Archived Story

Reps: Voters should decide gay marriage

Published 11:11am Monday, May 23, 2011 Updated 11:58am Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Gay marriage is going to the voters.

The Minnesota House of Representatives approved on Saturday a measure that puts a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage on the 2012 ballot. Among representatives voting in favor of the referendum were Bud Nornes (Fergus Falls), Torrey Westrom (Elbow Lake) and Mark Murdock (Ottertail). Paul Marquart, whose district includes all of Wilkin County, voted against the measure.

The House vote was the last hurdle the referendum needed to clear, as the state Senate has already approved the measure.

“I’ve supported it in the past. It’s nothing new,” said Nornes. “I believe like many others that the question needs to be put on the ballot so it can be decided by Minnesotans.”

Westrom pointed out that he and Nornes also voted in 1998 in favor of the state statute that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

“I have always been in support of traditional marriage and to have it on the ballot for citizens to vote on it,” Westrom said. “The Legislature is the gatekeeper for the citizens to have their voice.”

Mark Murdock pointed out that 31 other states have had similar votes for a constitutional amendment defining marriage.

“We don’t think judges and legislators have a right to decide,” Murdock said. “It should be in the hands of voters.”

Nornes added that putting the measure in the state constitution makes it immune from judges or lawmakers who may seek to overturn the provision currently in state law that outlaws gay marriage.

“Putting in the constitution kind of makes it a permanent thing,” he stated.

As to whether or not marriage is a right, said Nornes, “That’s already been decided by state law.”

He added that marriage between a man and a woman “is just the way that nature has been created.”

The referendum debate stretched for almost six hours on the House floor. Nornes said it was discussed so late because the House wanted to get all of its important bills passed and sent to Governor Mark Dayton before debate began.

“I don’t think that it jeopardized anything else we’re trying to do,” he said.

Nornes, who declined to comment on how he’ll vote on the issue in the general election, said that the question was sure to be hotly contested in the state.

“I think it’s going to be a close vote,” he said. “What bothers me is that there is so much hate that has been generated through this, and I hope it can be kept to a minimum.”

Nornes has received “hundreds” of e-mails before and since the House vote, most of which he said were part of an organized campaign by opposition groups. Many are from out of state, and most are from out of his district. He apologized to any of his constituents whose e-mail he may have missed in the deluge.

Nornes added that he has friends on both sides of the debate, and he would no doubt discuss it with them in the leadup to the 2012 election.

“Obviously I voted for the amendment, so that might indicate where I’d be leaning,” he said.

Tags: ,
  • Ginny Saul

    Thank you Rep Nornes and all House Members that voted to let the people decide. We are smarter enough to vote on this issue ourselves, no matter what others say. We don’t need judges legislating from the bench, that is NOT their job.Thanks Again.

    • cannellbd

      Sorry, Ginny. Constitutional rights are not something to be voted upon by the public.

      In this case, it is the job of the judicial system to prevent any laws being made that infringe upon the constitutional rights of any members of the public.

    • amaciej

      Actually, Ginny, not everything is appropriate to be decided by voters. For example, we can’t put slavery on the ballot and if 50.01% or more approve reinstate it.

      Civic equality, being treated equally before the law, is an American guarantee made to all citizens. We can’t deny certain groups of law-abiding citizens things like equal access to a civil marriage license, no matter how many people might want to.

      I find your comment arrogant and un-American.

  • The Vikingman

    This shouldn’t even be on the ballot. We are going to vote to see if we are going to “allow” people who are in love to be married? What a sad state of affairs that we didn’t learn our lessons from mixed race marriages, women’s right to vote, or the civil rights movement. Denying a single group the rights that are given to the remainder of the population is nothing less then bullying.

    Murderers, thieves, rapists, drug dealers, etc are all allowed to marry but apparently the homosexual community is somehow more evil then them.

    • amaciej

      I agree, John. Quotes from relevant USSC rulings:

      Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978 (US Supreme Court): “The Constitution does not specifically mention freedom to marry, but it is settled that the “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment embraces more than those freedoms expressly enumerated in the Bill of Rights. And the decisions of this Court have made clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties so protected.”

      Skinner v. Oklahoma, 1942 (US Supreme Court): “Marriage is thus something more than a civil contract subject to regulation by the state; it is a fundamental right of free men. There can be no prohibition of marriage except for an important social objective and by reasonable means. No law within the broad areas of state interest may be unreasonably discriminatory or arbitrary.”

      Loving v. Virginia, 1967 (US Supreme Court): “These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

      So the question we all need to ponder is, since marriage is a constitutionally-protected right for opposite-sex couples, why is it not so for law-abiding, taxpaying, lawn mowing gay couples?

      Some might not “approve” but then again there are bunches of marriages I don’t approve of but I don’t get to vote on whether or not they are allowed to buy a marriage license at the courthouse for $45.

  • hyhybt

    The very first sentence, while technically true, implies a lie.

    While such things ought not be put to a vote, if you’re going to do it anyway, it’s unconscionable to limit the choices to “this will be prohibited by law” and “this will be prohibited under the constitution.”

    Since gay marriage is already disallowed, make the ballot ask if gay marriage should be LEGAL. Then you’re actually giving voters a choice. And if the answer turns out to be yes, you can then put this version on next time around, if you still think you can win on that.

  • hyhybt

    (by the way, this site’s combining not telling you loud and clear that your posts will display your real name with not allowing usernames to change is all sorts of wrong. That’s OK, in that I’m not saying anything I wouldn’t say in person anyway, but it’s still wrong on general principle.)

  • amaciej

    “Let the people decide” arguments are getting old. Let’s look at another social fight over the rules of legal marriage.

    When the CA state Supreme Court legalized interracial marriage in 1948, 90% of Americans opposed it. By 1958, the number had increased and 94% of Americans disapproved. In 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized marriage equality for interracial couples on a nationwide level, 72% still opposed it. It wasn’t until 1994 that these people were in the minority for the first time with 41% opposing and 45% approving.

    Thank God we have a constitution and a judicial branch of government to set us right when we make mistakes.

    1948 figure from Gail Mathabane, “Gays face same battle interracial couples fought,” USA Today, 2004-JAN-25

  • ackerjohnson

    Big government republicans acknowledged that gay marriage is a rights issues with this stunt. Were it not so they would not be worried that the courts would find otherwise. The republicans were very content when the supreme court legislated from the bench that corporations are people.

    The republicans are the party of NO. No gay marriage. No Social Security. No Medicare. No anything that benefits people, but yes to everything that benefit’s the wealthy and corporations.

    What if the only gay people were wealthy and corporate CEO’s, do you think for one minute the republicans would be against gay marriage? They would be stumbling all over themselves to put gay marriage in the Constitution and make poor people pay a tax to subsidize it.

