stace34 says:

      Polls say the majoirty of people, the majority of Minnesotans do support Gay Marriage. So he did vote what they want. He is also an American who understand that we don’t discriminate in this country. Perhaps he may not have voted the way you want. Perhaps you approve of discrimination, but I don’t think the majority of Americans do.

      1. Jim says:

        Actually he didn’t vote for what Minnesotans want. According to you, he is against gay marriage because he doesn’t want the citizens to put down this law, but rather push it to the side till another governor who can sign it is in.

  4. another citisen says:

    no to marriage, you don’t have to be married to love someone.

    1. Chris says:

      Yes, we agree with that point…

      Mariage is to have kids? What am I missing?

      1. eastside_evil says:

        “Mariage is to have kids? What am I missing?”

        Chris, are you being serious?

        If you are, that is a lie.

      2. Tom says:


        Not every couple who marries want too have kids! Some can’t for medical reasons and choose not to. Do you an amendment for that next ?

  5. yep says:

    Look how young he is. It’s the old dried up prunes that are holding the country back.

  6. Brandon says:

    Where is the morality in keeping two consenting adults from having their love recognized by the state and be given the privileges afforded to married couples? How can what happens in someone else’s bedroom, not your own, even concern you?

  7. Max says:

    Sen Kriesel was a hero in Iraq and he continues to be a hero in St. Paul. A man of integrity! Bravo to him for standing up to the reactionaries who seem to dominate the state legislature these days.

  8. st paul says:

    There ya go – a GOP who supports it… now where is whats her name that was complaining yesterday that she hasn’t seen any support from a GOP…

    hmmmmm… interesting huh?

    1. Claire says:

      st paul,

      No kidding. Do you think any of the DFL would ever break from party lines? They all have the same bug eyed look as the Govenor

  9. Jim Kosmo says:

    John Kriesel is a true man’s man, and apparently the only Republican in St. Paul who is standing up for the Republican philisophy of keeping government out of people’s personal lives. Agree or disagree it’s great to see at least one legislator think for himself and not ask the party how to vote.

    1. Jake says:

      @Jim. The irony is that he is actually putting government into an area that it doesn’t currently get involved. As it stands, whether same-sex couples want to consider themselves “married” is a private matter. Now John wants the state to get involved and recognize same-sex couples as “married” as a legal matter.

      If you don’t consider the current recognition of only hetero couples as married to be fair, then getting government out of that business as well is the way to address the unfairness, not by more government intrusion by sanctioning (and requiring others to recognize) a new same-sex “marriage” as Rep. Kriesel wants to do.

      1. stace34 says:

        Why should some marriages of 2 consenting adults be recognized by the state and some not? Isn’t that the ver difinition of discrimination? Can we as Americans support discrimination? Isn’t that something we oppose? Are we not a land of equals? This is not a new definition of marriage. This is recognizing relationships that have always exhisted. We are just not catching up and facing this discrimination.

        1. Citizen says:

          stace34. In the GOP’s world someone always has to be a whipping boy. Right now its the gays’ turn. They need to put some class of people down to make themselves feel superior.

          1. Jake says:

            That’s just silly. O.k., so I want the government to pay my mortgage and send me on a vacation. What?!? They won’t do that? I guess I’m the new whipping boy.

            Nobody is going after same sex couples or trying to take away rights that currently exist. It is a matter of whether to create a new right – that is, to have a state sanctioned marriage of same sex couples entering a contract akin to currently recognized marriages of heterosexual marriages. And yes, Stace34, it would be discriminatory to the extent it provides an opportunity to everyone that not all people choose to take advantage of. To that extent, I am discriminated against by the fact that the state pays for and offers everyone the opportunity to go to Itasca State Park yet I am not interested in going there. We all may go there, some choose to go there, but I don’t. We all may marry someone of the opposite sex, some choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and some are not interested in marrying someone of the opposite sex. That is only discriminatory in preference, not rights.

            1. stace34 says:

              They are not asking for new right they are asking for equal rights. If we don’t support giving same sex couples the same opportunity to have their marriage recognized by the state then you are supporting discrimination against them. Either the state recognize all marriages between 2 consenting adults or the don’t recognize any.

              1. Al says:

                Stace34, you say that the Constitution guarentees that “all men are created equal…” which it does. However, you need to check you history books and you will see that this great country was founded on Christian values. In Cristianity they follow a book called the Bible. In that book it specifically states that “man shall not lay with man nor woman with woman…”. Just because the state refuses to honor these marriages doesn’t mean that you can’t go to another state and get “married”. Many benefits that are offered to married couples are already offered to same sex couples, so what’s everyone getting worked up about?

