23-Year-Old Tells Minnesota RINOs: Protecting Marriage Won't Alienate Young Voters


Janet Rother writes to the Minnesota Post-Bulletin:

In their Feb. 25 column in the Post-Bulletin, Republican State Reps. Tim Kelly and John Kriesel state that the Minnesota Marriage Amendment is not Republican and that it will further alienate young voters.

As a 23 year-old conservative, I beg to differ.

... Government is involved in marriage to support the best environment for the raising of children. In addition, these children can only be conceived through the relationship of one man and one woman, the most stable form of this being a marriage. Natural law tells us that this complementary union of man and woman is the only way for life to be formed. And history and reason show us that children are raised best when nurtured by both a mother and a father.

By voting 'yes' on the Marriage Amendment, Minnesotans can assure that the citizens of the state hold the power to uphold marriage in its true form. If the amendment fails to pass, our state may fall with Iowa, Massachusetts and California, where activist judges “redefined” the oldest institution in our culture.

Reps. Kelly and Kriesel, that doesn’t sound very Republican to me.


  1. John Noe
    Posted March 9, 2012 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

    . If the amendment fails to pass, our state may fall with Iowa, Massachusetts and California, where activist judges “redefined” the oldest institution in our culture.

    Or worse yet your state gets taken over by liberal Dems and RINO's who impose it on you anyways.

  2. Ash
    Posted March 9, 2012 at 7:52 pm | Permalink

    "Therefore, if we want to limit the role of government in marriage, we should ascertain why government has any interest in the institution of marriage."

    This quote from Janet gets at the heart of the matter. Needless to say, the entire piece was well done; clear, concise, common sense.

    A "small government" doesn't involve itself in relationships that are inconsequential to society. A "small government" doesn't attempt to redefine vital societal institutions in order to pander to special interest groups. In short, proponents of a "small government" should naturally be opposed to ssm.

  3. John N.
    Posted March 9, 2012 at 10:03 pm | Permalink

    Glad to see that this 23 year old female conservative gets it. We need more of them to counter the lesbian man hating radical feminists.

  4. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 9, 2012 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Many people don't realize just how close the state of Minnesota came to having marriage corruption imposed on them. SS"m" supporters had control of both chambers of the legislature. Governor Pawlenty was the only person standing in their way. He vowed to veto their bill.

    Marriage corruption supporters were gloating that once they got rid of Pawlenty their path would be clear. They would impose SS"m" in 2011. They got their co-conspirator in Dayton, but were blindsided when both chambers flipped to real marriage supporters.

    The marriage amendment must pass. Otherwise Minnesota will become the next corrupted state. Miscreants Kelly and Kriesel know this and will do anything to stop it.

  5. Bryce K.
    Posted March 10, 2012 at 2:39 am | Permalink

    John, what about getting more people to counter regular lesbians?

  6. Ash
    Posted March 10, 2012 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    Barb, I didn't know that. Thank God for governor Pawlenty. Thank God the people of Minnesota elected marriage supporters. And thank God Minnesota is now proactively defending marriage by working on passing the marriage amendment.

  7. Posted March 10, 2012 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Two State Senators NOM ought to put on the "Remember Not To Forget List".

  8. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 10, 2012 at 11:51 am | Permalink

    Indeed, Ash and Rick. As has been discussed on this blog, there's a SS"m" lawsuit currently working its way through the MN court system. Without the marriage amendment my concern is that we'll see a repeat of Iowa. That's how important this amendment is.

  9. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Permalink

    Minnesota for Marriage addresses the clear and present danger to marriage issue in this video, which was posted here at the NOM blog:

  10. Ash
    Posted March 10, 2012 at 7:11 pm | Permalink

    Barb, the good news is that the attempt to have ssm imposed by the courts might boost support for the amendment. Even ssm activists have noted this.

    A NOM entry from a few days back reveals that lawsuit attempts are also helping to further support for the marriage amendment in North Carolina.

  11. Barb Chamberlan
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 1:37 am | Permalink

    Ash, thanks for reminding me. I'd forgotten NOM had posted this (even though I commented on it, ha) :)

  12. Anne
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 9:34 am | Permalink

    My 22 year old son is as committed to preserving traditional marriage as anyone I know. It is not true that the young adults in this country do not have a strong moral grounding and appreciation for God's natural order. It's written in our hearts. And there are many bright young adults who have what it takes to see through the lie that is "SSM".

  13. Tom Beckers
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 11:52 am | Permalink

    Reps. Tim Kelly and John Kriesel should resign. They are a disgrace to our state.

    Marriage will never be anything other than what it is, the union of one man and one women. Anything else is not a marriage. The state has no right to try to redefine marriage that it didn't define in the first place. Marriage is the foundation of society, undermining it is undermining society, which is why NO nation in the history of the world has survived the open promotion of a sin so great and destructive.

  14. Zack
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    20 year old Conservative who supports traditional marriage right here.

  15. JR
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 1:35 pm | Permalink

    Zack -aka bigot.

  16. Randy E King
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm | Permalink

    New definition of Bigot:

    Anyone that questions the marriage corruption movements agenda.


    A bigot is defined as "anyone" that refuses to consider opposing positions on a given topic; which means your demonstrated refusal to acknowldge the potential validity of arguments in opposition to your demands shows you to be a Bigot.

    Just saying.

  17. Bryce K.
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm | Permalink

    Members of Zack's kind are slowly but surely going extinct, being transformed into the more liberal human subspecies...

  18. Ash
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

    You're welcome, Barb :)

    God bless you, Zack! We twenty-somethings on the pro-marriage side are probably a lot smarter and more thoughtful than the young people on the ssm side who run around screaming "Love is love!" Keep up the good work. Young SSMers will catch up with us eventually :)

  19. TC Matthews
    Posted March 11, 2012 at 7:14 pm | Permalink

    Bryce, I'm sure abortion activists thought the same thing twenty years ago. Crystal ball politics don't work, it's just a crude attempt to intimidate someone.

  20. Chan
    Posted March 12, 2012 at 10:25 am | Permalink


    Whether or not you agree, which is nothing more than sideshow commentary, Bryce's "prediction" of the dwindling numbers of bigots, like you/Barb/Zack, mirrors the fewer current numbers of KKK members, Jew gassing Nazis, racists and segregationists than in 1960.

    If you'd rather not be labeled a bigot, it might help if you weren't so blatantly and proudly homophobic, ignorant and misinformed. The main reasons you, and the rest of the Phobes here, are being labeled bigots, as if you didn't already know, is because your core value of homosexuals is being nothing but prejudicially discriminatory of and against them, intentionally. Hope that clears up a few things for you guys. If you're still confused, I'm more than happy to provide a more in depth detail of why you're thought of as bigots.

Comments are temporarily disabled. Please try back later.