    • amaciej

      Acker, I’m inclined to agree. To me, this is not a Democrat or Republican issue at all. It’s a classic American issue, with patriotic people being put to the test.

      Those who consider themselves patriots are presumably supporting the bedrock American principles of equality, liberty, justice, and freedom for all legal US citizens. Right?

      Well, it’s not illegal to be gay. And it’s not illegal to fall in love.

      So if two legal, consenting adult people in love wish to buy a legal marriage license, then as far as I can see every single patriotic American should support their equal access to that legal marriage license, no matter what you think about homosexuality.

      There are lots of people I don’t like or understand or approve of, but never in a million years would I be so rude as to feel my opinion or judgment of them should affect their civic equality.

  • Ginny Saul

    Marriage is between a man and a woman period. We are not talking slavery or any other civil rights here. It is not a right to be married, it is a privilege. You cannot take this issue and jump on the bandwagon of other issues. Anyone has the right to marry. You just need to be of age, and marry a person of the opposite sex. If you have issues with that, vote in 2012, and make your voice heard. As for me, I will be voting protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

    As for the other issue here, the Journal left out why it wasn’t voted on this past Friday. When a gay activist preacher did the prayer, the inappropriate yelling and screaming with joy was so loud they couldn’t take a vote at that time. Want to see bad behavior by Democrats and activists? Well then you should have been at the capitol floor on Friday. I could not believe the childish behavior I witnessed. Made me sick to my stomach to see so called adults behaving this way.

    • amaciej

      Ginny, for YOU marriage is a man and a woman, but a gay person would disagree. For a gay person, marrying the opposite gender is just as silly and fake and nonsensical as a straight person marrying their own gender.

      Read my reply to John here with “Zablocki v. Redhail” at the beginning. Marriage absolutely is a civil right, whether you acknowledge it or not. Please educate yourself on the law.

      I’m also getting tired of hearing holier-than-thou people say “protect marriage.” Protect it from what? If gay couples want to get married that is revering marriage, not attacking it. It means they too think so highly of marriage and all it stands for they want to partake as well. When gay couples marry it will be in addition to straight couples, not instead of. You understand that don’t you?

      You would do well to contemplate the difference between legal marriage and religious marriage. No church has ever or will ever be forced to change their doctrine. But a legal marriage license has no religious requirement whatsoever, and is not beholden to anyone’s religion.

      Gay couples marrying is not an attack on marriage. Was it an attack on elections when we let women vote too? Was it an attack on education when we integrated schools?

      Ginny, I’m sure you are a good person and I fully support your right to believe whatever you want and to live your life your way.

      But you can’t use your anti-gay beliefs as a weapon to clobber gay people and keep them from enjoying the civic equality you already have. That’s not right, and it’s not fair.

      No one is asking you to approve of gay people. You don’t have to. But you are wrong to be so mean about this. When gay people have equal rights it will take nothing away from you. Think about that.

    • Vitojr130

      Marriage is between a man and a woman period. We are not talking slavery or any other civil rights here. It is not a right to be married, it is a privilege. You cannot take this issue and jump on the bandwagon of other issues. Anyone has the right to marry. You just need to be of age, and marry a person of the opposite sex. If you have issues with that, vote in 2012, and make your voice heard. As for me, I will be voting protecting marriage between a man and a woman.

      Your logic makes no sense, Ginny. You begin by saying that marriage is not a right, but a privilege. You proceed to saying that, “Anyone has the right to marry. You just need to be of age, and marry a person of the opposite sex.” Who are you to determine if it is a right or not? The view that marriage is wrong if it is between gay people is a biblical principal and should be left out of politics. The definition of marriage includes both gays and straights. It is a union between partners. Why should two men or women who say they love each other be denied union because of ignorant biblical principals? Sure, the church could deny the union because that is a religious institution, but let’s not let the Government be entwined in religion. I say let gays have legal union, but if churches want to deny the religious wedding of gays, let them. Do not let Government and religion intermingle with ignorant beliefs. Two gay people marrying legally would not affect you at all, Ginny. Keep that in mind.

      • Ginny Saul

        @ Tony- I neither used hateful words or thoughts yet you accuse me of both. You imply, if not outright state, I must be stupid since I disagree with you , not to mention, calling me holier than thou. You are the one using such negative wording since I believe other than you do. Wow, some tolerance you have there. You put a quote from USA today in your argument, wow, when did that count for journalism? It was always a tabloid type newspaper at best. Desperate there Tony.
        As for “No church has ever or will ever be forced to change their doctrine. But a legal marriage license has no religious requirement whatsoever, and is not beholden to anyone’s religion.” that is laughable since here we are talking about this now. Do you seriously think it will stop here? You can not say NEVER, you will not be around for ever to see what happens next will you?

        Now onto marriage being only about civil rights, which I have already established its not, I will further add more. If a preacher, minister, priest etc have to apply for their license through the state authority now, and if they do not see fit to perform a LGBT marriage, will that not establish a reason to sue? Oh you didn’t think of that one did you ? Not to mention, if marriage is a right, than why do we have to apply for a state issuing license? Does the state not have authority to deny the application or grant permission? Yes they do, which means: if it was a right NOT a privilege as I stated before they would not be allowed to deny ANY license for marriage, which they definitely have authority to do. So get your info straight before you try and demonize my beliefs again. You state I have the right to believe as I do, then you trash me. I neither did that to you and will NOT allow you to do that to me. I have NEVER spoken ill or hurt anyone of any sexual orientation in disagreement with my own. I am saying we have a right to vote on privileges, not rights and I will be exercising mine.

        • amaciej

          Ginny, you need to calm down. You are again confusing civil marriage with the religious sacrament offered by churches. Here’s how marriage works:

          1. A couple wants to get married.
          2. They purchase a marriage license.
          3. They have a ceremony, officiated by a legal officiant.
          4. Document is signed by officiant and witnesses, and submitted to government.
          5. Legal marriage certificate issued.

          The legal officiant can be a religious leader, ship’s captain, justice of the peace, or about anyone ordained over the Internet. No religious requirement.

          Still with me, Ginny?

          A religious holy matrimony ceremony means nothing under the law unless the paperwork is filed. These are facts. Likewise, a justice-of-the-peace marriage between two atheists is 100% as legally valid as one in your church (assuming both filed the paperwork).

          Despite your claims, nobody has ever been forced to perform a marriage against their will, nor has any church ever been forced to recognize marriages it doesn’t want to recognize. Ever. Those are facts.

          Maybe you should get YOUR info straight and educate yourself before mouthing off?