                1. Todd W. Olson says:

                  Where is Christianity mentioned in the Constitution, Al? As it happens, the Constitution does mention that religious tests are not applicable in public matters.

                2. stace34 says:

                  Actually if you know your history you would know how adimate our founding fathers were that our country not be based on any religion. That is why there is separation of church and state. No church should be able to force their personal beliefs in what they view as God’s plan on others. So perhaps you should learn about this geat countries history.

                  If you add the fact that some Christian churches accept and perform same sex marriages than supporting same sex marriage is in line with Christianity.

                3. stace34 says:

                  The bible contains 6 admonishments to same sex relationships and 362 admonishments to opposite sex relationships. That doesn’t mean God doesn’t love straight people. It just means they need more supervision.

                4. stace34 says:

                  Marriage means you have a say in medical decissions, you can be in the hospital room, you can inheirate your spouses assets without penalty, you are entitles to survivor benefits. The spouce can change their last name as part of the marriage without added expence. There are a lot of legal benefits to having a marriage recognized by the state. To act like there aren’t is rediculous.

                5. Rick Betts says:

                  Got some bad news for you, Al – The United States was not founded on Christian values. It was founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. The first European settlers here were seeking freedom from the oppressive Church of England, and they wanted to be able to live by the tenets of their own religious beliefs.

                  In case you ever come out of your cave, you will notice different religions and different sects (for lack of a better word) within these religions look at this issue differently. For example, the conservative Hasidic Jews – as shown by the Rabbi who testified the otehr day – seem to be against gay marriage. However, the Reform Jew congregations don’t seem to have a problem with it. Different segments of the over-arching Christian faith are the same way, some for and some against.

                  Unfortunately, people like you cannot separate RELIGION from REALITY. You are certainly entitled to live by the tenets of your faith, but you should also respect others’ faiths and points of view.

                6. eastside_evil says:

                  Al, your book has no bearing on the conversation.

                  You can’t force me to live my life based on YOUR beliefs. I don’t believe what you believe and you can’t legislate from the bible, no matter how you want your revisionist version of history to be told as a lie.

            2. Eliot says:

              I think I’m going to vomit…….not the same, dude! Its not taking away rights…..there are rights that Heteros have and Gays don’t……so simply make them equal.

        2. Tom says:


          Because the Social Conservatives just have a hard time dealing the changes in society. They want to keep everything status quo. They can’t understand why the rest of us don’t want to see society they way do, or chooose too see it the way they do. They think everybody would be much happier if they lived their lives like they do. But not everybody wants too be that nuts.

      2. eastside_evil says:

        No. John Kriesel DOESN’T want the state to get involved.

        How can we be this far into the issue and you still don’t even know what the issue is???

      3. eastside_evil says:

        “requiring others to recognize”

        In what way will you personally be “required” to do anything at all if gays can marry?

        Please be specific. If you have nothing, then retract your opposition.

    2. DJ says:

      Very well said. I’m all for less goverment which I’ve always thought was a core republican principle. There is absolutely no need for a constitutional amendment on marriage.

      1. Citizen says:

        @DJ. Less government is WHAT the GOP tells you it stands for. If you look at the reality of the laws enacted by GOP-led legislatures over the last decades since Ronald Reagan, you will see quite a different picture. The party is the party of hypocrisy.

  10. st paul says:

    Oh, it was Eastside-Evil who was looking for a GOP member who supported it…
    How ya feel now?


    1. eastside_evil says:

      Incorrect. I did not make that statement.

      1. st paul says:

        YES you did. YOU DID. YESTERDAY. On the floor vote page…
        Don’t deny it… YOU LIE.

        If there is one thing I hate most, it’s liars… don’t f-ing lie.

      2. st paul says:

        SOMEONE did.
        In that fairy throwing the glitter on Newt forum.

        This guy would get my vote in a second.

        1. eastside_evil says:

          No. I don’t care about politics enough and wouldn’t have wondered if a GOP member crossed party lines. Sorry. Wrong guy.

          Don’t accuse me of lying. Do the checking yourself next time before going off the deep end over nothing.

  11. stace34 says:

    Actually he knows what being a conservative really is. A party of small government should not advocate government interfearing in peoples personal lives. Where are your American values? Are we not the nation that said all men are created equal? Would you rather it say all are created equal as long as they fit into your view of who they should be? If you truly value a family you should value and support all forms of the family.

