FALCON HEIGHTS, Minn. (WCCO) — It was a cool and pleasant day for most people attending the Minnesota State Fair on Sunday, but a few people got hit by a pop-up shower of a sort.

Gay rights activists dumped a bunch of glitter from the Skyride yesterday, and the glitter landed on the Minnesota for Marriage booth.

The people behind the booth want a constitutional amendment defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman.

Gay rights activists were upset about the fair’s inclusion of the booth and screamed, “Where’s our booth?”

They also shouted, “Equality for all.”

The group claims they were denied a booth at the fair but officials say that’s simply not true.

Chris Plante heard through the grapevine that his group may become a target at the State Fair. He is a member of Minnesota for Marriage, which supports marriage strictly between a man and a woman. And right before he showed up yesterday, his booth got “glitter bombed.”

“We understood it might happen,” he said. “Quite honestly, it says more about the other side. We are here exercising our right and that says more about the tolerance from the other side.”

Nick Espinosa organized Sunday’s “Glitter Raid,” and it’s not the first time. In May, he glittered Newt Gingrich when he was in town because he said Gingrich is against marriage for everyone.

“It’s nice for us to see that with just a few bags of glitter and some creativity, we are bringing up serious issues to voters,” he said. “Yeah, we are excited about it.”

Espinosa calls his group “The Glitterati.” He said Sunday’s glittering was organized because a group called Minnesotans United for All Families was denied a booth.

“Glitter just seemed like a fitting response,” he said.

On their Facebook page, that group denied any involvement in the glitter bomb.

Jerry Hammer of the State Fair said Minnesotans United for All Families was offered a booth, but did not accept, choosing instead to hand out its literature at other political booths.

“They are all the same to us. Their ideas, etc. They should be at the fair,” Hammer said. “That’s what the Fair is all about.”

Minnesota for Marriage includes the Minnesota Family Council and the Minnesota Catholic Conference, as well as other religious and secular organizations.

Comments (139)
  1. Lee says:

    Normally you would run off after pulling a stunt like this. Must have been akward slowly making their getaway down the skyline.

    1. please tell me says:


      1. please tell me too says:

        WHICH PEOPLE???

        1. Tom says:

          Anyone who can vote!!! Get over it!!! You’ll be old before you even get close to what you want. We’ll see to it!!

          1. Dave's Not Here says:

            What should be done with gays, Tom?

            You don’t want them around, you don’t want them to marry. Is it safe to assume you don’t want them to be publically gay for you to see also?

            Should gays be allowed to be Kindergarden teachers? How about Pediatricians? What other laws should we put on the books to protect our society from gays?

            1. Fred says:

              It’s Kindergarten, not Kindergarden. Get an education Dave? Thank you!

              1. Dave's Not Here says:

                So you weren’t planning on answering the question?

                1. Fred says:

                  Seems to me you answered it. Gays are very uneducated and shove their UGLY parades down children’s throats. Sad when they have to parade that ugliness around all the time, not just during the fair.
                  Honestly it could blind people.
                  Dave learn how to spell, please.
                  If you’re gonna hate on everybody at least spell right?

                2. Dave's Not Here says:

                  I’d wager my year’s salary that I can outspell you every day of the week, Fred.

                  Still looking for an actual answer that you are either unwilling or incapable of providing. I’m less and less shocked with each of your uneducated responses.

                3. Fred says:

                  Was your question to me or to Tom? You seem to be very mixed up Dave, every day of the week!

            2. Grammar Cop @ Dave says:

              publicly..not publically

        2. Straight civil rights supporter says:

          *** WHICH PEOPLE? ***

          Everyone of course; but civil rights opponents tend to not regard gays as people.

          Of course, judging from the polls (all of them), support for marriage equality is increasing fast enough that “let the people vote” on the part of civil rights opponents might edge into the “be careful what you wish for zone” before long. Nevertheless, voting on civil rights is an abomination as far as our national Constitution is concerned.

    2. Rock Hudson says:

      One day these limp-wristed lispers are gonna glitter the wrong person & suffer the painful consequences in a big way.

      1. Straight civil rights supporter says:

        Interesting perspective coming from someone who’s named himself after a gay movie star.

  2. Sam I am says:

    I would assume nothing happened. They should have been arrested.

    1. whatsupdude says:

      Why? Assault by glitter?

      1. American says:

        A yeah! You can’t just do whatever you want to other people. Assault by definition does not have to include physical contact just strike fear in the victim.

        1. Villus Vitae says:

          For crying out loud, HOW is dumping GLITTER on a booth assault?! It’s a non-violent way to protest.

