Skip to content

Birk wades into same-sex marriage debate

Matt Birk AP

The question of same-sex marriage has created some same-team awkwardness.

Last month, Ravens linebacker Brendon Ayanbadejo came out in favor of expanding the legal definition of marriage to include folks of the same gender.  Over the weekend, Ravens center Matt Birk voiced his opposition to it in an op-ed that ran in the Minneapolis Star Tribune.

“I think it is important to set the record straight about what the marriage debate is and is not about, and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a good thing,” Birk wrote.

On Monday, Birk said he won’t let the issue become a “circus” in the locker room, but he also said he won’t remain silent.

“I took a stance like other guys have done before me. In doing so, it’s not my aim, it’s not my goal to engage in any debates with any one person or persons. Obviously, we all have opinions,” Birk said, via J. Michael of CSNBaltimore.com.  “It just so happens we disagree on what marriage is in the public forum.  Certainly, a very inflammatory, very hot topic because it’s important. I understand that.

“Out of respect to my teammates and my team, the organization, this isn’t going to turn into a circus.  It probably won’t be the last time that I publicly make a stance on it.”

Birk explained that he told Ayanbadejo on Friday that the column was coming.  Coach John Harbaugh has assumed the posture of Switzerland.

“Don’t discourage it or encourage it,” Birk said.  “As long as everybody respects everybody else’s opinion, that’s the main thing. We talk about politics, religion . . . movies, music.  It’s OK to have an opinion.”

One of Birk’s former teammates, Vikings punter Chris Kluwe, also has weighed in, via a written submission that only Kluwe could craft.

Regardless of where folks land on this one, here’s hoping that it doesn’t become an issue in the locker room for the Ravens or any other team.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on matters like this, but it’s important to respect everyone else’s opinion on matters like this, too.

Permalink 183 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Baltimore Ravens, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
183 Responses to “Birk wades into same-sex marriage debate”
  1. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 1, 2012 8:08 PM

    There is no logical argument against gay marrige. It’s happening. Nothing will change in society.

  2. allnightdwight says: Oct 1, 2012 8:08 PM

    Surprised to hear that from Birk

  3. b1unt3d says: Oct 1, 2012 8:08 PM

    Bigots will be bigots..

  4. duffer58 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:10 PM

    Matt Birk went to Harvard. Think he would be smarter then oppose Same Sex marriage.

  5. Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:11 PM

    I don’t mind his stance. That’s where I stand. But people who push this agenda 24/7: muerteme, por favor.

  6. nyjalleffingday says: Oct 1, 2012 8:12 PM

    Bigoted Christians need to get over the fact that the world does not revolve around them and that nobody cares about your opinion on somebody elses marriage.

  7. vysethelegend says: Oct 1, 2012 8:12 PM

    That’s some dangerous water to tread.

  8. turkjones says: Oct 1, 2012 8:12 PM

    I respect Mr. Birk’s well-articulated (yet bigoted) opinion but he is on the wrong side of history

  9. randallflagg52 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:13 PM

    This disappoints me as a Raven fan, I thought Birk would be a little more enlightened on the topic, especially with that Harvard education he has. Birk has been a class act, and won the Walter Peyton man of the year award which also adds to my surprise that he is against same sex marriage.

    I respect his opinion however, even if it is clearly wrong.

  10. Slackmo says: Oct 1, 2012 8:13 PM

    I have been on eggshells waiting for more PFT coverage of this issue, which is tearing NFL locker rooms apart coast to coast.

  11. tfbuckfutter says: Oct 1, 2012 8:14 PM

    “Certainly, a very inflammatory, very hot topic because it’s important. I understand that.”

    Actually it is neither inflammatory nor important. It just seems that way because a bunch of stubborn religious zealots want to use the law to oppress people they think are “icky”.

  12. ltrey33 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:15 PM

    People debate those topics all the time at work and it doesn’t affect job performance. The idea that this would become an “issue” or divide a locker room full of professional football players is absurd.