  12. PJ says:

    Bravo. A GOP rep. staying true to his party ideology: keeping government out of our private lives. I wish the rest would catch on and realize that conservative social issues may not be the best way to win the hearts of Republicans. This is an issue that crosses all party and demographic lines and it is too early to make a semi-permanent decision by embedding it in our constitution.

    1. Family Values says:

      The Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. Kriesel is violating God’s law by voting against the amendment.

      1. LP26 says:

        Really? Is your marriage going to be threatened if gays are someday allowed to marry?

      2. Hobbit says:

        The Bible also teaches us that Greed and Vanity are all sins. You want the State to pass some laws for these also? Truth is that we live in a country where the Bible does NOT dictate our laws. If you want that, feel free to move to Afghanistan.

  13. Brian says:

    Finally! A Republican that actually holds firm to the party’s belief in smaller government! Now fix the budget.

  14. Tom says:


    Good 4 U ! I wish you and your dog all the happiness in the world!

  15. Tom says:

    Family Values

    Yes he probably does have a Target on his back by people like you. And by the way Morality went out the window years ago, and the church lost their Morality a long time ago. People like you just have hard time letting go. Leave your little bubble and join the rest of us in the real world you will be much happier.

    But I will give him a little credit when he says he was elected to deal with economy not the social issues.

    1. Family Values says:

      The Bible teaches us that homosexuality is a sin. This nation is losing its way because it does not obey God’s word.

      1. Michael Koppelman says:

        But the greatest of these is love. Try it.

  16. Wow says:

    Yeah…except gay people aren’t animals. They are human beings like you and me. With thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, aspirations, etc.

    So nice you can find the tolerance, dignity and decent HUMANITY to treat your fellow man so kindly as to compare them to dogs.

    God bless you.

    1. Jake says:

      Are polygamists people with thoughts, feelings, emotions, dreams, aspirations, etc.? If this is about validating relationships rather than the longstanding family unit for child raising, why do we choose to only validate relationships that fit into our little box? How about bi-sexual people? Why would we make them choose only one person to love when they were born with an attraction to both genders? Seems pretty hypocritical.

      1. Chris says:

        Jake, this is about the state’s interest in monogomous two-parent households. That interest is advanced by allowing two people to marry one other person that they choose, regardless of gender. It has nothing to do with recognizing anything other than two-partner relationships, and you know it.

        And, by the way, bisexuals are just as capable of monogamy as anyone else. I don’t think they want you standing in as their disingenuous spokesperson. These straw man arguments only obscure the simple fact that what is being proposed here is UNNECESSARY legislation because same-sex partner marriage is already illegal in Minnesota, and serves only to further prove the point that gay men and women are the subject to hostile legal discrimination because they lack political power. Consequently, it is only making it all the more likely that these restrictions will be overturned as violation s of the guarantee of equal protection under the US Constitution.

        Best of luck in your polyamorous relationship, and your valiant fight for legal recognition thereof.

        1. Jake says:

          Thanks, Chris. Unfortuanately the odds against finding a SECOND person to love me are pretty unlikely. In any case, this is not about the family unit. What percentage of same-sex couples are custodial caregivers for minors? Sure, there are some, but it’s pretty small. Who is arguing that the lack of same-sex marriage is about aiding same sex couples to raise children? The argument has always been about “fairness” and “the same rights” and validation. And you know it.

          I suspect you know why a point would be put to a general vote rather than rely on current legislation. People who want access to the financial components of legally recognized marriage are a well-organized group that will undoubtedly capture the legislature to extend a new right to marry anyone of any gender. The current public opinion (disputed by the recent poll, of course) has been against extending legal recognition to same sex marriages. That, too, may change. The U.S. Constitution is silent on both marriage and sexual orientation, but I reckon someone can find these rights in the shadows or maybe an emanation of the document.

        2. Lindsey says:

          Why should it stop at two-person household? I grew up with polygamus families, underage/adult marriage, first cousins marriage that were perfectly healthy and normal. I also know of many hetro sexual couples that refuse to have anything to do with having a legal document determining their status.

          The underlying fight here is not legalizing marriage. It is acceptance. Marriage is not a right or a privledge but a preference. Marriage, now, is fit into the views of a Western lifestyle/philosophy. There is no denial of love, or of two people (regardless of gender) loving each other and having a home together. Quite frankly, even if you were trying ot brush off Jake’s comment as nonsensical, there will eventually be a flood gate of all types of relationships that want equal protection and acceptence as the rest.