          Think of it this way: since it is not illegal to be gay, there is no sustainable justification within the law to deny gay couples equal access to a marriage license.

          If you disagree, please keep yourself calm and explain exactly which part of that simple statement you disagree with and why.

          PS – there was no “quote from USA Today” in my post. That was a source citation of which article the Gallup Poll data was printed in. Gallup is the source. The data is real, whether you face it or not.

      • Ginny Saul

        @ Brendan- see post above to your questions about my logic whether marriage is a privilege or a right. Maybe you can learn something. Maybe you should have paid attention at OLV instead of getting into trouble Brendan, you might have learned more about God there. There is no way to seperate God and His ‘ignorant beliefs”from your values, as much as you try. In the Bible it is clear, you need to follow God or things will not go well for you . As you know from personal experience that’s true. Maybe you should open His Word and read Brendan. I will not allow a snot nose like you to criticize me or my religion. How about getting a job and staying out of trouble?

        • amaciej

          Wow, Ginny. A “snot nose like you” huh? Congratulations on what your “religion” has turned you into.

        • Vitojr130

          Yes Ginny because you are so wise. Indeed I have paid attention and I have learned tolerance of others (clearly if I am debating with the likes of you). I personally do not believe gay marriage is right, but that is from a religious stand-point. I understand that this is a civil union and not a religious union, and I believe that ignorant biblical views should not affect a Government’s ruling when church is supposed to be separated from state. A snot-nosed brat huh? Is that the best you’ve got? At least I, as an adult, do not go up to students at a band concert and wail on a high school girl for criticizing a daughter of a certain someone. But you are a sensible, rational person correct? Anyway, best not to be childish as that does not appear flattering to others. You continue to further my point by saying that God’s word is key. Ginny, God’s word should not mean jack squat to Government. Let me say this again, this is about civil unions and not religious unions.

        • Jake Krohn

          Although there are generally no winners or losers in online discussions such as this one, credibility plays a big part in assuring that one’s opinion gets a fair shake. Calling a fellow participant a “snot nose” and bringing forth other personal vendettas is an ad hominem attack, which is a violation of this site’s terms of use, and, more so, is a generally lousy way to conduct oneself during a debate.

          As to the issue at hand, I don’t have much more to add except that I’ll reiterate my comments made in an earlier story that have also been echoed here and elsewhere: our ability to have a civil discussion on this issue rests entirely on the understanding of the people that “marriage” as a sacrament is different from “marriage” as a civil and legal act. Confusing the two will only exacerbate exchanges such as this. The next 18 months are going to be very long indeed.

    • hyhybt

      “When a gay activist preacher did the prayer…. I could not believe the childish behavior I witnessed.”—You were there, and you somehow thought they had a “gay activist preacher?” The guy well-known for saying gay people should be thrown in jail?

  • Gary Llewellyn

    I’m confused. There is nothing to “protect.” Men and women are free to be married in any way shape or form that they choose. The same logic suggests that Chinese food should be banned from consumption because certain people do not care for it and/or think it’s too spicy. It’s your choice not to eat it.

    “It is not a right to be married-It’s a privilege.” You’ll have to explain that one to me. We’re talking about marriage here, not Christianity. Perhaps a prerogative?

    I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the “anti-gay” pastor who did a prayer at the capitol last week. He would be none other than the infamous Bradlee Dean, who when not playing in a Christian death-metal rap band, is busy taking sides with Fred Phelps and Hitler.

    FYI-I’m wondering why we haven’t seen any interjections from Merle Hexum yet. Must be on a vacation.

    • ackerjohnson

      Maybe God took him on Saturday.

      • holly

        Ackermunk – you continually bash and mock those (here and on your blog) who view religion differently than you, yet if others were to bash and mock homosexuals in a similar fasion, no doubt you would label them “bigots”. Liberals are always preaching “tolerance” of others’ views, but you seem to have no tolerance for those who have religious views. I would call that hypocrisy.

        • ackerjohnson

          Holly M, what’s the ‘M’ stand for Munk? You seem to have a fixation for me, wherever I go you follow with a comment about me rather than the instant issue. You sound like a stalker or even a jilted lover, it wasn’t me who left you at the alter or failed to ask you to the prom. Get over it. Now have you any views on gay marriage?

          • holly

            My comments are not required reading, ackermunk. Your comment regarding Mr Hexum had nothing to do with this topic, yet that’s OK? You constantly post off-topic comments, and then berate others for doing the same. That is hypocisy. And you continually bash and mock those who believe in religion – why do you think that is OK? That is bigotry, pure and simple. Just calling you out, that’s all. Obviously, I must have hit a nerve. Good.

          • holly

            typo – “hypocrisy”

        • amaciej

          Holly, that’s not an appropriate comparison. For gay people and their supporters to be bigots you would have to count bigots themselves as a group worthy of being protected from discrimination.

          What you’re claiming is like calling anyone who denounces the KKK a bigot for not tolerating the KKK’s hate speech. Is that seriously your position?

          Tolerance is a beautiful thing. I fully and wholeheartedly support even the lowliest of bigots and haters their right to think, feel, believe, and even say whatever they want, and most importantly to live their own life however they see fit.

          HOWEVER, under the law that comes to an abrupt end when enjoying your liberty requires taking others’ liberty away.

          Tolerance of each other does not mean gays have to tolerate people stomping on their civil liberties.

  • BillSchulz

    Well, nice to see that all the “tolerant” proponents of homosexual marriage have been pre coached to launch their attacks against anyone who defends several thousand years of traditonal male/female marriages. But please pardon me the sanctimonious carping about upholding justice and equality and the American way by allowing homosexuals to destroy the basic unit of society, the family , in order to “wed” their fancy of the month. It is not the American way, except as practiced by about three or four percent of the population who demand that everyone else overturn their family and marital relationships for a few dear things’ hedonistic pleasures.
    And there are still more people here who embrace the traditional concepts of marriage and family than the small gang of alias users here assembled to stomp your feet and rail against those of us who do believe that a society without standards and rules will collapse upon itself. So, hurl your insults, tell your lies, quote your phony “studies” which are really statistics selected to support a proposition rather than test its validity. And
    next year, we will see what the people want. And, defining marriage as between one male adult human and one female adult human is not akin to legitimating slavery, no matter how you spin it.

    • amaciej

      William, thanks for the perfect example of ignorance and hate. Allow me to debunk a few of your stupid comments:

      1. When gay couples are allowed equal access to purchase a marriage license, that will IN NO WAY change anything about any straight couple’s marriage, nor will it invalidate any straight couple’s marriage. Did you know that? The two will coexist.

