ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) — The Independence Party of Minnesota is opposing a 2012 ballot measure that would ban gay marriage in the state constitution.

IP Chairman Mark Jenkins says the party will join a coalition working to defeat the constitutional amendment on same-sex marriage because its platform opposes government-imposed values or morality. He is urging people to volunteer to defeat the gay marriage ban.

Next year’s statewide vote on gay marriage is expected to draw big money from both sides to Minnesota as social conservatives and gay rights activists face off.

The Independence Party is one of three major parties in the state, along with the GOP and Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

Comments (68)
  1. gdog says:

    I don’t see why anyone thinks this is a ban on gay marriage. Instead, it’s just stating that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. However, I personally would not mind the wording to be between 2 non-related consenting adults. I think that’s more important so we don’t loose the true meaning of marriage in this country.

    1. Galbraith says:

      Why can’t they be related? Can related people consent to contracts with each other?

      1. gdog says:

        I assume you have no fear of children being born with birth defects. I give up, marry whoever or whatever you want. We’re turning into a 3rd world country faster than you can say I now pronounce you man/wife/brother/sister.

        1. Elton J. says:

          That’s the point. Same sex couples can’t have kids, so why not two brothers if they are in love? But then how can brothers marry, but not a brother and a sister? That would be discriminatory.

          This whole debate has completely missed the point of marriage as a family/procreation unit. That was why we had the original subsidies and other provisions. Now people who are no longer prohibited from “loving” whoever they want are demanding ratification and subsidizing their relationships. It’s about money and, to a large extent, asserting political muscle.

          The sad part is that the opponents of extending the definition of marriage are also largely anti-gay, and they come off as intolerant. One can be supportive of gay rights and still not think the definition of marriage needs to be expanded, but that viewpoint never sees the light of day.

          1. Botanist says:

            Nor should it see the light of day.

            There are no negative impact possibilities that have been demonstrated by gay marriage.

          2. Botanist says:

            Also, please show me examples of gay brothers trying to fight for their right to be married to one another.

            Otherwise just admit you came up with the stupidest possible off-topic example you could think of.

            1. C Darwin says:

              As for your comment below, Botany Boy, I suppose saying someone “lacks intelligence” wouldn’t be insulting if you hear it from a lot of people. For the rest of us, it smacks of an insult.

              I’m typing this slowly, so maybe you’ll get it. The world is changing not because people are suddenly gay, but because at one time the vast majority of children were raised in families with heterosexual, married parents. That is why the state recognized the marriages and provided subsidies. If you cannot or will not grasp that historical fact, there’s no point engaging the discussion with you, although I suspect there never was.

              And I did not insult your wife. Ask someone to explain the comment about her being low on air. Don’t ask your plants, either. The rest of us cannot hear them talk, and they wouldn’t get it, anyway, because plants don’t have bachelor parties.

              1. Botanist says:

                Botany Boy? LOL

                Type even slower, can you? I’m having difficulties translating from Idiotese.

                1. C Darwin says:

                  You must have been a complete terror on your school bus.

                2. Botanist says:

                  School bus?

                  They didn’t have buses when I went to school. Laura Ingalls’ Pa took us in the back of his wagon, don’tcha know…

          3. Lisa says:

            @ Elton J. … so if you are not able to have kids, lets say because you are sterile, or simply don’t want to, then that people should not be allowed to marry, then we need to change to definition of marriage, to procreation agreement, not a love between 2 people

            1. B and H Clinton says:

              There’s no love requirement in the marriage statute.

              1. Lisa says:

                Of course there is… and as far as I know there is not a procreation requirement in the marriage statute either

                1. Huh? says:

                  Where is it? Just checked the statute. Nothing.

          4. Dave's Not Here says:

            Your incest suggestion is just plain uneducated… Like your other comments.

            In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition. However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are 18 years of age or older. Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years’ imprisonment for those engaging in sexual activities with relatives closer than first cousins and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for “sexual penetration” with certain blood relatives and in-laws.