          Love is a right, legal marriage is man-made.

      2. eastside_evil says:

        Jake, this is not a slippery slope here. Allowing gays to legally marry will not mean they will then want to marry animals or 14 people.

        Why can you not discuss the issue without lying? Is it because you know there’s no reason it shouldn’t be legal, but you still really hate gay sex? Is that what this is about for you?

        1. Jake says:

          I’m not saying gays would be inclined to polygamy (and I didn’t mention beastiality). How exactly am I lying? I posed a question. Chris raises a new argument that this is about same-sex couple raising children. Everyone else is talking about “fairness” and validation. When you talk validation and fairness, it inevitably brings up the issue of who gets to decide what is valid or fair. Can same sex brothers marry? There is no chance of inbreeding. It would only be your sense of “propriety” that might prevent you from supporting that right.

        2. Jake says:

          Um, how was I lying when I posed a question? When did I say I hate gay sex?

  17. Chris says:

    Please let me know when you can come over to my grandparent’s house and tell them how my uncle, their son, is like your dog.

  18. markH says:

    Family values- On exactly what authority do you claim that it is immoral to marry someone of the same sex? Where did you get that idea? Please resist the urge to lodge your argument the foundational texts of ancient belief systems and tell us all how you KNOW it is immoral? Perhaps it could be said that judging the private lives of others is an immoral affront to human decency and restraint, yet you haven’t even considered that perspective, have you? Peace.

  19. wondering says:

    It will be on the ballot and let the voters decide. I have heard the reason is the slippery slope concept…if men can marry men and women women…why can’t I marry my best friend and her husband…or perhaps several men..that sounds really fascinating. I am sure I can “love” a half dozen men. Will my rights be trampled?

    1. MikeL says:

      wondering…It’s time for a new argument, this one is old and outdated. Go ahead and marry a half dozen men, it certainly doesn’t impact me whatsover. Which is exactly the point, why do you care who I marry?

    2. stace34 says:

      This is the same argument that those who were against interracial marriage used. Way to recycle the hate.

      1. Me says:

        i agree about interracal marriage. I am in one and thinking on that is what convinced that people should be allowed to be married to the adult they love, even if of the same gender.

  20. Gayle says:

    Welcome to divorce court…the only people that will profit with be attorneys. Once Pandora’s box is opened you cannot slam it shut. They dream may not be all you thought it to be. rush out get married and then OOPS get a divorce lawyer, lose your home, pay child support, lose you insurance (yes that will be GONE) the US has made consessions, domestic partners can have med ins, only if you are the same sex, I think that is discrimination, who are you to say the definition of domestic partner, who are you to tell me I HAVE TO GET MARRIED if I don’t want to. Jump in let the divorces commmence that should even it all out. Sorry but once you can you may choose not to and wish you had left it alone.

    1. MikeL says:

      Who tells you that you have to get married? I don’t know of any law requiring marrige. However, I should have the choice if I want to get married and to whom. If I decide to get divorced like almost half of all heterosexual couples (because that certainly speaks volumes about the sanctity of marriage in this day and age), that should also be my choice.

      1. Gayle says:

        Well I guess it is a big deal..concessions have been made for those who feel slighted cause they couldn’t get married. Many millions of $$$ have been spent , so once the state votes on it then hopefully this will all be put to rest for good and not have to be discussed in the state of MN again. I agree immensely let the people of the state of MN speak loud and clear with their vote, but if it is deemed one man and one woman then it needs to be over, if it is deemed persons of either or the same sex then again let it be done and over.

    2. eastside_evil says:

      Gayle, what in the hell are you talking about?

      Seriously…. Make an effort to say something cogent, will you please?

  21. Dave says:

    Your dog can never be a consenting adult. No child can be one either
    Nice try.

  22. Josh says:

    We are only a few days away from a special session because our representatives can’t agree on a budget bill, yet creating an amendment defining marriage is their first concern? On top of that if we go to a special session these jerks still get paid. If I didn’t get my job done on time I would be fired.

    I think some priorities need to be re-examined here.

  23. MikeL says:

    Jake – please just go away. Your continued blabbering to every comment only shows how small minded and incredibly arrogant you are. You are now comparing the right of a (or lack there of) gay couple to marry vs. visiting a state park. Really?

    1. MikeL says:

      Who here is not being honest that the right to marry should be extended to permit anyone, gay or straight, to marry someone of the same gender. I think that is the point of everyone opposing this amendment. No argument needed. No reason needed. I don’t need to justify who I love to anyone.