      2. Ancient Greek and Roman cultures had committed same-sex love relationships. The Japanese tradition of Shudo was prevalent from the medieval period until the late 1800s. In China through the Ming dynasty period people would contractually bind themselves to same-sex partners in elaborate ceremonies. Legal contracts from late medieval France referred to “affrèrement,” roughly translated as ‘brotherment.’ In the contract, the unrelated “brothers” pledged to live together sharing “un pain, un vin, et une bourse,” (one bread, one wine and one purse). The “one purse” referred to joint property. Like marriage contracts, the unions had to be sworn before a notary and witnesses. Similar contracts existed elsewhere in Mediterranean Europe as well. The first documented same-sex marriage was between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain on April 16, 1061 (that’s 950 years ago). They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova. But all of this is irrelevant. There is no basis for requiring precedence in another culture when forming American secular laws today.

      3. The following top American experts across medicine, science, and psychology all agree there is nothing wrong or bad about being gay: American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Anthropological Association, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Council on Child and Adolescent Health, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mental Health America, California Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, American Sociological Association, American School Health Association, National Association of School Psychologists, not to mention countless universities, local governments, labor unions, and virtually every human rights organization that exists.

      4.As for what is “akin to slavery” please absorb the following, all from American civil rights icons who are much better authorities than you:

      “Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.”
      –Mildred Loving

      “I believe all Americans who believe in freedom, tolerance and human rights have a responsibility to oppose bigotry and prejudice based on sexual orientation. Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group.”
      –Coretta Scott King

      “I have fought too hard and for too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation. I’ve heard the reasons for opposing civil marriage for same-sex couples. Cut through the distractions, and they stink of the same fear, hatred and intolerance I have known in racism.”
      –Rep. John Lewis, ally and close associate of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

      “When someone asks me, ‘Are gay rights civil rights?’ My answer is always, ‘Of course they are.’ Civil rights are positive legal prerogatives. The right to equal treatment before the law. These are the rights shared by everyone. There is no one in the United States who does not or should not enjoy or share in enjoying these rights. Gay and lesbian rights are not special rights in any way. It isn’t special to be free from discrimination.”
      –Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP

      Not to mention women’s civil right pioneers like Betty Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem who also support gay civil rights.

    • Vitojr130

      Yet again Bill is showing the typical ignorance shown in this city. No one is suggesting lowering standards or rules, unless of course you view gays as secondary to straights. Traditional, religious weddings would not be affected because this is not a traditional religious wedding. It is a civil union that we are dealing with here. Why can only few of you people comprehend the fact that God should not be a card dealt in this hand?

  • ackerjohnson

    Hollymunk In as much as my comments were not directed to you they are not required reading for you. Your comments however are directed to me, therefore I read them

  • crucified

    Civil Rights imply that our rights come from government. All rights come from God, to impose other rights is to make society itself or its individuals a god. I know that liberals do not believe it, so I have adapted a portion of the Declaration of Independence just for you all.

    We hold these opinions to be ambiguous, that all creatures have evolved and mutated equally, that they are endowed by their government with certain alterable privileges; that among these are healthcare, welfare, housing, food stamps, free education, a living wage, homo-sexual marriages, abortions, and the pursuit of entitlements. That to secure these privileges courts will legislate from the bench, deriving their unjust powers from the consent of an uneducated electorate.

    • amaciej

      Merle, despite your rhetoric, last time I checked we lived in a country called America where every citizen is guaranteed certain things, even if they don’t believe in God. This comes from the US Constitution, not from God. You are trying to equate spiritual being with citizenship, and that’s just stupid.

      Our civil rights do come the government. That doesn’t mean anyone is putting government above God. What a silly, ignorant thing to say.

  • bcasey

    I believe that the people of Minnesota have the right to vote on the issue of same sex marriage. Anyone who thinks this is not a “religious” issue is just fooling themselves. If you look at the comments on pro marriage equality web sites (I have) you do not have to look far before you see why. Proponents of marriage equality will say that it is a civil issue not a religious one yet they admit that any clergy must possess a license from the state to perform a legally binding marriage. The couple choosing to marry must also obtain a license from the state. If we allow the laws to change to allow same sex marriages in Minnesota the next step will be denying any clergy their license to perform marriages unless they also perform same sex marriages or as we have seen in Canada…Clergy being charged with hate crimes for preaching from the pulpit that homosexuality is a sin.

    Same sex couples can already adopt, they can address inheritance in a will, they can name their partner as their health care proxy to make medical decisions for them, they can cover their partner on their healthcare insurance, name them as beneficiary to a life insurance policy…what exactly are the rights that they are being denied??? Social Security?? Well Social Security is broke and may not be there for those of us 50 and younger anyway. So again, what rights are they being denied???

    It is just one more avenue to gain ground to the destruction of this countries Judeo-Christian beliefs. The very beliefs that this country was founded on. The liberals will cry separation of Church & State yet from what I am observing they are the first to intermingle the two when it suits them. Our Constitution clearly states that the government of the United States of America will not promote one religion over another. It also gives each of it’s citizens the right to worship in the Church of their own choosing.

    I view this whole argument of same sex marriages as a small miniority of our population trying to deny me my constitutional rights to have my christian values, morals and beliefs. Let me explain why I have come to this point of view. In states that allow civil unions for same sex couples the LGBT is still saying that is not “marriage” and continues to fight to redefine “marriage” By definition “civil…..of citizens in matters not military or religious” So if a civil union gives same sex partners all the same rights as marriage why is a civil union not good enough for them??? The answer is simple…They want their marriages recognized by the churches…thus a religious issue. So don’t be fooled by the LGBT’s propaganda that this is a civil issue…it certainly is not!

    • Vitojr130

      Barbara, absolutely no one is denying you of your religion, values, or morals. You are trying to impose your beliefs unto other people, not the other way around. The reason why clergy have to be certified by state to legally wed people is because a religious union is typically both religious and civil at the same time. They are bound together both religiously and legally at once. Clergy can wed people without being certified, but it won’t be recognized from a legal aspect (i.e. taxes and the like) because it wouldn’t be a civil union at the same time. Gays are not looking for the religious union. It is purely a civil. Even if they have all those rights, they are still being denied the simple pleasure of getting married. Marriage is a big day in someones life. It is important to those being wed. They want to feel that too.

      For your information, less than 7 percent of the founding fathers were Catholic, Lutheran, or Methodist. The vast majority of founding fathers were Anglican. What religion is Anglican do you ask? I believe the ECLA is part of the Anglican church and they even allow gays to preach. Don’t throw your, “Our country was founded on this principle” b.s. at me.