            In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins, although Rhode Island allows uncles to marry their nieces if they are part of a community, such as orthodox Jews, for whom such marriages are permitted. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.

            1. Elton J. says:

              What’s your point?

        2. American says:

          Gdog,you hit the nail on the head!

    2. Botanist says:

      What’s the “true meaning of marriage in this country” and who got to decide?

      1. C Darwin says:

        How does biology determine who can link up to produce children, and who got to decide?

        1. Botanist says:

          This is not a discussion about producing children.

          Again, what is the true meaning of marriage “in this country” and who got to decide for all of us?

          1. C Darwin says:

            It is about producing children. That’s fundamental to the history and purpose of subsidizing the parent who stays home to raise the children. It was not because heterosexuals needed someone else to legitimize their relationship to make it meaningful.

            This demand for same sex marriage is about money without any public benefit from the subsidy.

            1. Botanist says:

              No public benefit need be demonstrated.

              My wife and I are not going to produce children together and we are not having either one of us stay home to raise the children we have.

              But THIS is the comment that clues me in to your lack of intelligence and your bitterness against gays and gay sex:

              “This demand for same sex marriage is about money without any public benefit from the subsidy.”

              The classic claim that gays want money, and that’s why they want to be able to marry. Why do hetero couples get money then? Should that money be taken from heteros or should the opportunity for it be also given to gays.

              You argue it should only be for heteros but have no idea why.

              It’s comical really. Keep going. This is hilarious.

              1. C Darwin says:

                You are awfully quick to go with the ad hominem attacks, which, being so smart, you realize is not a hallmark of intelligence on your part. You also apparently are better with botany than anthropology (likely because plants can’t walk away when you’re blabbing on and on). The history and purpose of state recognition of marriage is pretty straightforward. Has the world changed? Yes, but that does not ergo call for an expansion of the benefit. Perhaps it justifies pulling back the old one, but it does not ipso facto justify creating a new one.

                You might want to check on your “wife.” She looks a little low on air.

                1. Botanist says:

                  “The history and purpose of state recognition of marriage is pretty straightforward.”

                  And that purpose is what? Not to create a breeding environment. A marriage is a state-sanctioned business agreement.

                  “Has the world changed? Yes, but that does not ergo call for an expansion of the benefit.”

                  The world has not changed, as you state. Gays are not a new 20th century development, like the microwave.

                  And, predictably, you try to accuse me of insulting you (I didn’t) and then spend an inordinate amount of time insulting me, and even going so far as to insult my wife?

                  Come on. Be more than just another stupid kid for once, you idiot.

    3. Dave's Not Here says:

      “Instead, it’s just stating that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.”

      Who decided we should “state” that to begin with, and why?

    4. Iconoclast says:

      As a gay man in a longterm (14 years) relationship with Bruce,my domestic partner,I am simply appalled that in the year 2011 we still have not earned the equal rights we march in protest for year after year.

      1. Kilroy says:

        Iconoclast, you and Bruce each have the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. You always have. That’s the same right as everyone else, hence equal.

    5. Little Tin God says:

      So having wording in the state constitution that says marriage is defined as that between 1 man and 1 woman isn’t banning marriage between 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman? Not sure where you got your education, but you should go get your money back. You failed.

      1. A E Neuman says:

        So, if I fly a kite without the state recognizing that I am flying the kite, am I actually flying the kite? I’m pretty sure I can fly a kite even if the state doesn’t recognize it.

        1. Iconoclast says:

          Then to be fair, no kite flying should be recognized for anybody. Right?

  2. soapboxgod says:

    As a crucial point of information, there is no such thing as “gay” rights. There are only individual rights. Individuals have the right to contract with other individuals and the proper role of government is to uphold said contracts not set the terms of those contracts.

    Understanding this, I will be voting NO on the Constitutional Amendment.