      I personally think your point of ‘splitting hairs’ in this argument comes across as condescending, and I don’t take it as a compliment.

      1. Jake says:

        Well, I certainly didn’t mean to insult you, if that is implied by you not taking a compliment. You do, however, already have the right to love whoever you want to. There is no “love requirement” for a legally-recognized marriage. You and I just disagree about the benefit to subsidizing same-sex couples as a matter of course in the absence of children. That doesn’t make a person antagonistic toward same sex couples.

    2. T-Rock says:

      Wow Jake, usually anti-gay marriage advocates aren’t as well written as you, so props to that.

      I’m curious, with over 50% of heterosexual marriages ending up in divorce, what exactly are you trying to protect? The institution of marriage is no longer sacred, in fact, it’s a complete joke now.

      Do you also realize that due to MN’s large gay community, new wedding registrations with the state would increase revenue? Not to mention gay weddings would inject a whole new consumer base to wedding retailers.

      I’m assuming you are a Republican. How do you feel that the GOP gets the majority elected by stumping on jobs and the economy, then turn right back to their pathetic attempts as social engineering? Was this what you voted for? Do abortions and gay marriage affect you on a daily basis?

      1. Jake says:

        T-Rock, you came so close to a reasoned debate and then fell into the name calling and adjectives. Anyway, you make a big assumption that I support the subsidies for hetero married couples. I don’t. I believe people should make their life decisions for the right reasons and be prepared to support those decisions with their own efforts and income. I support certain subsidies to any couple (whatever the relationship) that is responsible for custodial care of a minor child or adult with special needs. Everything else, such as health care decision making, inheritance, etc., should be available to people by contract (as it almost all is). After that, government should not be in the business of validating (or preventing) voluntary relationships.

        We used to legislate against divorce and adultery, but that stopped working, if it ever did work. The world has changed, and the traditional family unit is not nearly so prevalent. We should change our policy of subsidy to reflect this by focusing on child raising. A blanket extension of these subsidies to same sex couples takes us farther from a sensible policy and reasoned role for government, not closer.

        My partisan leanings have no bearing on the validity (or lack thereof) of my argument (nor do you know what they are). Focus on the message, not the messenger, and we will arrive at a better place as a society.

  24. Dave says:

    On a personal level I am against same-sex marriage, so I guess I won’t ever marry a man.

    Still, I see no real harm to allow it to exist.

    1. M B says:

      Most of these are RELIGIOUS arguments. MY religion says this, so all of you should follow it. I am a christian and I think this type of forcibly conformative mentality is anti-christian. If, say, muslims were here demanding us to conform to their religion, we’d be freaking out.

      As long as you’re not hurting anybody in the process, either financially, emotionally or physically, I don’t care what you do. I know this is an abhorrent concept to most conservative bible thumpers, but it is what I believe.

      If you want to marry someone of the same gender, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody, then go for it. If you are able to love multiple men or women, as long as they’re all consenting and know about the situation, the relationship doesn’t hurt anyone, and anyone can leave without repercussion, I don’t care if you do it. More power to you. I personally don’t think I could keep multiple women happy, but I’m not going to care if you can. The bad thing comes when anyone is forced into one of these situations. I doubt any of these gay marriages are being entered into under any duress other than what our society places on them with religious, narrow minded objections.

    2. Sam says:

      That’s exactly how I feel. I have no opinion on same-sex marriage and whether it is legalized or not isn’t going to affect people like you and me. I just don’t see a need to put it into the constitution so I plan on voting against it.

  25. Bryan says:

    Lets look at this from a different vantage.
    1. Republicans are generally in support of small government.
    2. Small government means that there is less influence of the government on our personal lives and decisions, including business, etc…
    3. Imposing a law that says you cannot marry who you want to is a direct violation of your personal rights and life.

    So if you support small government then this bill should be killed. Otherwise your for big government and should switch to being a democrat, in which case you’ll want this bill killed too because democrats can actually think logically.

    Or the third decision in which your a hypocrite, racist, and more than likely a religious zealot in which case you can go f yourself.

  26. Jack says:

    wonder why Pat did not do a story on LeRoy Stumpf (DFL Sen) who voted for the bill in the senate last week? He bucked his party too

  27. God says:

    Just say no to gay marriage……enough is enough….this Nation has very little values and honor left……I am sick of the “few” running the show! Lest vote on the whole glitter gang marriage…..I think the “few” will be surprised on how little the “Most” care about them and their little bags of glitter……I hear California is always open to the whole “gay” thing…….and God knows that state is doing well……

    1. B says:

      Wow do you have an ego to call yourself God. BTW, minnesota has the most gay people per population than any state, and yes, MN is doing great. Don’t know what box you crawled out of, but you should crawl back in and shutup.