  13. dolphins1121 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:16 PM

    Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Unless that opinion is one that discriminates an entire group of people. If you think the majority should have the power to infringe on the rights of a minority, you belong in the 60’s. You know how stupid all those racist bigots look now? Just imagine how stupid you will look in 40 years.

  14. lightcleric says: Oct 1, 2012 8:16 PM

    Can we have one thing in this world that isn’t politicized please?

  15. mjbulls45 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:16 PM

    and this might be the downfall of the ravens.

  16. ud1hens says: Oct 1, 2012 8:17 PM

    I don’t agree with every one of my co-worker’s thoughts and beliefs either. Even though it is the NFL, it’s still a workplace with people who come from all different backgrounds and beliefs.

  17. tfbuckfutter says: Oct 1, 2012 8:17 PM

    I’m annoyed that a punter is quickly becoming one of my favorite football players.

  18. 49erstim says: Oct 1, 2012 8:17 PM

    That’s the thing. It is OK to have differing opinions on things. How it is handled is something completely different. I’ve said before that I have my stance and others have an opposing opinion and it could not bother me less. For me marriage is between a man and a woman.

  19. moerawn says: Oct 1, 2012 8:18 PM

    Well he DID go to Harvard.

  20. rtl1984 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:19 PM

    1st amendment, exercising his rights. Agree or disagree, you have to respect his right of free speech.

    Ah, America.

  21. jordan1177 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:21 PM

    kluwe’s counter to birk’s Op-Ed piece is killer. the guy is brilliant, even if you fail to align your thinking with his, I highly recommend reading it!

    go ravens.

  22. drgreenstreak says: Oct 1, 2012 8:21 PM

    Matt’s feeling a tinge of self-conscious guilt.

    It’s okay, Matt. The semantics are far more important than the relationships.

  23. psuravens19 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:24 PM

    I don’t agree on everything with my co-workers and it isn’t a “circus” at my office, so I don’t see there being an issue in their “office”…

  24. brianforster says: Oct 1, 2012 8:24 PM

    ugh, should have kept his mouth shut.

  25. dealer009 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:25 PM

    We have professors and universities to discuss this type of thing. You know, who actually read their homework and don’t get paid for bashing heads all week?

    Only a balloon headed egomaniac from the NFL thinks their opinion “needs to be shared” despite the public relations consequences. Was Matt Birk losing sleep over this issue, or do reporters keep shoving microphones in his face?

    Thankfully Kluwe showed all football players don’t speak before they think.

  26. justwinbaby29 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:27 PM

    I’ve got no problem with gay marriage but it’s pretty ignorant to call people “bigots” because they disagree.

    Anyway, back to football!

  27. meytonpanning says: Oct 1, 2012 8:27 PM

    Pierce Brosnan + Brock Lesnar = Matt Birk.

  28. herlies says: Oct 1, 2012 8:28 PM

    “but it’s important to respect everyone else’s opinion on matters like this, too.”

    Couldn’t care less about gay marriage, go nuts.

    But why do I have to respect everyone’s opinion?

  29. nyjalleffingday says: Oct 1, 2012 8:30 PM

    @justwinbaby29

    Oh, my mistake. I thought it was ignorant to deny rights to people because of something they had no control over. Thanks for the correction.

  30. ericdre says: Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM

    If it’s the wrong side of history why has it failed every time it’s appeared on the ballots. I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers. Try looking in the mirror. America speaks every time this comes up to vote. I do agree with Matt Birk and applaud him for taking what is seemingly and unpopular stance. I also believe this is not an issue for us to decide. I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot. Say I’m full of hate. Say I’m a religious nut job. They will do this because I don’t agree with them. They will do this because I don’t hide my faith like it’s some blemish to be ashamed of. I am confident though that the next time this appears on a ballot I will be able to stand proudly on the side of history that agrees with Matt Birk and I. Congrats Matt Birk for not being afraid of bullies!

  31. beerbudsnbevo says: Oct 1, 2012 8:35 PM

    I watch football to get away from all that…

    Thanks Matt

  32. green41563 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:35 PM

    Most NFL players support gay marriage, and Kurt Warner is in one.