          1. winoceros says:

            One, it’s littering. Two, it’s vandalism. Three, it’s disturbing the peace. Four, it’s disorderly conduct. It is non-violent, except it can cause great fear in those who are attacked as individuals. Having glitter, or a pie, or that type of thing thrust at you as an act of political disagreement can instill an enormous amount of fear in those who realize that the attack could just as easily have been a weapon, and that the point of the attack is to show a political opponent that access to their person is easy, and they are at great risk of bodily harm.

            The reprobates who approve of this act have no regard for the fear they instill in victims and their families, and they are very approving that they cause fear. They have no apologies for the intimidation they make.

            A “non-violent way to protest” would be to cover yourself in glitter and walk around spouting your position. Placing your belongings on other people’s belongings without permission is hardly legal.

            1. Dave's Not Here says:

              What a load of malarky. It is not vandalism and it is not disturbing the peace, and you are an idiot.

              1. winoceros says:

                It is indeed vandalism. Who is responsible for cleaning up the glitter? It is indeed disturbing the peace, I looked at the Minnesota statutes, but you did not apparently.

                It’s not just because you think it’s silly?

                I notice you don’t have any argument addressing the fear of harm to those “glittered.”

                Just ad hominem and unsupported assertions. Try again.

              2. Sharon says:

                You’re a really hateful person Dave. I just realized I will vote against the same sex thing. Thank you for making me see the light. Gays really do hate more than the average?

                1. Dave's Not Here says:

                  Vote against “the same sex thing?”

                  You mean the amendment proposal? I agree. Vote against “the same sex thing” Sharon. LOL

                  Again, it’s not vandalism, and it’s not disturbing the peace either. The law disagrees with you, simple simon.

        2. Straight civil rights supporter says:

          If a little shower of pink glitter strikes fear into those who want to keep gays second-class citizens, the days of marriage inequality are numbered and the numbers are getting smaller all the time. “Limp-wristed” indeed.

  3. oNiSaC says:

    What is at stake with the outcome of the vote on the proposed marriage amendment?

    First, of course, is which of the two irreconcilable and conflicting definitions of marriage will be the only form of marriage legally recognized in Minnesota.:

    The amendment preserves Minnesota’s historic and traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman – the same definition adopted by voters in every state to consider the question (31 of 31 states have voted to define marriage in this way), adopted by a bi-partisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Clinton, and adopted by virtually every society in every nation to ever live, from the ancients to current times.

    Additionally, passage of the marriage amendment ensures that the people of Minnesota themselves, and not activist judges or politicians, decide how our state will define marriage in the future.

    Without a marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. This is exactly what happened in Iowa, Massachusetts and California. Similarly, legislators can redefine marriage without the permission of the people, as several legislators in Minnesota have pledged to do. The marriage amendment ensures that if activists want to redefine marriage in the future, they must receive the approval of voters to do so.

    Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is in the public good. It serves the interests of men and women, of children, and of society itself. The marriage amendment on the November 2012 ballot gives voters the opportunity to preserve this special institution.

    In the past that need not be spelled out. But today in a different era which makes room for a lot of things that never used to be.

    1. James2 says:

      Any judge who does not rule in your favor is “activist”

      1. just and Average Minnesotan says:

        Any judge that inserts their own belief into a ruling in an ‘Activist.

        1. smb says:

          And if they disregard 40 years of precedent and rule to limit abortion? Are those judges also activists? Or is it only the ones who rule in ways you disagree with.

          Judges ruling to allow same-sex marriages aren’t activists. They just happen to believe the Constitution actually applies to all citizens.

          1. winoceros says:

            The Constitution does apply to all citizens. What protections should be afforded marriage according to the Constitutions?

            None, of course.

            This is a legislative issue. The state can recognize socially beneficial arrangements provided it applies to all persons. There is no race, creed, gender, or disability status who cannot marry someone of the opposite sex, and then just one person, at that.

            It is not discriminatory to have that recognition as a social benefit. Sorry to break it to you, but just calling it marriage doesn’t make it “marriage.” It’s nice, it’s touching, it’s great for the individuals. I’m all for same sex couples who wish to live together in happiness or unhappiness. It does nothing for the nation as a whole, so why offer it a special sanction or benefit?

            An activist judge is one who invents a discriminatory act out of something that is innately non-discriminatory. It is recognizing an existing institution: marriage, which is available to males and females alike.

    2. Kilgore Trout says:

      There is no evidence that same sex marriage is harmful to society, which is why research-based associations from the medical, psychological, sociological, and anthropological fields support gay marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage, on the other hand, do not have one scientifically based association that agrees with their conclusions on gay marriage. As for “activist” judges, whose duty it is to ensure all US citizens receive equal protection under the law, interracial marriage would still be illegal in some states were it not for the US Supreme Court stepping in and overruling intolerance.