      • bcasey

        Brendan…you might want to reread my post and revisit your history books. I said our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. 99.9% of our founding fathers were Christian. Anglicanism is a tradition within Christianity comprising churches with historical connections to the Church of England or similar beliefs, worship and church structures. The faith of Anglicans is based in the scriptures. So I am correct when I say that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs (and the Bible) You yourself support my statement when you said that most of our founding fathers were Anglican without taking the time to find ot what Anglicanism is.

        You are also misinformed when you say that gays are not looking for religious marriage. They already have the right to civil unions or domestic partnerships in many states (11 to be exact,plus 5 that issue marriage licenses to same sex couples) yet they are still fighting to redefine “marriage” in those states. They can have a ceremony with a justice of the peace to celebrate their union with their family & friends in attendance. so once again…if a civil union or domestic partnership gives same sex couples All of the states rights of “marriage” why the need to redefine marriage?? I do not really expect you to take the time to research the issue objectively, like I have, since you are very quick to spew uninformed responses without researching if what you are saying is even remotely correct.

        • cannellbd


          I’d like to direct you to the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796, received unanimous ratification by the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and was signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797.

          “[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion[.]”

    • amaciej

      Barbara, that is not correct. We already have certain churches with marriage rules not consistent with civil law. Catholics and Jews come to mind.

      Catholics, for example, and not allowed by the church to marry a non-Catholic in a Catholic ceremony, although the law would certainly allow that union. Such church rules are entirely separate from legal marriage, and no Catholic church or priest has ever been sued for not allowing what the law clearly does allow.

      So will be the case with same sex unions. The law will allow it because it must, but any church can do anything it wants with respect to holy matrimony. That’s the way it has always been. You’ve presented nothing (apart from your fear) to suggest this might change.

      Also, your claim about clergy requiring a license is false. While a clergy member does have to qualify to be a legal wedding officiant, so does any other officiant and none are not required to perform all weddings that are legal.

      If your claim were true, Jewish rabbis would be compelled to marry an atheist and a Lutheran, since law allows it.

      So Barbara, please stop spreading misinformation and lies. If your argument rests on misinformation, then you best ask yourself whether your argument can not make it on merit alone.

      • bcasey

        To cannellbd… The Treaty you refer to is signed after the US Constitution and after the 1st ammendment. What the treaty says is correct in that the US was not formed in the Christian religion. The early settlers were breaking away from the Church of England and wanted to protect the citizens right to worship in the Church of thier choosing and that the government would not establish one religion for this country. It does not change the fact that the founding fathers were Christian and founded this country on christian principles (not the Christian religion)

        Tony, I also need to correct your statement on the Catholic church. A Catholic & non-Catholic can be married in a Catholic ceremony. I am not 100% sure on the Jewish faith but I will certainly find out before I comment on it

        • amaciej

          Barbara, maybe it varies then from parish to parish. Neither my hometown parish (Elk River) nor that where my cousin now lives (Little Falls) would marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic in a Catholic ceremony. In the case of the later, which was just last year, when pressed further the priest got snippy and said those were the rules and they’d find the same answer elsewhere. He suggested conversion courses (can’t recall the correct name) for the non-Catholic to do a quickie conversion to Catholicism.

  • crucified

    Tony , despite your rhetoric, last time I checked we lived in a country called America where every citizen is guaranteed certain things, even if they don’t believe in God; not included among these things are actions such as murder, rape, theft, sodomy, etc. Perverted evil behavior are not rights. Now I believe they have a right to do as they please as long as they do not hurt others, but they should not force society to endorse this abomination. Government gets its authority from God, and they are instituted to protect the rights that God has given to us, not perverted life styles.

    Rights come from God not from the government. You are trying to separate spiritual beings from citizenship, and that’s just stupid. All rights do come God, whether one believs in Him or not. To reverse this is to put government above God. You are silly and ignorant, but that is why I am here, to push back ignorance. The following was written by Thomas Jefferson, not by me:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

    Notice our rights come from God – government is to secure these rights, not create or invent rights.

    • Vitojr130

      Merle, everything you say only applies if you believe in God. That’s the beauty of this country: it does not have a single state-approved religion. You can chose to believe in God or not. If you do not believe in God, then it was not God who put the Government in place. If you believe in God, then it was. However, the Government foresaw these views as conflicting, and decided separation of church and state was necessary. The word of God should not be applied to the founding of law. I do not get why you people do not understand this. God says that gays should not marry, however this is not a religious matter. You people are making it into one. Get over it and move on in what is supposed to be a civilized country.

    • amaciej

      Merle, grow up. Your cutesy tactic of mimicking someone’s own words back to them suggests an inability to form your own thoughts. It’s says you have to start with someone else’s template of original thought, then change the applicable words to make a point. That’s not being clever, that’s being obtuse.

      Whether you comprehend this or not, the fact remains God is not the source of civil rights. If He was then only believers in God would be afforded those rights, which of course is not the case. American civil rights are a product of the US Constitution.

      Stop worshiping Glenn Beck and go sign up for a high school civics class.

  • ackerjohnson

    Where do our right’s come from? God or Government? Here is what George Carlin said about our rights and where they came from. “Folks, I hate to spoil your fun but…there’s no such thing as rights. They’re imaginary. We made ’em up. Rights are an idea. They’re just imaginary. But if you think you do have rights, let me ask you this, where do they come from? People say, ‘they come from god. They’re god given rights.’ Awww xxxx, here we go again…here we go again.
    The god excuse. The last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument, ‘It came from god’. Anything we can’t describe must have come from god. Personally folks, if your rights came from god, he would’ve given you the right for some food everyday, and he would’ve given you the right to a roof over your head.
    But let’s say it’s true. Let’s say that god gave us these rights. Why would he give us a certain number of rights? The Bill of Rights of this country (USA) has 10 stipulations. Okay, 10 rights. And apparently god was doing sloppy work that week because we’ve had to ammend the bill of rights an additional 17 times. So god forgot a couple of things like slavery. Just slipped his mind.
    But let’s say, god gave us the original 10. He gave the British 13. The British bill of rights has 13 stipulations. The Germans have 29, the Belgians have 25, the Swedish have only 6, and some people in the world have NO RIGHTS AT ALL. What type of a god given deal is that? NO RIGHTS AT ALL? Why would god give different people in different countries a different number of rights? Boredom? Amusement? Bad arithemetic? Doesn’t seem like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.
    Now, if you think you do have rights, in Wikipedia, search for ‘Japanese-Americans 1942’. You will find out all about your precious rights.
    In 1942, there were 110,000 Japanese-American citizens, in good standing, law abiding people, who were thrown into internment camps simply because their parents were born in the wrong country. That’s all they did wrong. They had no right to a lawyer, no right to a fair trial, no right to due process of any kind.
    Just when these American citizens needed their rights most, the government took them away. And rights aren’t rights if someone can take them away. They’re privileges. That’s all we’ve ever had in this country, a bill of TEMPORARY privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you will know the list gets shorter, and shorter and shorter.
    Sooner or later, the people in this country are going to realize the government doesn’t give a xxxx about them. The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare or your safety. It simply doesn’t give a xxxx about you. It’s interested in its own power. That’s the only thing. Keeping it, and expanding it wherever possible.
    Personally, when it comes to rights, I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights or we have no rights at all.”