      1. Dave says:

        Don’t worry,

        He’s going to be busy at 6:00 pm Saturday, trying to find rooms for all the millions of new tenants. (snark)

        1. Jake says:

          That got a chuckle out of me, Dave. Good stuff. 🙂

          P.S. You should sell me your motorcycle cheap. You only have two days to ride it, and it looks like rain.

    2. eastside_evil says:

      Values? What are you even talking about?

      Why do you get to choose the values of someone else? It doesn’t work that way.

      The majority does not exist to suppress the minority.

      YOU are the one in the wrong country.

    3. stace34 says:

      If another religion other than your was trying to force their beliefs on you by making them law or ammending the constituion you would be screaming about separation of church and state and not having the right to imposereligous beleifs on you. Plus if you were truly a Christian you would never have used the name of God in vane.

  28. Steve says:

    I think Jake had a good question, but no one from the gay community had an answer. Why are you limiting your desire to have gay marriages to not include someone to have 2 wives? Don’t throw out insults. Just explain why your boy-boy or girl-girl relationship takes priority over my girl-boy-girl family. They are out there. Look at charlie sheen.

    Also, how do propose to handle school locker rooms? Can you shower with your boyfriend, while my girl friend is in the other locker room?

    1. B says:

      Ahh Steve, your pea minded brain is to small to think clearly. First of all, there are many more gay couples than there are people with two wives or husbands. I am sure that if a large portion of the population started to have more than one wife and more than one husband than the issue would be raised as it is now with homosexual relationships. I can’t even beleive you bring up charlie sheen, he has tiger blood and therefore is not human.
      This subject has to do with the states interference in peoples lives, not school locker room etiquette. Nowhere in the bill does it state anything about locker rooms. Are you stupid by choice?

    2. eastside_evil says:

      Are you being serious, Steve?

      Good grief. Nobody is asking for multiple wives. Stay on topic or just go away.

      Showering in school locker rooms is really your argument?

      I can’t believe morons like you can even find their way to a news website in the first place.

      1. Steve says:

        Just like I thought, no one can answer my question…just name calling. Thanks for proving my point, evil.

        1. MikeL says:

          Steve – I can answer your question as a person from the gay community. I don’t care if you marry girl-boy-girl…its none of my business. And therefore, its really none of your business who I marry. I don’t understand why everyone who opposes gay marriage poses this argument. If you want to present the option to your state representative to legalize polygamy, I say good for you! I’d support it. Why? Because it has NOTHING to do with me. I’m certainly not a hypocrite.

          As for the locker room argument…I have nothing against co-ed locker rooms really. I say let’s start an amendment to require integration, not segregation. However, I don’t think you’d want dirty old straight men peeping at your tween daughters in the shower.

          So let’s be real, neither of these are really valid arguments unless you are 100% vested in following them through. And if you are, contact me and I’ll throw my support behind you.

        2. Good Ol Boy says:

          It’s because your question was so dumb, Steve. Let’s be honest here. You think boys will start popping wood in showers now if we legalize gay marriage? What?

    3. stace34 says:

      Way to recycle the same rhetoric that was used to justify people being against interracial marriages. I guess when the hate is good it is timeless isn’t it.

  29. liberal elite says:

    I see it took two comments for someone to compare it to marrying a dog. Right. And we all want to legalize pot because it will also legalize heroin. Stay in school.

    1. z says:

      Some heterosexuals marry dogs anyway… 🙂 ha ha!

  30. jack says:

    why do we not allow 1st counsins to marry in Minnesota- why is there no outrage over that? other states allow it

    1. Dave says:


      Were your parents 1st cousins who had to marry elsewhere?

      1. jack says:

        thanks for catching my typo now please reply to the question

        1. M B says:

          The reasoning behind it is due to inherited genetic deficiencies being caused by inbreeding. These laws were written before DNA was even discovered so I am unsure as to why they haven’t been revisited. I believe they looked at some of the defects European royalty had in the course of their inbreeding and decided that it should be illegal “for the protection of the people”. The last queen mum lived to be over a hundred years old, so it can’t be all bad.