      1. Phid says:

        Oh please. I am guessing that the same scientists who you would be willing to cite for proof of your point were also Obama voters…meaning they certainly have a dog in the fight.

        Second, opposing same sex marriage is NOT the equivalent of interracial marriage, so please don’t try to make the argument that they are.

        1. Kilgore Trout says:

          Good critical thinking skills, Phid. There is no credible scientific evidence to suggest same sex marriage is harmful to society therefore all scientists must be Obama supporters. Also, interracial marriage can be likened to same sex marriage. Opponents of interracial marriage argued that the miscegenation of the races would lead to the downfall of society. Opponents of same sex marriage use similar arguments. Neither group can or could support their position with scientifically based evidence but rather relied on misinformation and fear.

          1. scott says:

            Kilgore- you forgot they also cited “Gods will”, or the holy grail of them all, “The Bible tells us so.”

          2. winoceros says:

            Wrong. There is no comparison between miscegenation laws and a positive recognition of same-sex unions as equivalent to marriage.

            One is an incentive available to all males and females, the other is a prohibition.

      2. winoceros says:

        No one is claiming harm as a legal basis for having a state or nation not equate same-sex unions with marriage.

        Interracial marriage bans are innately discriminatory.

        It is not harm, but benefit, that is the reason a state recognizes marriage at all. Harm is expressed in the laws it makes to prohibit certain kinds of unions: incest, children, polygamy. The recognition exists only to serve as incentive. The state has no incentive to recognize same-sex unions. Harm is irrelevant.

    3. Phid says:

      Proof: no “same sex” acts have led to the propagation of our species.

      Proof: natural “opposite sex” acts have led to the vast majority of the people in the world today. In fact, you, Andrea Peel, were the result of the latter kind of act, not the former.

      So you can see that this is all the proof in the world, even if you choose not to accept it.

      1. apples says:

        yes, phid.. same sex couples cannot have children. but plenty of your so-called “natural opposite sex acts” result, unfortunately, in children that are unwanted and abandoned. and then guess what? plenty of same sex couples adopt those poor children that opposite sex couples cast aside and provide them with a loving home!!

        1. winoceros says:

          Not many children are abandoned, and in fact most children get adopted. Get back to us with how many gay couple adopt older children as opposed to babies.

          Lots of male same sex couples use surrogates, and lots of female same sex couples use in vitro with a donor. Also, that population is so minuscule so as to be hardly worth mentioning.

          Far more unwanted children are aborted than “cast aside” to be adopted by eager same-sex couples. In the millions. And the same couples who happily support abortion policy.

          Phid’s point is that there is no need to encourage same-sex adoptions with government approbation. They’d do it anyway, so why a special acknowledgement when it’s a minute social arrangement? Single people adopt kids, too, but they don’t give marriage recognition to single people.

          It’s just not a good argument.

      2. Soontobemommy says:

        I am a 35 y/o republican woman who has been married for 7 years. My husband and I have been trying to have a baby any way possible including trying IF 4 times ,so what you are saying is we shouldn’t be married since we can’t pro-create? I had no feelings towards who can be allowed to be married until we started the adoption process. My husband and I are the only heterosexuals in the adoption support “club” that we go to, there was one other hetero couple but they were not accepted to adopt. Adopting a child is not an easy process so we cherish our support group dearly. The “gays” are loving and have been accepted to adopt already, in fact one couple should be receiving their child in 14 days, very exciting!!! I can promise you that their daughter will not be abused, abandoned, or murdered by it’s parents…..unlike the hetero couples in this weekends newspaper, but hey they were supposed to pro-create right? You have got to be kidding me!!!!!

        A 14 year old girl getting pregnant by a random guy and raising the baby off food stamps, will really set up a successful future for that child. But it’s okay since she can pro-create??? You have got to be kidding me!!!!!

        I support marraige for all. I am a Christian so I will act like a Christian, period!!

      3. apples says:

        you see that i actually had a point, so you get rid of my comment??? gee, what a worthy opponent!

        plenty of your so-called, “natural opposite sex acts” result, unfortunately, in many children that are cast aside – unwanted, unloved. many same sex couples adopt these children and provide them with a loving home! tell me how this is a bad thing.

      4. Ted says:

        Phid–you must really be worried about human extinction given that you keep mentioning procreation as your argument against same sex marriage. Have you looked at the global population growth of humans over the last century?!?! We need to procreate less, not more!!!

    4. Peel Andrea's banana says:

      You prove that it doesn’t hurt society or the institution of marriage. You are the one asking for the change, so frickin a, shut up or prove it! BTW, you get your booth every day at every high school and college in the US with GLBT clubs, activism, quotas, etc. quit acting like a frickin social outcast and society will stop treating you that way! Sexual orientation is a non-issue, you are the one who keeps shoving it in everyone’s face, making it an issue every time you can. Kids get teased for lots of reasons, too tall, too short, light skin, dark skin, perfect teeth, crooked teeth, junky car, nice car, too thin, too heavy and the list goes on…stop the insanity!

