Get visible with ‘Vote No, Don’t Limit the Freedom to Marry’ t-shirts, bumper stickers, lawn signs and buttons


  1. Kylie Kuhlman said:

    I would love to purchase a lawn sign (not available for shipping from the website)– Do you know how to find out if Suzannah and co. still have some available locally? Thanks!

    July 31, 2012
  2. Thanks for the nice photos Griff – it was great seeing such strong community support at Crazy Daze for marriage equality for all couples!

    Lawn signs, bumper stickers, etc. are available Tuesday evenings 6:30pm at UCC church, Union St. Stop by to pick some up, or volunteer to do phone calls with local chapt. of ‘Minnesotans United for All Families’! Easy and effective grassroots basics, inviting Rice Co. folks in conversation to share thoughts on marriage equality for all couples. Tonight there’s also a special ‘conversation coaching’ option open to hear tips on how to discuss this sensitive topic in a way that doesn’t turn into an argument or a debate. Drop-in volunteers are always welcome and I hope some of your readers will consider coming on down!


    July 31, 2012
  3. Adam Elg said:

    Thank you for your support and determination to defeat this amendment.

    July 31, 2012
  4. I find the slogan to be intellectually dishonest- “Don’t Limit the Freedom to Marry.” The freedom to marry is already limited, and has been since long before the birth of the American republic. The amendment only elevates current law to constitutional status; it doesn’t change anything.

    I believe the phrase is intentionally deceptive. The idea is get the masses to think about “freedom” instead of “marriage.” It thus taps into the usual adolescent infatuation with total freedom, i.e., “no one can tell me what to do…you’re not the boss of me,” etc.

    I wonder if Mark Ritchie came up with it.

    August 1, 2012
  5. Andy, each side is free to define the question as it resonates with them and those they hope to persuade. Other ways of describing it get “the masses” to think about tradition or religious views instead of civil rights and freedom. All of these concepts are involved in the discussion; people differ on the emphasis due to each for civil marriage. Your suggestion that people are being misdirected away from thinking about “marriage” rather begs the question, as how that is to be defined is exactly what the debate is about.

    August 2, 2012
  6. I have my button and sticker : I will Vote No : Does this make me a sinner in God’s eyes (If God does exsist) : What is the Big Deal anyway ? : Our Country has much more to deal with than social issues :

    August 2, 2012
  7. It’s true that the freedom is already limited, but in the past, changes like this have been found to have unexpected additional effects on the legal state of various people.

    That said, as you note, it’s already limited; it’s not as though passing this amendment will do anything except hammer home the fact that somewhere around 50% of our populace does not consider somewhere around 5-10% of our populace to be fully human. And no, I do not accept any claim that there is a class of people who are “human, but there is a need for a constitutional amendment to prevent them from marrying as they please.” The people whose marriages are contingent upon other people’s approval are being viewed as less-fully-people.

    August 10, 2012
  8. Griff Wigley said:

    Friday’s Strib had this commentary by John Gunyou, former City Manager of Minnetonka: Open and affirming: A church’s path to LGBT acceptance; After hours of discussion, one man — uncharacteristically — rose to speak.

    It was my honor to sit next to Russ in the church choir. He was pushing 80, but I always relied on his rich baritone voice to help me find those notes I could never quite locate among the musical symbols. Russ always helped me find my way…

    But after prayerful consideration, he changed his mind. Russ realized that this young man was everything his club stood for. He was devoted to serving his community, was an enthusiastic participant in their activities, and he was respectful of others. Russ told his colleagues that this young man was exactly the kind of person they needed in their service organization … and, he happened to be gay. That one adjective did not define the strength of his character.

    Shortly after Russ spoke, our congregation voted overwhelmingly to embrace our brothers and sisters in faith. There would be no second-class members of our congregation. All who shared our covenants with God and with one another were welcome. Fully welcome.

    August 20, 2012
  9. There is a lot of discussion of this in which people who are opposed to gay marriage are accused of being variously hateful, homophobic, etcetera. Of course, many are pretty deeply offended by these allegations, and for good reason. The question, then, is why do people keep thinking this? I found a wonderfully-written piece which explains this pretty well, while acknowledging that, yes, these people really are sincere when they claim not to be homophobic.

    August 20, 2012
  10. kiffi summa said:

    Of course some “people really are sincere when they claim not to be homophobic. “… but … if you continue to try to make the law of the land disenfranchise those who you believe to be ‘other’, and therefore of less value, then I do not think sincerity can be claimed, except in the strength of your belief.

    In that case, ‘sincerity’ is qualified, and has no relevance to the actualization of equality for all.

    August 20, 2012
  11. I don’t think I agree. I think there’s a pretty significant gap between actually having strong negative feelings about people, and just not being quite able to let your positive feelings for them trump your strong feelings on some other issue. And the thing is, telling people who genuinely do like gay people that they’re “homophobic” makes it much harder to talk to them about the effects of their actions in a way that they can think about rather than being threatened by. I have seen people who are genuinely motivated by hostility, and I have seen people who aren’t, and there is a huge difference there. It may not have a practical impact in terms of a single particular vote, but in the longer run there is a world of difference.

    For instance, David Blankenhorn does not seem to be homophobic. And while that didn’t keep him from testifying in favor of Proposition 8, it meant that when he was confronted with the reality of the homophobia among many of the people opposing gay marriage, he changed his mind — he concluded that he needed to oppose those homophobic people more than he needed to promote his views about marriage.

    August 21, 2012
  12. kiffi summa said:

    Look, Peter, I realize the “gap” you’re referring to exists, but “the proof will be in the pudding” when the vote is taken… How will these people who have your “gap” vote?

    At the same time top Republicans, even Paul Ryan, are telling the now infamous Rep. Todd Aiken to withdraw from the Republican Senate race in Missouri, they are putting a plank in the Republican party platform to have a Federal constitutional amendment to bar abortion even in cases of rape, incest, or life threat to the pregnant woman.

    This is just plain hypocrisy on their part… not some minor philosophical vs. action “gap” .

    Todd Aiken is on the House Committee for Science, Space, and Technology. I don’t think he understands the difference between science and some crazy belief. Why should this man be making decisions that may affect the general public?
    But remember, his party members , his partner on originating legislation, Paul Ryan, has similar “gaps”.

    Maureen Dowd said it best in her NYT Op-Ed piece: ” … they are people who want to be in your life, deep in your life, even when they say they don’t”.

    Women should not take the chance of being lost in the gap between what is said, and what is acted upon.

    August 22, 2012
  13. I don’t know how they’ll vote, but probably not the way I’d like. However! In the slightly longer term, the chances of them voting in a way that does not hurt other people will improve dramatically if they are addressed respectfully, and in terms of what they actually believe, not in terms of what some other people (who happen to vote the same way) believe.

    In short, while I recognize there may be little short-term practical impact, I think that in the slightly longer term, recognition that some of these people are genuinely acting without malice is important. People who know they’re not being listened to tend to also not listen…

    August 23, 2012