          1. Jack says:

            what about gay 1st Cousins? would we allow them to marry since they can not have children? or would we discrimate against them because hetrosexual cousins are not allowed to marry? when we start re writting laws we have to think of all the little things that change as well

            1. Good Ol Boy says:

              How many gay 1st cousins are waiting to get married to each other, Einstein. You cannot invent some strange slippery slope argument that has never existed and try to make us all believe it will come to fruition if something unrelated is not restricted.

              They want to marry their partner. They’re not dogs, horses, children to molest, 14 people, or their 1st cousins. Please stay on topic.

    2. stace34 says:

      Again, way to recycle the same rhetoric that was used to justify people being against interracial marriages. I guess when the hate is good it is timeless isn’t it.

  31. eastside_evil says:

    “why do we not allow 1st counsins to marry in Minnesota- why is there no outrage over that? other states allow it”

    Stay on topic.

    That is not the debate here.

    1. jack says:

      once you start re-defining marriage there is no stopping

  32. jack says:

    Subdivision 1. General.
    (a) The following marriages are prohibited: in Minnesota
    (1) a marriage entered into before the dissolution of an earlier marriage of one of the parties becomes final, as provided in section 518.145 or by the law of the jurisdiction where the dissolution was granted;
    (2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption;
    (3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures; and
    (4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
    (b) A marriage entered into by persons of the same sex, either under common law or statute, that is recognized by another state or foreign jurisdiction is void in this state and contractual rights granted by virtue of the marriage or its termination are unenforceable in this state.
    Subd. 2. Developmentally disabled persons; consent by commissioner of human services.
    Developmentally disabled persons committed to the guardianship of the commissioner of human services and developmentally disabled persons committed to the conservatorship of the commissioner of human services in which the terms of the conservatorship limit the right to marry, may marry on receipt of written consent of the commissioner. The commissioner shall grant consent unless it appears from the commissioner’s investigation that the marriage is not in the best interest of the ward or conservatee and the public. The local registrar in the county where the application for a license is made by the ward or conservatee shall not issue the license unless the local registrar has received a signed copy of the consent of the commissioner of human services.

    All marriages which are prohibited by section 517.03 shall be absolutely void, without any decree of dissolution or other legal proceedings; except if a person whose husband or wife has been absent for four successive years, without being known to the person to be living during that time, marries during the lifetime of the absent husband or wife, the marriage shall be void only from the time that its nullity is duly adjudged. If the absentee is declared dead in accordance with section 576.142, the subsequent marriage shall not be void.

    609.365 INCEST
    Whoever has sexual intercourse with another nearer of kin to the actor than first cousin, computed by rules of the civil law, whether of the half or the whole blood, with knowledge of the relationship, is guilty of incest and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years

    1. M B says:

      Okay, having verified 517.03 with the state, I have to ask one question:

      Is the GOP stupid? It’s already illegal, why would they “ban” something that’s already illegal unless they were either so incompetent as to not bother checking the pre-existing laws or they are just trying to distract us from the budget problem by rubbing this in our faces.

      Shouldn’t this be an outcry against legalizing gay marriages instead of banning it?

      Actually, I know the reason: the law can be changed and they are deathly afraid it will be and disrupt their nice ordered control of the system. The constitution would be much harder to change.

      I hope the voters on Minnesota vote this ban down and recall our politicians that waste our time with things like this when they should be focusing on more important things.

    2. Alert U says:

      Why can’t we do change. When Obama was born; half the States in the Union had a ban on inter-racial marriage. It looks more and more this new Tea/Gop Party agenda is to roll America back to the repeal of the 14th Amendment and then some.

    3. stace34 says:

      Back in the day there were laws on the books that made interracial marriages illegal. They could be quoted as well. In fact they were. How proud you must be to rehashing the same tactics that have been used to justify discrimination in the past? You can stand proudly by those who in the past stood against civil and equal rights for our citizens.

  33. B says:

    Does anyone else stop to think that while everyone is in an uproar about the assault on our personal lives that the GOP is also doing dubious things with the budget. Could this be just a distractor to keep us busy while they put budget policies in place to further destroy us? Can we just get rid of the GOP and send them all to Texas and let them seperate from us? PLEASE!!!!!?????

    1. JB says:

      B, Unlike a democrat, if that is what the majority wanted, I would gladly move. BUT I am an independent, so based on my values, where would you MAKE ME LIVE? Since I am not a republican, Texas and much or the south woudl be out, and I most certainly am not a liberal, so there Goes much of the north, East and West. So, where exactly woudl you seggregate me to?