  33. johngavin says: Oct 1, 2012 8:36 PM

    I am not surprised by Matt Birk’s opinion on marriage and it does not shock or offend me despite our disagreement on the issue. I do feel the need to answer the idea that he is “a balloon headed egomaniac from the NFL thinks their opinion “needs to be shared” despite the public relations consequences.” I think that it is important that American citizens utilize their ability to have their voice heard. This is an editorial and I’m not sure how different it is than any other player that feels strongly enough about something to get involved in the discussion publicly. This country needs more people willing to say what they believe, consequences be damned, not less.

    More worrisome is how a Harvard educated man could submit something so bereft of substance as an argument, as Chris Kluwe so excellently pointed out.

  34. bennyb82 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:36 PM

    I wish the media would come up with the next controversial issue to promote. I am bored. I wonder what happens when gay marriage is legalized? I guess it is just back to the old marijuana debate…or the size of a soda…I mean what could be more important to society?

  35. myspaceyourface says: Oct 1, 2012 8:36 PM

    Bigots and hate mongers? Really, because someone supports traditional marriage should they be made called names?

  36. Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:36 PM

    “Thought he would be more enlightened”

    Because he doesn’t agree with you?

  37. tfbuckfutter says: Oct 1, 2012 8:38 PM

    ericdre says: Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM
    I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament.

    ——————————

    Actually it’s up to the government. They issue Marriage Licenses. You can also get married at the courthouse. Is that a church?

    Oh….I’m sorry….maybe I spoke to soon…..are you actually not in America?

  38. beerbudsnbevo says: Oct 1, 2012 8:38 PM

    “I’ve got no problem with gay marriage but it’s pretty ignorant to call people “bigots” because they disagree.”

    *****************

    Exactly

    And it’s usually the ignorant ones that cry the loudest

  39. Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:38 PM

    ericdre says: Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM

    If it’s the wrong side of history why has it failed every time it’s appeared on the ballots. I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers. Try looking in the mirror. America speaks every time this comes up to vote. I do agree with Matt Birk and applaud him for taking what is seemingly and unpopular stance. I also believe this is not an issue for us to decide. I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot. Say I’m full of hate. Say I’m a religious nut job. They will do this because I don’t agree with them. They will do this because I don’t hide my faith like it’s some blemish to be ashamed of. I am confident though that the next time this appears on a ballot I will be able to stand proudly on the side of history that agrees with Matt Birk and I. Congrats Matt Birk for not being afraid of bullies!
    ———–

    Completely agree.

  40. jpb12 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:39 PM

    Vince Wilfork made Matt his wife last January.

  41. abninf says: Oct 1, 2012 8:40 PM

    b1unt3d says: Oct 1, 2012 8:08 PM

    Bigots will be bigots..
    ====================================

    That’s it. Shut down debate, silence the opposition, spew derogatory names. Unfortunately for you the majority of the country agrees with Birk.

  42. eaglesnoles05 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:41 PM

    The Kluwe article/response is a gem.

  43. isu1648 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:41 PM

    Kluwe’s response to Birk is pulitzer prize worthy. No joke. If there is a pulitzer for opinion pieces, this thing would be a contender, no doubt.

    Birk’s piece was very surprising, mostly because it was as vague and closed minded as it gets. A smart guy like hime…I’d at least expect him to make a case. Dont just say “gay marriage hurts my kids” and give ZERO reason or cause or ANYTHING. Surprised anyone even took it serious, its a borderline joke. He may as well say “going in reverse in your car causes cancer”, or something else ridiculous with no base behind it.

    Well done Kluwe, classic voice of reason. Wish I could explain my opinion on things as well as you do.

  44. steelernationfartsinyourfaceandwinschampionships says: Oct 1, 2012 8:43 PM

    As vile as the Ravens are, I think Birk is one of my new favorite players now.

  45. Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:45 PM

    Liberals want it both ways. They want separation of church and state. Want God out of everything. Want God’s blessing, want the benefit of marriage, but then want to spit in the face of what GOd says marriage is. Typical liberal nonsense, wanting everything their way, no matter how contradictory they come off in the process SMH.