    • BillSchulz

      So, Acker, let me follow your logic here. Either we have
      unlimited rights or no rights at all? Then it follows that for you or I, who have little on which we agree, have an unlimited right to enhance our enjoyment of life, by killing the other on sight? And to deny either of us that right denies us all rights?
      That’s the kind of quandry you find yourself in when you use a drugged up comedian(Carlin) as your philosophical
      guru. But it is emblematic of the regnant theme of logic put forwarded by yourself and all the supporters of homosexual marriage in this thread.

      • ackerjohnson

        Yes Bill, that’s exactly what Carlin meant. We have a right to kill each other. Idiot.

        • farmguy39

          if marriage is such a special sacret thing , why has till death do us part been taken out of the vows?? and if they are still part of the vows , how can so many be able to break those said sacred vows with divorce????
          marriage is no longer (if it ever really even was) a sacred thing get over yourself people( I mean get over yourself republicans)

          • amaciej

            You know who else thinks marriage is sacred? Linda Lou Taylor, a 68-year-old Indiana woman who has been married a record-breaking 23 times. One of her marriages lasted a mere 36 hours. Her most recent marriage was an admitted publicity stunt. Glynn “Scotty” Wolfe was the most married man in the world when he made his 29th trip down the aisle with Taylor. They thought it would be fun to be in the Guinness World Records together. Sacred? Taylor can’t remember her husbands’ names in order, yet all her relationships were legally valid. But it is gay couples who somehow diminish marriage?

            Kelsey Grammer can end a 15 year marriage over the phone, Larry King can be on divorce #9, Liz Taylor married 8 times. Britney Spears had a 55-hour marriage and ensuing reality TV show. The entire concept of ‘The Bachelor’ and ‘The Bachelorette,’ ‘Jon and Kate Plus 8,’ etc. Sacred?

            I’m sorry, but no heterosexual really has much credibility trotting out “sacred” arguments as a basis to deny gay couples equality after what they’ve done with marriage.

  • crucified

    Brendan, everything Thomas Jefferson wrote applies, whether one believes in God or not. That’s the beauty of this country: it does not have a single state-approved denomination. You can choose to believe in God or perish, but even those who don’t believe in Jesus will still benefit if the majority of the citizens remain the moral majority (believers). If you do not believe in God you’re a fool, but it is still God who put the Government in place. If you believe in God, then you are wise. However, the forefathers foresaw the problem of government ran religion and protected the church from a government takeover like what happened in England and Rome. They also understood the dangers our nation would face without the Christian influence in our laws and law makers. Separation of church and state is nowhere to be found in any formal US document.

    The word of God should always be applied to the founding of law. I get why you people do not understand this (they want to be free from what they consider to be oppressive). God says homosexuals must repent; this is a spiritual matter but also has consequences in the physical realm. You people are forcing society as a whole to embrace it. What we make legal we condone. Get over it and move on, lest we become like Sodom and Gomorrah.

    Leviticus 18:22 “‘Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable. 23 “‘Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion. 24 “‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25 Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

    You must understand this; the laws of God, just like the law of gravity, are in effect whether someone believes in them or not. If you fall off a cliff, you will plummet to the ground. If we disobey God’s law, we will suffer the consequences. Unfortunately we all suffer if we allow our nation to be polluted by such an evil practice. 40 years ago 90% of the population knew that homo-sexuality was perverted. False scientist claims of a gay gene is as idiotic as claiming a pedophiliac gene or a bestiality gene. What a sick and perverted society we live in today.

    • farmguy39

      I can’t claim to know the bible merle but I do know it forbids alot of things and I pretty sure you and the rest of the suppose to be christian posters on here are guilty of doing at least one of them any a sin is a sin no matter what it is !!! live exactly as the bible says or quit quoting it 😉

  • crucified

    laird haarstick, marriage is a special sacred thing , till death do us part is still included in the vows, and because they are still part of the vows , those who honor the covenant they made with another before God, will break those sacred vows with divorce. Marriage is a sacred thing get over yourself people and surrender your lives to Jesus, I mean get over yourself liberals. (both theological and political liberals)

    Ephesians 5: 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

    Remember; God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!

    • amaciej

      If Adam was gay it would have been more honest of him to marry Steve than Eve.

  • crucified

    laird haarstick, it’s unfortunate that you do not know God (the Word), for if you did you would realize that although God commands us to repent of a lot of things, He offers forgiveness when we do sin. I’m certain that I and the rest of us Christians have been guilty of at least one sin and if we confess them and turn from them, He will cleanse us and forgive us of sin, no matter what it is!!! Seek to live exactly as the bible says and continue quoting it.

    • farmguy39

      well then if it is so sacred then as long as hetrosexual couples get to divorce I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry its that simple 😉
      either its what the bible says or its not can;t have it both ways

      • amaciej

        Amen to that, Laird.

        Besides, why would God care if a person falls in love with a man or a woman, as long as they lead a Godly life? Love is love is love. It’s just such a silly, stupid thing for folks to get hung up on.

  • crucified

    I don’t understand all the uproar! Why is not everyone in favor of “GAY” marriages? My wife and I have a “GAY” marriage. We have a spat now and again, but for the most part we are pretty “GAY”. I know of many husbands and wives who have “GAY” marriages. I feel that all marriages should be happy and joyous. I wish all those who were participating in a perverse lifestyle would turn toward God and away from sin; they then could also experience a “GAY” marriage, one in which God could be at the center of. It takes three to make a successful marriage, MAN + WOMAN + GOD = successful marriage. Ecclesiastes 4:11 if two lie down together, they will keep warm; But how can one be warm alone? 12 Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. And a threefold cord is not quickly broken.

    Most of you all are throwing around a word that you know not what it means. Gay is not the correct word to describe people living in perversion. It was a self-proclaimed term, from about 40 years ago, to make the evil life style seem more acceptable or be more palatable. Gay is a word which describes an emotion that means to have joy or happiness. True joy only comes from walking with God, not rebelling against Him.

    GAY: Excited with merriment; manifesting sportiveness or delight; inspiring delight; livery; merry.

    SODOMY: Carnal copulation in a manner against nature; buggery.

    BUGGERY: The unnatural and detestable crime of carnal intercourse of man or woman with a beast; or of human beings unnaturally with each other.