      1. not peeling Andreas's bananna says:

        Yes, and while you are peeling your banana (which should be a private affair) I want to thank you for trivializing being second class – a status forced upon us by the likes of you. But that will end, and you know it.

    5. Dave's Not Here says:

      “Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is in the public good. It serves the interests of men and women, of children, and of society itself.”

      What are you basing that on exactly? Please be specific.

  4. Bob says:

    Why don’t they just move to state that already allows “gay” marriage? Problem sloved.

    1. King says:

      They should of used paint.

    2. James2 says:

      Why do YOU move to a state that denies it. Problem solved.

      1. mj5150 says:

        James-that made no sense-LOL

        1. James2 says:

          Yah, meant to write don’t but I was typing too fast.

  5. James2 says:

    Hate groups that are expressing the “conditional” unconditional love as espoused by their god. Sad. One knows that if the tides were turned there is no way that they’d put up with being fenced out. Yet, I am to accept it with good cheer as if a parent is giving me a cookie.

    And all this genuine conditional love doesn’t stop. It’s like a warm fuzzy hug with a knife to the gut.

    Constitutional Disenfranchisement is, unconstitutional.

  6. tan pup says:

    MN is becoming more and more like a stupid southern state. No wonder Michelle Bachman said she could relate to those in SC. No one has come out with a valid reason to discriminate against who gets married. Marriage is and always has been a contract. I have not heard one person say how two people of the same sex is “hurting” them. All this comes down to is benefits for spouses. I wonder how much this would be an issue when the insurance companies decide that they will no longer fund “family plans”. This is just another issue is for those simple minded bored people who need to have a “reason” to hate and feel better about their horrible lives because they don’t have the courage to make their lives better, only making others worse. Women who support this marriage act are the ones who never had any identity but their marriage and have never contributed to the overall wellbeing of anyone or anything, including themselves. They are the type that gossip, frumpy, got fat and grey; are mean to everyone around them and blame their behavior and appearance on menopause – no matter their age. It is my belief these same people are married to a close relative. If you religious zellots believe GOD created everything, everyone, then leave the gay people alone and also remember that GOD is the only one who is allowed to judge – NOT YOU! What’s next, making sure races don’t mix? Oh, yeah right, that was also a constitutional amendment as well and still on some law books in the south. I wish all you who don’t want gay marriage to go move to the areas where gay marriage is not allowed then you all can become one nation of hate and intolerance. We have all seen how well that works, haven’t we?

    1. TheCruxOfTheBuscuit says:

      No Child Left Behind was and is intended to dumb down states like Minnesota and turn them into states like Texas and Mississippi and Florida. States so full of stupid people if they all laid down, you could walk around your whole life and never once touch the ground…….

    2. Phid says:

      Tan pup, if you think that “No one has come out with a valid reason to discriminate against who gets married” then you haven’t been paying attention.

      Here’s one – same sex unions are inherently less valuable than opposite sex unions, therefore the latter should be protected, not the former.

      No matter how you look at it, same sex unions can NEVER naturally lead to procreation, whereas opposite sex unions, as a general rule CAN naturally lead to procreation. This is the 800-lb. gorilla that the gy movement cannot get around.

      1. apples says:

        “inherently less valuable???”
        sounds like something hitler said about the jews.

        love is valuable no matter what form it comes in. maybe you don’t have any, so you don’t understand.

        1. winoceros says:

          Love is irrelevant to the discussion of marriage. There is no recognition of “love” as a benefit to society. Simply a marriage leading to more stability in families, prosperity, and propagation.

      2. whatsupdude says:

        Why does this keep turning from gay marriage into gays can’t have babies? You should add a clause into your little amendment there to make marriages void and unattainable to hetero couples who can’t or aren’t planning on having babies. This seems to be the Plan B argument for all the fundamentalists who can’t win with the religion aspect.

        Try again.

    3. jusr an Average Minnesotan says:

      tan pup – You would make a good politician. You talk the party line very well. And you do it so vehemently. You simply repeat what you have heard, whether it makes sense or not. And I like some of your stereotypical references.

      I’ll admit. I am a Christian. I do not hate Gays, nor do I hate those of other religions or nationalities.And you are right, God does judge. So you may want to remember that.

      But why do you always want only one side of the equation. You want the ‘Of The People’ and ‘For The People’ part, but you don’t want the ‘By The People’ part. Because ‘By The People’ means majority rules. Well, there are all sorts of rules that I don’t like or agree with, but I don’t go throwing glitter around at people that don’t agree with me.