  46. doughboy73 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:46 PM

    Birk was asked for his feelings on a subject that was already a topic because his team mate expressed an opinion about it. The great part about this country is that Matt Birk is free to believe what he choses to believe. That doesn’t make him a bigot unless he uses those beliefs to persecute people of different beliefs. His opinion has the same affect on wether or not gay marriage becomes legal as mine does. A single vote for each politician who represents him. He just has the honor of being a pro athlete so more people will hear his opinion then mine! I am happy that I live in a part of the world where we have the right to express our opinions and read those of others!

  47. thekingofnewyork says: Oct 1, 2012 8:46 PM

    abninf says: Oct 1, 2012 8:40 PM

    That’s it. Shut down debate, silence the opposition, spew derogatory names. Unfortunately for you the majority of the country agrees with Birk.

    ====================================

    No, they don’t. At least 55% of Americans are OK with same sex marriage. The other 45% are probably the ones that still reject evolution.

  48. potviking says: Oct 1, 2012 8:47 PM

    He’s Catholic so it’s not surprising. Religion shouldn’t dictate anything in this country. Simple as that.

  49. kurtrundell says: Oct 1, 2012 8:47 PM

    Not sure why the left and right don’t meet in the middle and call it civil unions. No reason why the gays can’t get access to the same legal, tax and insurance rights, et al, that married couples receive.

  50. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 1, 2012 8:47 PM

    ericdre says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM
    If it’s the wrong side of history why has it failed every time it’s appeared on the ballots. I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers. Try looking in the mirror. America speaks every time this comes up to vote. I do agree with Matt Birk and applaud him for taking what is seemingly and unpopular stance. I also believe this is not an issue for us to decide. I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot. Say I’m full of hate. Say I’m a religious nut job. They will do this because I don’t agree with them. They will do this because I don’t hide my faith like it’s some blemish to be ashamed of. I am confident though that the next time this appears on a ballot I will be able to stand proudly on the side of history that agrees with Matt Birk and I. Congrats Matt Birk for not being afraid of bullies!

    _______________________

    Equal rights should not be voted on. At one point in society interacial marriage was the minority and not excepted. Explain to me from a LEGAL point of view on why it should be illegal.

  51. thekingofnewyork says: Oct 1, 2012 8:47 PM

    Mr. Wright 212 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:45 PM

    Liberals want it both ways. They want separation of church and state. Want God out of everything. Want God’s blessing, want the benefit of marriage, but then want to spit in the face of what GOd says marriage is. Typical liberal nonsense, wanting everything their way, no matter how contradictory they come off in the process SMH.

    ————————————-
    What? If they want god out of everything, like you say, then why wouldn’t they disagree with God’s alleged view of marriage?

    You don’t make sense.

  52. dawhorsefeathers says: Oct 1, 2012 8:48 PM

    abninf says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:40 PM

    That’s it. Shut down debate, silence the opposition, spew derogatory names. Unfortunately for you the majority of the country agrees with Birk.
    –———————
    Actually, national polls put the majority on Brendon’s side by a 7-10 points, but civil rights shouldn’t be legislated by a majority anyway.

  53. cobbiecobstone says: Oct 1, 2012 8:48 PM

    Reading these comments is quite humorus. Agree with him or not it is HIS RIGHT to speak his mind. I myself will be voteing no, and thats my right. Reminds me of the speach Mike Douglas gives in the American President. “America isn’t easy. America is advanced citizenship. You’ve gotta want it bad, ’cause it’s gonna put up a fight. It’s gonna say, “You want free speech? Let’s see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who’s standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.” You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country cannot just be a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Now show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms.”

  54. gallaghedj311 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:50 PM

    Wow. Love to be in that locker room. I just read a lot of generalizations about bigoted Christians that really didn’t sit well with me. Probably bc I was raised Christian and I agreed with it. Just know that not all Christians are against gay marriage. And this isn’t necessarily a religious debate either. If I had my way, marriage would stay between a man and a woman. Strictly for the sake of tradition. But I get that I have an 8 year old and that he’s growing up in a different world than I did. And that’s out of my control. So who am I to get in the way of that. And I’d sure hate to have my beliefs affect the way my son looks at me because he recalls how outspoken I was against it. For what will be looked at in 40 years as a silly reason. For legal reasons it should be legal. Benefits and insurance and such.