    QUEER: At variance with what is usual or normal; differing in some odd way from what is ordinary; odd; singular; strange; whimsical; as, a queer story or act.

    Everyone, regardless whether they are religious or not, knows in their heart that sodomy is a perversion in the same way as bestiality and pedophilia is a perversion. EVERYONE!

    • Jake Krohn

      Who do think you are? F. Scott Fitzgerald? Times change. Evolution may be a hard thing for you to swallow, but language is dynamic.

      Here are the usage notes for “gay” in the OED:

      “Gay meaning ‘homosexual,’ dating back to the 1930s (if not earlier), became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves. It is now the standard accepted term throughout the English-speaking world. As a result, the centuries-old other senses of gay meaning either ‘carefree’ or ‘bright and showy,’ once common in speech and literature, are much less frequent. The word gay cannot be readily used today in these older senses without sounding old-fashioned or arousing a sense of double entendre, despite concerted attempts by some to keep them alive. Gay in its modern sense typically refers to men (lesbian being the standard term for homosexual women), but in some contexts it can be used of both men and women.”

    • amaciej

      Merle, I’d like to thank you for being a cliche example of what a rotten old nasty bigot is. When average joes across the nation read your ignorant words of hate it can only serve to help the gay rights movement.

      Merle, did you know that the follow American experts all agree that bisexuality and homosexuality are natural, healthy, normal, morally-neutral variations in human sexuality?

      American Medical Association, American Psychological Association, American Anthropological Association, World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, Child Welfare League of America, National Association of Social Workers, North American Council on Adoptable Children, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, Council on Child and Adolescent Health, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Mental Health America, California Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, American Sociological Association, American School Health Association, National Association of School Psychologists, not to mention countless universities, local governments, labor unions, and virtually every human rights organization that exists.

      I think folks can trust the professional conclusions of these experts over someone like you.

  • crucified

    Jake Krohn; This was easy!

    1) Who do think you are?

    I know who I am. I am a new creation, a minister of reconciliation, an ambassador for Christ, and I am the righteousness of God.

    II Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

    2)Times change.

    Times change, but God does not; and neither does His word.

    Malachi 3:6 “For I am the LORD, I do not change;
    Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
    Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.
    Matthew 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

    3)language is dynamic

    Verbicide: the killing of a word, in a figurative sense; perversion of a word from its proper meaning, as in punning; the willful distortion or depreciation of the original meaning of a word.

    4)“Gay meaning ‘homosexual,’ dating back to the 1930s (if not earlier), became established in the 1960s as the term preferred by homosexual men to describe themselves.

    “Homosexual meaning an abomination,” dating back to the beginning of time; became re-affirmed around 70 B.C. by the Apostle Paul as an action considered by God to be vile passions, against nature, shameful, and practiced by those having a debased mind.

    Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.

    Romans 1: 24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

  • crucified

    Tony Maciej; Besides, why would God care if a person falls in love with a man or a woman, as long as they lead a Godly life? Love is love is love. It’s just such a silly, stupid thing for folks to get hung up on.

    You’re using an oxymoron. It is impossible to live a Godly life while at the same time practicing a behavior that God finds detestable. You also have broken the first commandment by following another god (self). You don’t like God’s laws so you’ve create your own law. It’s just such a foolish, stupid thing that folks get hung up on.

    You have forgotten that God created us, we did not create Him, we don’t make the rules, He does. Do you think you are smarter than God? Do you feel you can tell God what types of relationships are acceptable? Do you approve of the unnatural use of the body?

    Isaiah 29:16 You turn things upside down, as if the potter were thought to be like the clay! Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, “You did not make me”? Can the pot say to the potter, “You know nothing”?

    Romans 1:32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

    • amaciej

      Merle, don’t be silly. God doesn’t detest gay people. That is an archaic myth from when people who didn’t know any better.

  • tsun

    I really like Tony’s comments, he seems very insightful and open minded. Which is exactly what people need to be more often, instead of so narrow minded about what marriage means.

    Marriage is different everyone. I do think that gays should be allowed to get married, though. We obviously have come a long way and it’s time to evolve and stop using primitive cave thinking to make our decisions. Stop being so homophobic and take the god damned religion out of legal issues. As if most religions didn’t do enough damage between families, friends etc. Apparently there are traditionalistic mindsets that are running rampant through this county. I haven’t even lived here long enough and I’ve made a few enemies just by not having the same beliefs. It’s disheartening and now I want to move.

    Religion should not be included in everything and I don’t care if the bible states that being homosexual is wrong. The bible is a huge book of lies and there are no solid facts. It’s full of violence and hypocrisy and the only way to follow it, is blindly. Yes, I am making my comment about religion because the law is dragging religion into this certain subject and with almost everything else, like planned parenthood, the abortions, etc. It needs to stop. I have met the most kindest people in my entire life who didn’t go to church and I have met the most hateful people who cast judgment upon me because I don’t go to church, without even knowing me! I am a very sweet girl but I refuse to agree with this silly crap.

    You’re not supposed to tell someone how to love, that is impossible! Love is different for everyone, in an individualistic manner and don’t confuse my passion with hatred, btw. I speak from my perception of the world and my perception is extremely vivid, colorful, and vast and completely different. I know this is going to start a war on here but I really do not care. That is my price to pay for being myself and accepting that love comes in many forms.

    I had a best friend who was gay who died a few years ago and now I defend his honor and he was always ashamed about this. He spent a long time feeling too weird and cast out from society. I don’t want to see any more people feeling this way. I don’t think everyone is going to be equal but I think everyone might want to open their eyes, life is fucking short. Stop wasting it on trivial pursuits and realize that being small minded gets you no where, in fact it hinders you from love. Genuine love.

    “The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.”
    -Friedrich Nietzsche

    • John Anderson

      Well said, Rebecca!

    • amaciej

      Live your truth, Rebecca. Don’t let the closed minds and self-righteous snakes get you down. We can’t control those around us & how they act, we can only control our own actions & reactions. Be joyful, embrace love, cling to your loved ones, smile a lot, and to hell with anyone who doesn’t “approve”!

  • crucified

    “The Apple of His Eye”

    I have a 3 year old daughter who’s stolen her daddy’s heart. She is the apple of my eye. I would do anything to keep her from danger. Since she’s only 3, she doesn’t understand danger. Sometimes she wants to run, and if left to herself she dashes toward the street. As her father, I have a responsibility to protect her. This includes; the power to restrain her, the authority to discipline her, and the duty to rebuke and correct her. Because I have a great love for her, I will not neglect my duty.