  3. J Ventura says:

    Independence Party is DFL-Lite. Always has been, always will be.

  4. Kevin says:

    I just became an Independent…….

  5. melo says:

    Understanding this, I will be voting YES on the Constitutional Amendment.

  6. John Q says:

    The issue of defining marriage is not about legislating morality. Nobody is making consensual sex between same-sex partner illegal. THAT would be legislating morality. The issue is whether the state should recognize additional relationships as “marriages” for the purpose of subsidies and automatic contractual provisions.
    If Jonathan and Trevor want to shack up, that’s their business.

    1. Iconoclast says:

      The problem with that theory is that the underlying theme they’re pushing is that being gay is wrong, else why would they not allow them to marry?

      1. commonsense says:

        How about we leave the word “marriage” out of it since that’s basically a religious term anyway and just call it what it is – a civil commitment – what’s marriage besides a commitment – that way the church can calm down

      2. John Q says:

        That’s a question set up to answer itself, but it isn’t the question here. You can’t legislate that same-sex relationships are “right” but that is exactly what a demand for changing the definition of marriage is intended to do. If the state stopped recognizing heterosexual marriages, how many legitimate heterosexual marriages would end. Probably none. They aren’t great relationships because of state recognition any more than yours with Bruce is invalid because the state does not recognize it as a marriage.

        We can go on about rights all we want, but that doesn’t change the historical basis of recognizing marriage as the family unit that produces and raises children. Are children produced and raised outside marriage? Yes. Are there marriages without children? Yes. But that doesn’t change the purpose for state recognition. The gay marriage debate is about changing the question to one that is not relevant to the purpose of recognizing marriage in the first place.

        1. Iconoclast says:

          Gays can be parents. Gays can be teachers. Gays can be committed spouses and can raise children together. What is the state’s motivation for NOT recognizing them please?

  7. Max says:

    A number of you miss the point. The vote will be whether or not to constitutionally ban same0sex marriage in Minnesota.If the proposed amendment is defeated, gay marriage will not be legal in Minnesota, it will simply not be banned by our state constitution. Making gay marriage legal in MN would require either an action by the courts or by the state legislature and governor.

    1. Botanist says:

      Nobody’s missing that point, Einstein. There’s always someone who thinks they know it all that needs to chime in with that comment.

      Yes, we get it. Thanks.

      1. Phloemologist says:

        Botanist, you are so angry. I’m pretty sure you and Max are on the same side.

        1. Botanist says:

          Your false assumption leads me to believe you suffer from classic narcissism. What you are witnessing is not anger. It’s disbelief coupled with ridicule.

          1. Mother Theresa says:

            Mr. Botanist, you have been fighting with every other poster on this blog. Why are you so upset? Peace be with you, my child. I hope one day you will find inner strength and meaning to allow you to think critically and accept others’ arguments with an open an analytical mind that does not jump to hateful attacks. Your vitriol will do little to convince others to see you as a valuable member of the discussion, which is a shame, because I am sure at some level you might have something valuable to add.

            1. Botanist says:

              I think you have a distorted and inaccurate definition of “fighting” locked away in what I will loosely term your brain.

              1. Ghandi says:

                Wow. There is just no helping you.

                1. Botanist says:

                  No help is being sought.

    2. Min says:

      That point does not appear to be missed. First, the ban would not prohibit same-sex couples from being couples or being “married” in whatever fashion they choose. It’s a matter of whether the state will recognize those marriages for the purpose of financial benefits and automatic legal rights that are already available to same-sex couples through other means, such as wills and health care directives.

      The point of the amendment is that people are concerned that groups with financial and other motives to see same-sex couples get those financial incentives will be able to capture the legislature and governor on this issue (or a judge could require same-sex couple recognition by a strained reading of the Minnesota Constitution) despite a majority of Minnesotans opposing that recognition and subsidy. To overturn it, the majority of Minnesotans would have to vote to repeal the amendment.