  55. bluebongzilla says: Oct 1, 2012 8:51 PM

    Get over yourselves. Straight people can’t marry people of the same sex, either.

  56. keepingitrealdumb says: Oct 1, 2012 8:54 PM

    i do not respect his opinion .. i may respect his right to have that opinion .. but i do not respect his opinion. that opinion is wrong. it is wrong to discriminate, end of story.

    we as a country have experienced and overcame so much discrimination, from racial discrimination to gender discrimination to you name it.

    those that say they respect the other’s opinion are clueless .. so do you respect the opinion of white supremacists that blacks are an ‘inferior race’? that is ridiculous.

    you would ‘respect’ other’s opinions but not respect their equal rights? again .. ridiculous

  57. animalmother42 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:54 PM

    When are people going to understand that opposing same sex marriage is not bigotry. They don’t hate gay people, they just want to keep the sacrament of marriage as stating “between a man an woman”…that’s an argument against wording, not people.

  58. runtheball says: Oct 1, 2012 8:54 PM

    There should be some legal union for gays. They should have the legal rights that a married couple has. They should be able to pass property at death without probate and other important legal protections, but it is not marriage.

  59. fmwarner says: Oct 1, 2012 8:56 PM

    ericdre says: Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM

    I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot.
    ———————————————

    No matter what the law is, nobody is going to be able to tell a church they have to marry two gay people. You are aware that some people get married by a judge without any church participation, aren’t you?

    You’re not a bigot, you’re just misinformed about what gay marriage entails.

  60. avail88 says: Oct 1, 2012 8:56 PM

    @ericdre

    Well said sir.

  61. oaktown49er says: Oct 1, 2012 8:56 PM

    ericdre says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM
    If it’s the wrong side of history why has it failed every time it’s appeared on the ballots. I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers. Try looking in the mirror. America speaks every time this comes up to vote. I do agree with Matt Birk and applaud him for taking what is seemingly and unpopular stance. I also believe this is not an issue for us to decide. I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot. Say I’m full of hate. Say I’m a religious nut job. They will do this because I don’t agree with them. They will do this because I don’t hide my faith like it’s some blemish to be ashamed of. I am confident though that the next time this appears on a ballot I will be able to stand proudly on the side of history that agrees with Matt Birk and I. Congrats Matt Birk for not being afraid of bullies!
    ————————————————–
    Free speech is fine, you are not a bigot, you are not a nut job, you are not full of hate, you just don’t have an understanding of the separation between church and state.

  62. 2ruefan says: Oct 1, 2012 8:58 PM

    The posts on this topic are typical of the debate. Immediate name calling of Birk, ASSUMING you know what he said, calling him “stupid” for not agreeing with the popular culture of today.

    Read his article on the StarTribune. It is thoughtfully and intelligently written. He is stating his opinion while at the same time calling out for the respect for all to be able to state their own opinions.

    Why is it that there seems to only be ONE opinion on this matter that is acceptable in today’s “PC” world?

  63. steelers4385 says: Oct 1, 2012 9:00 PM

    Being gay is disgusting and repulsive in every which way or form. That being said….gay people who marry have zero effect on my life. As much as i cant stand it and i cant stress it enough….they are human beings. They work and help our country and economy same way straight people do. So who cares if they marry. Everyone should be more concerned about these crazy nuts over in the west who want to kill americans.

  64. tres79 says: Oct 1, 2012 9:02 PM

    I respect other people’s right to have opinions. I don’t have to respect their opinions. There was nothing bigoted about Birk’s opinion. Lets get the government out of the marriage business, and leave it to the churches. Consenting adults should be able to have legal status for any co-habitation arrangements they wish, of any sex or numbers. The government’s only concern should be for child custody and contractual issues.

  65. commandercornpone says: Oct 1, 2012 9:02 PM

    the all-holy gays can enter into contractual arrangements any time they wish.

    still isnt marriage.

    keep up the long march, useful idiots. marx and co would be proud of you.