      I realize that what ever I say, you will just twist around and try to make it sound as if I am being ‘hateful and intolerant’ of you. I’m sorry that your life is so difficult.

      1. one of them says:

        hey Just – I am sorry too that you have to make my life more difficult. If you care so much, please do the opposite.

      2. Dave's Not Here says:

        “Because ‘By The People’ means majority rules.”


        That was not what that meant at ALL.

          1. Dave's Not Here says:

            So if all your neighbors want to vote to kill you, Gary, you better be ready to deal with the mob. I think I can hear the pitchforks clinking in the distance…

            1. Gary says:

              My neighbors don’t want to kill me Dave but I bet yours do?

              1. Dave's Not Here says:

                With how much of a d-bag you seem to be, I wouldn’t bet on that, Gary.

  7. Bawney Fwank says:

    Too bad the GLBT community doesn’t act more like adults instead of petulant children. Maybe then people would have sympathy for them but they are so nasty in their protests and parades.
    Glitter? Please!! So childish!
    Let people vote on it. The majority rules. We had to accept the idiot in the WH due to majority so all I can say to the GLBT community is “suck it up” and act like adults!!

    1. AntiTeabagger says:

      And do you see us straight people chanting we love the opposite sex, and we are proud? Do we have parades to show the world we love the opposite sex? Do we sprinkle glitter or other things on people to show our love for the opposite sex? No, we don’t so stop acting like a pouting child and talk to your representatives. You are putting three causes into one. 1. The right to be gay ( which you have ) and the right to have marriage ( which you already have in some states ) and the right to have benefits for your partner. Maybe if you focused on the last instead of dancing around like a weirdo, you would get somewhere? Would you go into a job interview with your rainbow pants on and glitter and demand a job? Or would you approach it like a normal person in a suit and tie and gain respect and gain more ground? Think about it. It is like giving into a pouting child at a store because he wants candy.

      1. equal soon says:

        hey Anti, would you please lead the way to equality? It sounds to me like you have the answer. Please teach me your ways. As I recall, it doesn’t matter what we say, how we dress, or whether or not we make you happy cuz in the end we’re just gay anyway.

        1. Tom says:

          Choose another way. Just cause you don’t fit in anywhere else is no reason to decide to be gay?

          1. @tom says:

            Hey there Marcus, you need to get back to your clinic and work on your “jealousy” issues. We are so sorry you can’t find your way out of the closet.

            1. @tom says:

              keep showing off your ignorant hate, Tom. So, proud of you that I’m gonna leave my millions to dogs. People as a whole, really are disappointing.

              1. Tom says:

                I don’t hate anybody. I’m just willing to say what everybody is thinking?

                1. Reverend Phelps says:

                  Tom, I believe as you do that God will punish the evil gays for their chosen way of life, for God has taught us that a man lying with a man is an abominable snowman.

            2. Dave's Not Here says:

              What should be done with gays, Tom?

              Shouldn’t it be illegal and a punishable offense?

              1. Shannon says:

                Why do you always pick on someone? No mater who posts, if they don’t say what you like, you go on the attack. Your hate wil eat you up. I wonder if you’re in a union? No hate there?

          2. Vulpus Vitae says:

            You don’t choose to be gay. You don’t choose what gender you are born, what color your eyes are. Seriously dude.

            1. Tom says:

              Choose another way buddy! The world will thank you!

  8. just an Average Minnesotan says:

    Geez, where to start…….

    If a same sex marriage supporter throws glitter on a traditional marriage booth (and all the innocent fair-goers that just happened to be standing nearby at the time) the same sex marriage supporter calls it a protest. But if a traditional marriage supporter would throw glitter on a same sex marriage booth the same sex marriage supporter would scream discrimination. Sorry people, you can’t have it both ways.

    They should have been arrested as soon as they got off the ride. At the minimum they should have been escorted from the property. And no, that is not discrimination. They created a public nuisance. It doesn’t make any difference why they did it. If some teenagers ran through the Midway throwing that much glitter they would have been arrested and removed from the property. And I could understand teenagers doing something like that. They would do it simply for the fun of it. But the same sex marriage supporters did it out of hate and discontent towards people that do not agree with them. Yet they cry discrimination at those that display the same hate and discontent towards them. Again, you can’t have it both ways.

    The same sex marriage supporters do not want the general public to decide the ‘Marriage Act’ for the same reason the Vikings do not want the public to decide on a stadium. Simply because the average Minnesotan would not vote in favor of a same sex marriage, or a stadium. The majority of the people in Minnesota believe that the term ‘marriage’ is the union of one man and one woman.