    God calls His children “The Apple of His Eye”. He loves us infinitely more than we love our kids. God’s done everything to keep us from danger, even laying down His own life. God has the power to restrain us and the authority to discipline us; but the task of rebuking and correcting (not judge), He has committed to men. If a Christian loves his brother, he’ll not neglect this duty. I’m not trying to win a popularity contests, but open blind eyes. “2 Tim. 4:2-4 I command you to preach God’s message. Do it willingly, even if it isn’t the popular thing to do. You must correct people and point out their sins, but also being patient ,exhort and instruct them. The time is coming when people won’t listen to good teaching. Instead, they will look for teachers who will please them by telling them only what they are itching to hear. They will turn from the truth and listen to fables.”

    Does admonishing Christians to stop embracing evil; make one self-righteous, hateful, disrespectful, intolerant, judgmental, divisive, condemning, arrogant and narrow-minded? No individuals are being judged, or even mentioned. If anybody feels as if they are being judged, it is their own conscience condemning them, not me.

    Liberals claim to promote tolerance, yet they’re extremely intolerant. To silence Christians, they promote hate speech legislation. They tolerate sin, but not truth. Pastors teaching exclusively the goodness of God, but nothing about God’s severity, are harmful. “Rom. 11:22 Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off.”

    It’s not judging when you examine the fruit of an ungodly ideology and reprove Christians for endorsing it. It is judging when you condemn a person’s motives, without being able to look into their heart. Write rebuking comments because I love sinners, but I hate sin. “Ps. 97:10 You who love the LORD, hate evil!”

    I love verses that speak of God’s mercy, His grace and His love; but by not embracing all elements of God, we create our own God, a fictitious one. Many avoid scriptures that speak of God’s judgment, His severity, and His chastisement; in order to justify evil, escape correction and avoid conviction. We all love John 3:16, but continue reading the next few verses. Those who love sin and continue in darkness have already been judged (not by me). They reject the light for fear of being exposed, because they want to practice evil.

    “If Jesus had preached the same message that ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.” — Leonard Ravenhill

    No! not all liberals will go to hell, only the unrepentant ones. God loves everyone and accepts former Muslims, ex-Gays, and even recovering Democrats; but they must change. “2 Tim. 2:19 But God’s truth stands firm like a foundation: The LORD knows those who are his, and all who belong to the LORD must turn away from evil.”

    Kindness is not tolerance. Equal opportunity is not equal outcome. Racial equality is not reverse discrimination. Humility is not weakness. Generosity does not enable. Love often corrects. Tolerance without repentance is deception.

    I realize my commentrs are harsh and may offend people, but hopefully employing tough love may convict (not condemn) some and change their hearts. Godly sorrow causes conviction, which produces repentances (change); but worldly sorrow brings condemnation, which produces guilt (death). One message, two different results. The same sun that melt’s wax, also hardens cement. It’s not a message issue, it’s a heart issue.

    If I’m arrogant and narrow-minded, I’m in good company. Peter had the audacity to proclaim: Jesus is the only name whereby men must be saved. John was so narrow-minded he said: If you don’t believe in Jesus, you’re already condemned. Paul was so impudent he stated; only the grace of the Lord Jesus could save you. Jesus was considered self-righteous when He announced: No one comes to the Father except through Himself. Jesus was narrow-minded when He said: the road to heaven was narrow and only a FEW will find it; but the road to hell was wide and many will enter it. It’s ok to be narrow-minded, if your right. It sure beats being closed-minded and intolerant.


    I say we vote on if “Christians should finally be oppressed” as they are always clamoring about being so.
    I have no problem with tolerance until ones Liberties trample the rights of others.
    that’s where your freedom ends, Christians!
    regardless of whatever your hybred of Heru and Zeus told scribes to pass down to you and which you chose to ignore anyway
    have any of you Christians ever actually read the bible?
    because none of you follow its teachings.
    you should be ashamed for molesting the name of Jesus and his philosophies to deprive others of harmonious existence.
    regardless of your off the wall religions, your freedom ends where the next persons begins and so, you have no right to deprive anyone to pursuit love and/or happiness, regardless of gender, sexual preference, race, or creed, or the lack there of, or your same rights should be taken away as a lesson in human decency.
    this issue is not about tolerance as the Republican cartel chose to label it here, it’s about basic respect for human rights, and equality under the law.
    if this is passed then you have established that some are lesser beings than others and therefore created a theology which could eventually remove your right to practice your own twisted religious non-sense.
    depriving humans of their equal rights is a double edged sword, at least for humans.


      You are not a Christian so stop lying to yourself.

      Matthew 5:32 Jesus said marrying a divorced woman is adultery but do you “christians” follow that?
      NO! you get remarried and divorced more often than non-believers.

      Matthew 5:29 – 30
      Jesus told you to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand if it did something wrong.
      Have you followed that teaching?

      Luke 12:33
      New Living Translation (©2007)
      “Sell your possessions and give to those in need. This will store up treasure for you in heaven! And the purses of heaven never get old or develop holes. Your treasure will be safe; no thief can steal it and no moth can destroy it.
      how many of you have sold everything and gave the money to the poor?
      any of you?
      hah, yet you invoke the word of GOD to justify hate and depriving Humans of their basic rights?
      complete frauds!
      none of you are Christians!


    if this passes it will only breed more contempt and disrespect for the law.
    just as other stupid pointless laws have.
    I thought the Republi-liers wanted less Govt. control in our lives?
    what gives?
    why is the Govt. competent when it comes to stripping the Homosexuals of human rights? yet incompetent boobs when healthcare reform enters the discussion?
    you can’t have it both ways all the time and still expect anyone to take you seriously.
    lol, “grown-ups”

    • farmguy39

      ok lets see if the see if the public can understand reason . the best way to save heterosexual marriage is to allow homosexual marriage 😉 because anything that helps homosexuals be open and honest about who they are means there is less of a chance of your son daughter or yourself marrying one !!! and while this commment may be to frank for this forum believe me people there are alot of closet cases in this community

  • John Bartlett

    Why can’t we vote on ALL marriages then? It’s only fair that if we vote on one kind of marriage that we be allowed to vote on every kind of marriage. I personally would vote that only civil marriages be considered valid in this country.

Editor's Picks

5 shot at Minneapolis protest [UPDATED]

MINNEAPOLIS — Five people were shot late Monday night near the site of an ongoing protest over the fatal shooting of a black man by ... Read more

Sexual predator receives 12-year sentence in prison [UPDATED]

Otter Tail County District Court prosecutors sentenced a Fergus Falls man to 12 years in St. Cloud prison Monday for having a sexual relationship with ... Read more

Author to sign books

The author of a five-part series on a farm family in the 20th century will appear and sign books on Friday at Victor Lundeen Co. ... Read more