  66. tigobitties says: Oct 1, 2012 9:05 PM

    Respect to Birk. Always a classy guy.
    Oh and since when did the word ‘Bigot’ become so popular on here? haha.
    I didn’t read every single post because I got bored of all the Clowns jumping on Birk.

    ‘ericdre ‘I like your point of view. I like how you can argue your point in a good way instead of just saying ‘uneducated’ and ‘bigot’ for a remark.

  67. csilojohnson says: Oct 1, 2012 9:05 PM

    In an actual free country, personal liberty must trump religous. In other words mind your damn buisness.

  68. thekingofnewyork says: Oct 1, 2012 9:06 PM

    All of you inane people standing up for Birk’s “right to free speech” and “it’s just his opinion, you should respect it” are missing the point, here. This isn’t like it’s a debate over whether red or blue is the superior color. This is people’s lives and happiness. Gay people are discriminated against every day and denied equal rights because of “free speech” and “opinions”

    This isn’t about free speech or opinions. This isn’t a debate. There is only one correct side to take in this issue, and that’s on the side of equality. It doesn’t matter if you don’t like gay marriage, or gay people. It doesn’t affect you, and the plain truth is that if you are against gay marriage you ARE either a straight up bigot or at the very least, ignorant.

  69. mrcosio says: Oct 1, 2012 9:06 PM

    I don’t get why they don’t let gay people marry, I mean if it’s ok to marry your horse in 22 states then I don’t see why you can’t marry someone of the same-sex

  70. 25bets says: Oct 1, 2012 9:08 PM

    I have no use for religion, and dont care who anybody sleeps with, but dont believe in changing the definition of marriage

  71. bigperm33 says: Oct 1, 2012 9:09 PM

    Obviously everyone is entitled to think what they want. But would people say, “everyone is entitled to an opinion,” if someone said interracial marriage should be banned. Which was not illegal that long ago, and which the same exact arguments against interracial marriage were being made that are being made against gay marriage. People like Birk can think whatever they want – but when those thoughts impact others ability to be happy (with ZERO impact on the person thinking it), then that is a problem.

  72. patspatspatspats says: Oct 1, 2012 9:14 PM

    WOW liberals on the troll. Guess what fellas? The majority of America does side with Mr. Birk. Why not look at every time it was voted on? Everytime voted for traditional marriage.

    Why is it that liberals continue to celebrate Christmas but are so adverse to following Christian principals?

    Wrong side of history? Our history is one of traditional marriage.

    Or are you guys re writing history again?

  73. ace8842 says: Oct 1, 2012 9:16 PM

    Good job Birk. The media and PC police have tried to intimidate one side from ever talking about this issue. It is important that all sides have freedom of speech even though college professors try to always basically say that they are right and the issue is settled. Colleges preach diversity but they do not really stand for diversity of opinion. Two of the biggest lies we are told about this issue is A) that if you disagree with something, you must fear or hate it and B) that having compassion means you must ditch your convictions. Lies that society has bought into.

  74. kevpft says: Oct 1, 2012 9:17 PM

    The reason that anti-gay-marriage positions are often referred to as “bigoted” is simple: because said people don’t just believe in their own right and the right of their own church to hold marriage in the way they see fit; they believe they *own* the concept of marriage and that everyone else’s churches and belief systems must obey their will.

    Gay marriage advocates are not asking for anyone’s churches to be mandated to perform gay marriage ceremonies. They want the state and federal governments to recognize said marriages as legal, and they want willing churches to *be able to* perform same-sex weddings, if they so choose.

    In short, no one’s asking your church to perform same-sex marriages. So just stop with that line of thinking, already.

    You want to support “traditional marriage”? Have one yourself. Encourage all your friends to have them. And then work for the rest of your life to keep your own marriage and those of everyone you know intact, because it’s people getting divorced that violates the notion of “traditional marriage” more than everything else in the world combined.

    I think this issue is so pointed because it brings up the fundamental question of all religion, and religion’s place in the world: do the religious hold the one absolute truth in all the universe? And if so, do they have the right to enforce it?