    And Phid said it well. Let’s take religion and politics out of it. A marriage between a man and a woman can do one thing that no other relationship can do. And that is create another human. And simply because of that ability the relationship between a man and a woman should be held in a special position above any other relationship. And it should have privileges and recognition because it is such a special relationship.

    Notice that at no time did I show any disrespect towards anyone in my statements here.

    1. Kilgore Trout says:

      When you use producing children as a reason for not allowing same-sex marriage, you have also made an argument against heterosexual couples who are infertile, elderly, etc. from having their union recognized as marriage because they also cannot create another human being. Also, do you think people should be allowed to vote on the legality of interracial marriage? There still are people who are against interracial marriage because it does not conform to their idea of traditional marriage. Voting on raising taxes and voting on an issue that most likely violates individual’s equal protection under the law are two different things. Let’s stop trying to relegate people to second-class citizenship. We are better than that.

      1. winoceros says:

        Have you ever seen a Venn diagram?

        ‘ “Can” have children’ doesn’t preclude heterosexual non-married couples either. It is the act of the marriage itself that is providing stability to children, NOT the ability to have children providing superiority to the type of union. It is a benefit to society because a child’s parents are married and heterosexual. It doesn’t mean that other children can’t do well, it doesn’t mean childless couples don’t stabilize society.

    2. tired of hate says:

      Well, not that you know of anyway. At least your hate is respectful. And I say that for that’s how it feels in my shoes.

    3. smb says:

      I wish we could take religion out of the argument. Unfortunately for most of those who oppose same-sex marriage their views are rooted in their religious beliefs. No matter what non-religious bogus reasons they come up with.

      1. winoceros says:

        My argument is not a religious one and I have yet to see anyone want to debate on those terms. Why not?

    4. Straight civil rights supporter says:

      ** The majority of the people in Minnesota believe that the term ‘marriage’ is the union of one man and one woman.**

      Must have been a lot of un-major Minnesotans at the fair since the poll went against the anti-civil rights amendment by a majority of about 2 to 1.

  9. Angus says:

    Excuse me but who is acting like children? The anti gays spout with hate, want to deny basic rights to other citizens, have no evidence to back their statements, and wish to force their religion onto other peole. The gays only wish for their rights and to be left alone. I don;t hear about gays beating up or killing straight people. The gays are not for everyone to be gay but the straights want everyone to be straight. Incidentally, worried about propagation? The world is over populated as it is so that is our worry.

    The other disgrace is how the organization who requested space first is denied but when the anti gays register after the fair opens a a space just “happens to open up”. Very convenient. How much taxpayer money is used to support the fair?

    1. Bawney Fwank says:

      LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!! That’s fair!!

      1. King says:

        Did people vote on your marriage ? No. no buddy has the right to vote
        on anybodys marriage.

        1. winoceros says:

          Sorry, not voting on your marriage. Just your tax break.

      2. scott says:

        This is not about fair. It’s about keeping yours, and mine religious views free without constants of the law. Today it may be in your favor, but tomorrow it may not!

    2. AntiTeabagger says:

      So you worry about the world being overpopulated? You act like children when you have your little rainbow days and your parades and do stunts like spray glitter on people. I personally could care less what you do in your home, but leave it at home, not out in public for my children to see it.

      1. winoceros says:

        Seriously. I can’t even have the birds and bees talk with my small children before I have to tell them why a girl has a wife on “America’s Worst Cook”.

        1. Dave's Not Here says:

          So what? Are you unable to handle your duties as a parent? We, as parents, field a lot of questions from our kids. How we handle them is as important as how we answer.

          At the airport, a young boy was overheard asking his dad “Why are those two men kissing?” The dad responded, “I guess they really like each other.” The boy responded by pointing at another man and asking “Why is that man wearing a funny hat with lines on it?” The dad responded “He’s the plane’s Captain.”

    3. Get Real says:

      Angus- You say the world is overpopulated? You obviously have never been to Texas of Montana or Siberia or Mongolia.

      1. scott says:

        Get Real- do we need to populate every square inch to be “overpopulated”? 7 billion is to much, but this is getting off the subject.

  10. stubby says:

    Can anyone on here tell me that if 2 gays want to get married, how will it affect my pocketbook? If it doesn’t cost me any money, why would anyone care who married who?.. I don’t want to hear about your imaginary friend in heaven either.

    1. Brett says:

      The GLT crowd can not answer my question. If you are allowed to marry same sex, can I marry both my girlfriends? I do love them both.

      1. Brett's girlfriend says:

        That’s a question for polygamists like Mormons. That’s not a gay question dope!

      2. Brett's tother girlfriend says:

        What? You never told me about your other girlfriend, Brett.

        What makes you think either of us would want to marry you?