      1. B says:

        How about the bahamas? Does that sound like fun? I’ll come visit on occassion too and we can argue over margaritas. 🙂

      2. Stephanie Levasseur-Duszynski says:

        Go wherever you want. No one cares.

    2. eliot says:

      Texas has enough of GOP……how about sending them to reside next to a plutonium waste site.

  34. Ron says:

    he is a one term RINO! Time to toss him back to the spanker ward….

    1. stace34 says:

      Ron, Actually he is a real conservative that believes in small government. I thought the GOP was all about government staying out of peoples personal lives? I thought they wanted less government interference in our personal lives? But I guess that only counts when what we do in our personal lives fits into a narrow view. If 2 consenting adults want to marry why should the government be involved again? How is interfering in the personal relationship of these 2 consenting adults small government?

  35. matt says:

    Ban gay marriage; it is a sacrament of the holy church that should never be changed. Allow civil unionship! Everybody wins, benefits for all, and we’ll have something that is actually important utilizing out tax dollars.

    1. stace34 says:

      Separate but equal? Wow you should be proud to stand by those who in the past has argued separate but equal right?

    2. Good Ol Boy says:

      Not a valid argument.

  36. Telling it like it is says:

    If two people are into each other…good. Marriage has never been recognized between anyone other than a man and a woman. The good book says so. The problem with this homosexual thing is that once married, they want all the bene’s that would be given to your heterosexual spouse. It is not a recognized, normal marriage in the eyes of the state and MOST people. If they want to live together for life…good for them, and that is just fine. When the legal stuff starts about which spouse gets what and for how long, that is the part that separates the fact that the two people involved are not legally married in the eyes of MOST churches, and MOST people…not to mention insurance companies.

  37. Hypocrites says:

    If we’re going to have a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, we need to ban adultury and divorce as well. Pretty sure God doesn’t like those either.

  38. Cassie says:

    God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam Steve!!

    1. eastside_evil says:

      Cassie, that is not a valid argument, kiddo.

      Who created gays? What should be done with them? Please be specific.

    2. MikeL says:

      Adam and Steve? Really Cassie, enough with the imbecile comments.

  39. Lindsey says:

    To Jake… You ROCK!!! You are on *key* to hitting all the issues. Other’s cannot deny.
    Bottom line, the Gay community are hurt for not having their love recognized in a legal/acceptable matter.

    1. stace34 says:

      Way to recycle the same rhetoric that was used to justify people being against interracial marriages. I guess when the hate is good it is timeless isn’t it. You should stand proud about your belief that it is “hurt” that their relationships are not recognized is the issue and not Civil and equal rights. History shows who you stand with. Are you proud of the fact that your arguements are the same as those who stood against interracial marriage?

    2. MikeL says:

      Lindsey…you are absolutely right! The gay community is hurt for not having their love recognized in a legal/acceptable manner. You’re an Einstein, you actually get it! I think that is the whole point of the gay community opposing this amendment.

      Yes Jake, now that was me being condescending.

      1. Jake says:

        @Lindsey. Thanks! (I think.) @MikeL. Here’s the deal. Your point of the gay community being hurt is a fair one, but it does not lead to the assumption that providing same-sex couples the benefits historically provided to heterosexual married couples is the best “legal/acceptable manner.” Certainly the parts of contracting for access, decision-making, name change (if desired), and inheritance make sense. The subsidies involved do not make sense in the absence of kids. They likewise do not make sense for non-child rearing hetero couples, which warrants a change to the current state of the law.

        I’m not convinced you are in a position to be condescending.

        1. stace34 says:

          it is not that hard for same sex couples to have children. It is done the same way that many opposite sex couples that can’t have children do it. So if a same sex couple is able to have children the same way opposite sex couples do then their marriage should be recognized?

  40. Way to Go says:

    Whose to say what is moral. How does two people loving each other become immoral when, at one time, owning another human was moral. I’m so proud of John…

  41. DETROIT JOHN says:

    As soon as we get the gay thing straighten out we can start on the trans-gender.,Because they have rights ! Oh and dont foreget about the ‘CHILD MOLESTERS” they have sexual rights also (they were born that way). So let me see can a transgender male(use to be a woman) marry a gay female? Or does it have to be the otherway around? Ah its all so confusing!

  42. wh says:

    Very happy to see an independent thinker voting for what is right. Enshrining discrimination in the constitution is just plain wrong.

  43. Ruth says:

    Here we are at the end of another legislative session and this is what’s important. Come on marriage is not something that should be on the ballot. Marriage between one man and one woman; only.