    No and no, in my opinion, but that’s the issue where we see the cracks forming and distress rising.

  75. realityron says: Oct 1, 2012 9:19 PM

    Wow! That’s the only time you’ll ever see a punter run over an O-Lineman in your life. Kluwe leaves Birk looking like a droopy eyed armless child. Beaten and battered with nothing more than the written word. Matt, don’t bring knives to gun fights. Then again, he is from the school duped into anointing themselves with the “We Suck”, so should we expect anything less?

  76. jsesquire says: Oct 1, 2012 9:20 PM

    Nice work, Birk. Not because of what you said, but for the fact that you have the balls to use your influence as a professional athlete to PROMOTE OPPRESION.

    The same-sex issue is primarily a Christian thing. Church and state are SEPARATE. Keep your Jesus out of my laws.

  77. bluewinger says: Oct 1, 2012 9:22 PM

    I’m going to chic-fil-a for a chicken sandwich.

  78. fmwarner says: Oct 1, 2012 9:34 PM

    A lot of people are misunderstanding the difference between the sacrament of marriage (a religious designation) and a legal marriage (a civil designation). The state can’t tell a church it has to perform the sacrament of marriage for anyone it doesn’t want to. But likewise, a church can’t tell the state who is entitled to a legal marriage. Your church’s values end at the church door.

    It seems like a lot of gay marriage opponents think that the state will force churches to marry gay people. Not going to happen. Churches will always be free to decide the definition of the sacrament of marriage. But they will never be free to decide the definition of legal marriage based on religious beliefs that are not shared by everyone.

  79. pauliepennino says: Oct 1, 2012 9:34 PM

    Oaktown, the problem with separation of church and state is the state thinks its a one way street. The church is fine being left alone, whereas the state wants to tell the church what flies.

  80. conormacleod says: Oct 1, 2012 9:37 PM

    It’s very simple. Those against same sex marriage are against it for religious reasons. “It is a sin”. They are very comfortable in infringing upon others rights as long as its for religious purposes. But, try taking anything away from them! No sir, that is just wrong! Kluwe said it perfectly. The only way same sex marriage will affect you is if your child is gay. And then, it will be your child being discriminated against.

  81. qwerty007qwerty007 says: Oct 1, 2012 9:38 PM

    Liberals want it both ways. They want separation of church and state. Want God out of everything. Want God’s blessing, want the benefit of marriage, but then want to spit in the face of what GOd says marriage is. Typical liberal nonsense, wanting everything their way, no matter how contradictory they come off in the process SMH.

    ————————————————–

    As pointed out before, it has nothing to do with God and the church. Marriage licenses are issued by the government, at public offices. You can also get hitched at the courthouse – or any of those wonderful ‘quick hitch’ places in Vegas. None of which compare, I am sure, with your church.

    If your place of worship does not wish to marry two people (which occurs not only due to the sex of people, but also due to different religious beliefs) – that’s fine. It is their right to say “Sorry – we cannot marry you”

    Me – I think everyone should have the right to get married and then open themselves up to the legal niceties of a divorce.

  82. cereal blogger says: Oct 1, 2012 9:39 PM

    Alot of people once said, I dont think Jackie Robinson should be allowed to play with “us”. How do they look now ?

  83. conormacleod says: Oct 1, 2012 9:43 PM

    myspaceyourface says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:36 PM
    Bigots and hate mongers? Really, because someone supports traditional marriage should they be made called names?/////////////// It isn’t about “supporting” traditional marriage. Nobody is trying to take away traditional marriage. It is about one sect of people trying to keep another sect of people from having what they have. How would a gay couple getting married take away the rights of a man and a woman getting married? How would it hurt children? Please give specific examples. Seriously!

  84. nicopenelope says: Oct 1, 2012 9:48 PM

    Kluwe’s arguement is logical and factual. Just cause most Americans vote to not support same-sex marriages does not mean it’s right. To me, the whole issue is like racism. Generations of hatebreeding and ignorance, then passing it on to your kids.