    2. winoceros says:

      It would cost you a lot of money. Insurance premiums, taxes, property taxes, you name it. Are you kidding? Even the activists don’t deny that.

      It costs you money to recognize marriage already in tax breaks and insurance benefits for state and federal employees. How would it not cost you more? Be logical.

  11. scott says:

    Do not inflict your religions view, or enact your religion into the constitution. State or Federal. Lets keep it separate. The government should only issue civil unions licenses, straight or gay.,and leave marriage definition to ones own church, or god. Less government, right?

    1. winoceros says:

      I liken it to the state recognizing marriage as a matter of default definition, being too lazy to come up with its own. A state understands there is a prosperity, nationalism, many things, to be won from incentivizing marriage. Other institutions, like same-sex unions, have not drawn that same popular support.

      That’s all. No need for a state to issue any licenses unless it is trying to incentivize a behavior. If it doesn’t care about the outcomes, then there is no need for any licensing. Anyone can be in any relationship.

      The benefit is licensed and recognized by legislative action.

  12. please tell me says:

    Imagine for a moment that you marriage supporters were in my shoes. And as you faced such overwhelming love from those who want to vote in Constitutional Disenfranchisement as a way to fence you out… Just what kind of protest or demonstration would be acceptable? If we do nothing we are ignored, so what would you do?

    1. Tom says:

      Not glitter and parades. Nothing uglier than a man in drag. Why don’t you just show people how nice you can be and persude with your arguments? I suppose you think what Perez Hilton did was good behavior?

      1. Kieron says:

        Tom, take a chill pill. Your Gay Panic symptoms are really noticeable.

        As for “it says more about the other side,” well, it says a lot about the booth promoters who are essentially duplicating legislation. It’s already illegal and they want to make it more illegal. That’s neo-conservatism for you.

      2. please tell me says:

        Tom, I asked for a constructive response not what you provided. We do our best to pesuade but we told to sit down and shut up, we’re too uppitdy. Again, you must protest, what would you do?

        And your attraction to men in women’s clothes is not gay, and is a preference you might want to keep to yourself. And I don’t care for Perez Hilton – surprise.

        Again, I aksed what you would do, and you had no answer.

        1. Tom says:

          Like I said “Be nice and try to persuade with arguments only”. No need to sprinkle anything on anybody. You liberals can never argue without physical touch and most people don’t appreciate that. Therefore anything you have to say falls on deaf ears!!!
          GET IT?
          Perez Hilton is more typical of the GLBT community than you are I guess.
          I bet you protested the war when Bush was in office and now it’s OK cause your leader says so?
          Hypocrisy thy name is please tell me!!! Ha Ha Ha Ha!!

          1. please tell me says:

            Tom, you sure make a lot of unqualified assumptions.

            I am being nice, and treating you with respect, and you are still dumping on me.

            Since you can’t be reasonable, and can’t say nice things like you ask of me, then I will conclude that you have nothing constructive to say. My expectation is now you will invoke a double standard, or try to upset me. Sigh.

            In the end, Gay folks will be equal. Read Romer vs. Evans 1996

            1. Tom says:

              Once again you have nothing to add. Just that you want it. SAD!!! I guess I hit a nerve?
              You’re in the minority and the majority will vote on this so get over it.

              1. please tell me says:

                Thanks Tom for such an eloquent response. In the end the courts temper the tyranny of the majority in favor of the minority. I’m already over it, and I will be equal much to your chagrin. Maybe not next year. Beyond that, have a great day. Your hatred will kill you before me. It’s a lot to hang on to.

                1. Tom's Mom says:

                  Tom, please quit harassing them gays. I didn’t bring you up that way. Shame on you.

          2. Straight civil rights supporter says:

            ** Like I said “Be nice and try to persuade with arguments only”. No need to sprinkle anything on anybody. **

            No disenfranchised group has ever won their civil rights by saying “please, please give us our rights; we’ll be good.” Glittering and other acts that strike terror into the hearts of the easily rattled will stop when the civil rights are won.

    2. winoceros says:

      Protests and demonstrations happen all the time without littering and disturbing the peace and protesting without a permit.

      Are you special somehow that your protests need to be different from others’? Why can’t gay protests be the same as others’ protests?

      And you clearly have no grasp of the legal arguments here. You are reacting emotionally because you are sad that you don’t get to participate in state recognition of your social arrangement. Polygamists are disappointed too. We have lots of disappointed people in the country. That’s too bad.

      You have never been ignored: it’s simply that your argument for changing the definition of a word isn’t receiving public approbation. Sorry about that.

  13. Doesn't matter says:

    I have a feeling throwing glitter will not persuade to many to change their minds, I honestly don’t have a dog in this race, therefore i will not vote when it occurs.