      1. Botanist says:

        I think the part that normal sane people are questioning, is why is this even brought up to debate at all? Who cares about this so much to begin with, that they need to stop all government in MN so they can talk about whether being gay is ok or not? And don’t be fooled, being gay is what is being debated here. You can say it’s just marriage that straights don’t want to give gays, but ultimately it is their disdain for gays themselves that fuel their rage.

        1. Shawn White says:

          Not really. One does not have to have animosity toward gays to disagree that the government must sanction same-sex marriages.

          @Botanist, would you send me $1,000.00 so I can go snowboarding this winter? No? Your disdain for us snowboarders is clearly fueling your rage in refusing to subsidize my personal preference . . . .

          1. Botanist says:

            This is the stupidest validation for restricting the rights of American citizens that I’ve ever heard. Your analogy is without thought, creativity, or relevancy to the subject.

            Go back to your xbox and let the grown-ups talk, kiddo.

            1. Shawn White says:

              Your hate is overwhelming.

      2. Hey Zeus! says:

        Min…a majority of Minnesotans are not in favor of the amendment. At best, Minnesotans appear to be evenly split and there may even be a slight advantage going to those that oppose the amendment. However, when polls are broken down by age groups, the younger generation is clearly opposed to such an amendment and have a much more positive attitude towards same-sex marriage which means it is only a matter of time. Regardless, the states can pass or not pass whatever they like as this issue will invariably be resolved in the US Supreme Court when they address equal protection under the law as stated in the 14th amendment.

        1. Min says:

          Then you have nothing to worry about.

  8. Hey Zeus! says:

    I just found this fun fact ( According to a recent poll in Mississippi, 46% of Mississippi Republicans said interracial marriage should be illegal to just 40% who think it should continue to be legal. They must still be sore from the 1967 US Supreme Court ruling that voided their anti-miscegenation laws. They’re really going to pop a collective bolt when the Supreme court eventually voids their same-sex marriage ban. Sucks to be small-minded and intolerant.

    1. Botanist says:

      That’s brilliant to compare opposition to expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples to racism in Mississippi. Is that the same as suggesting all gays are members of NAMBLA?

      1. Botanist says:

        Very clever to try and use this moniker. I’ll just use a different one from this comment forward. Have a ball. I can see this is what you do when you have no valuable input…

        1. Botanist says:

          Sometimes it’s hard to know where I end and the Rhododendrons begin.

  9. Recriminator says:

    IP chairman must be brain dead. He doesnt want govt to impose morality against gay marriage, but its ok if the govt approves gay marriage. The hypocrisy never ceases with these morons.

  10. mart says:

    Romans 1
    27 …men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

  11. tom says:

    Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, not 1 man and 1 man or 1 woman and 1 woman, that is not the way it is. it is perverted.. If it was legal for q ueers to get married obama and holder would be married already.

  12. Iconoclast says:

    Should gays be allowed to be daycare providers?

    How about Kindergarden teachers?

    Pediatrician? Do you think it should be illegal for me, a gay man, to examine your 8 year old son for normal physical progressions?

    1. sad but true says:

      Architect, my answer is NO, it shouldn’t be illegal. I do admire your point on the topic!

  13. Big D says:

    Why do gays always try to “force” things down your throat?

  14. @ Botanist says:

    this fool really needs to find some peace in his life..he’s gonna explode from self-hatred,you can just feel it in his rantings,he’s frothing at the mouth over all things Gay..I’ll bet his wife just hates being in the same room as him..What an ugly personality.

  15. eurobrat says:

    If the concept of marriage is still based on procreation, then I believe the state should change what it bases marriage on, since this is an outdated idea of marriage. I know many married couples who are choosing not to procreate, for various reasons. Marriage is above all a financial and insurance partnership in which the two partners support each other. Whether or not children are added to the mix is a separate issue.

  16. ed says:

    I love my grandma. I think I am going to marry her.