    1. scott says:

      It does matter to all of us whenever they change the constitution. You may not be effected by this one, but what about the next one, and the next one, and next. The argument should be about leaving the constitution alone without religious undertones. That way we will not infringe on other peoples beliefs and rights.

  14. TwinsFan says:

    God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, /discussion

    1. scott says:

      God made all of us. Gay and straight

      1. AntiTeabagger says:

        And he condemns being gay.

        1. scott says:

          So says you. We are born the way we are. Straight, gay, and a lot in between. Again, marriage is a religious issue and should say out of our constitution. Preach all you want, but do not legislate it.

      2. Reverend Phelps says:

        Gays cannot inherit the kingdom of God. If you support their chosen life, then you will not be accepted into the kingdom either and instead will burn for all eternity while being tormented by Satan who will own your souls forever.

    2. smb says:

      Actually I evolved. Maybe you should try it.

      1. please tell me says:

        You probably are a lower form of life. I can see that!!!

        1. smb says:

          When you put your hate out into the world only hate comes back to you.

        2. please tell me says:

          please tell me, you stole my name, and I would not say such a thing.

          1. Sarah says:

            He he he! Are you bi-polar?

    3. another TwinsFan says:

      Eve is transgendered, was Steve.

      1. please tell me says:

        Does that help you sleep at night? I guess make up history to suit your needs.

        1. please tell me says:

          again, I know that I didn’t write this. Nice tactic, but now everybody knows

    4. back at you says:

      So all humans came from Adam and Eve? Who did their children have sex with to propagate humanity? Are you saying that according to god, “incest is best?” So if we were created in god’s image, does that mean god is an inbred as well? Sure does explain a lot.

  15. r rush says:

    Might has well let them have their marriage rights and has long has your at it if you want to marry a animal or your brother sister cousin or any other relative or maybe one wife or husband isnt enough marry has many has you want who can say anything bad about it just cause your not into it doesnt mean it isnt okay for others to be where does it end

    1. role models says:

      This is my second favorite argument.

      Fido I love you, marry me
      Fido: Woof
      No Fido I need an answer and it has to be in English, and you have to sign this paper
      Fido: Woof
      C’mon Fido, can you consent? Bring back my slipper
      Fido: Woof

      Yeah, makes real sense. We are not the gateway to your perversions. You are.

      1. winoceros says:

        What about polygamy?

        1. Dave's Not Here says:

          We are not discussing polygamy. Gay marriage is not polygamy. If you are unable to stay on topic, why do you participate at all?

          What should be done with gays, winoceros?

          Should we have a constitutional amendment stating that gays can’t be Kindergarten teachers? How about Pediatricians? Any objection to gays giving physicals to junior high students?

          1. dave's got good ideas! says:

            You have inspired a ton of new amendments to write, must get busy now

          2. winoceros says:

            1. Since you can’t see the relevance of your own argument, I’ll point it out to you. You argue a same sex union should be called a marriage and receive the same incentives individuals who are married receive. You don’t give a supporting argument, in fact, if you review all your comments, you won’t find a single argument in support of your position. So the polygamy question is meant for your to reach deep inside and discover your rationale for your position and state it publicly instead of just attacking others.

            2. There is nothing to be done with gays. What on earth do you mean? Gays can be anything they want. Are you claiming gays are pedophiles? This is odd.

    2. Straight civil rights supporter says:

      **has your at it if you want to marry a animal or your brother sister cousin or any other relative **

      Your unhealthy preoccupation with your pets and relatives is not relevant to laws regarding civil marriage.

  16. ♥ should not have restraints ! says:

    I am a straight woman and honestly I can’t understand why people oppose gay marriage . Love isn’t just between a man and a woman and that is an obvious fact.
    Why can’t we just accept everyone for who they are . If gay people want to marry …let them , how in the world is it going to effect your day . The institution of marriage was ruined way before our time when people started cheating on their spouses.
    Who are we to say someone doesn’t deserve to “live happily ever after?”
    The people that oppose this I hope that you never have a gay child… because your ignorance would hurt them and your hatred would kill them . Our world is so full of hate because people can’t accept others as equal …shame on you people who put yourselves and pedestals judge others for their actions even when they don’t hurt you or interfere with your life.

    1. winoceros says:

      Love is not an argument for or against same-sex union recognition. It is not an argument for state recognition of marriage, so why would it be an argument for the other?

  17. Dave's Not Here says:

    The real disgusting part was walking through the fair and having to see this booth at all. Not to even mention the little kids holding signs saying One Man, One Woman. How disgusting are these people who make their kids shoulder their political trash, especially an opinion that reinforces discrimination against other Americans. You people are garbage.

Leave a Reply

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Watch & Listen LIVE