    Not that I know what happens when you die, but I’m still shocked by how many people hold onto ancient religious beliefs when there is so much suffering in the world. Does God hate Africa? Clearly there is a God and I’m gonna play checkers with all of my dead family when I die…maybe learn the banjo, or talk to snakes.

    p.s. I think religious people are crazy. It’s just my opinion.

  85. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 1, 2012 9:51 PM

    runtheball says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:54 PM
    There should be some legal union for gays. They should have the legal rights that a married couple has. They should be able to pass property at death without probate and other important legal protections, but it is not marriage.

    ____________________

    And you get to decided this why? Atheist/agnostic people get married everyday. I’m an atheist who lives in NY. I can literally meet a girl tomorrow, ask her to marry me, she says yes and $40 later we’re married the same day.

    Seems to me if you want to “protect the sanctity” of marrige you should make it harder for two people to get married.

  86. tigerlilac says: Oct 1, 2012 9:54 PM

    I live in Massachusetts and we have had gay marriage for years. A wonderful couple, two women, and their beautiful daughter live across the street from me. People need to open their hearts and minds. Hate hurts.

  87. conormacleod says: Oct 1, 2012 9:55 PM

    “Oct 1, 2012 8:50 PM
    Wow. Love to be in that locker room. I just read a lot of generalizations about bigoted Christians that really didn’t sit well with me. Probably bc I was raised Christian and I agreed with it. If I had my way, marriage would stay between a man and a woman. Strictly for the sake of tradition.”////////// Slavery used to be a tradition, and legal. You ok with that too?

  88. librarianfootballfan says: Oct 1, 2012 9:58 PM

    1. Mr Birk has the right to his opinion and to freely express it.
    2. In my freely expressed opinion he is dead wrong.

    I agree with Mr. Kluwe’s wonderfully expressed response.

    Marriage is many things to many people. ALL people, no matter what their sexual orientation, deserve the social recognition and the legal protections of civil marriage.

    Marriage exists as a religious rite, but it also has a separate legal identity in our society.

    Just as it is presently, no religious organizations should be required to recognized or performed marriages that violate their tennents. Nor should they be able to bar or interfere in any way with civil marriages.

  89. whatjusthapped says: Oct 1, 2012 9:59 PM

    Gay marriage is a big deal in Minnesota, too bad the people aren’t as passionate about the Vikings, then they wouldn’t have to worry about selling tickets.

  90. meandjuliojonesdownbytheschoolyard says: Oct 1, 2012 9:59 PM

    What does “tradition” have to do with marriage? Because we traditionally discriminate minorities we should use that as an excuse? As someone mentioned above, give me a legal reason why same sex couples should not be able to marry? Go BUCS!!!!!

  91. nyjalleffingday says: Oct 1, 2012 9:59 PM

    @animalmother42

    Being concerned over “the sanctity of marriage” is just bigot-speak for “I do not respect gay people or their human rights but I cannot voice this opinion without mean people calling me names.”

    Let’s talk about the so-called “sanctity of marriage,” shall we? In the United States, marriage was whites only until 1691, polygamy was legal until the late 1800’s, during both those centuries arranged marriages were common and to top it off interracial marriage was illegal until 1967. I could marry a prostitute in Vegas today and divorce her tomorrow (divorce rates are up to 50%) and we’re discussing the “sanctity of marriage” as a legitimate reason two lovers cannot get married? HA.

    If you think marriage is between one man and one woman, that’s fine. But you have to understand; nobody cares at all, and while you do have the right to an opinion, you do not have the right to oppress a group of people because of that opinion.

  92. norwegianwud says: Oct 1, 2012 10:00 PM

    Vikes fan and still love Birk. Great player. Smart guy. Speaking what he believes is cool. Don’t agree w/ it. No idea why he would involve a community he lived(s) in and his locker room in a religious/sexual preference debate at this point in his career when his team is at such a crucial point. He must be pretty passionate about this and I can’t imagine how.
    BTW, have you been to a wedding lately? Very little is traditional other than everybody gets emotional, kisses their spouse or looks for the bar. All that that don’t have kid’s or those that found a sitter get hammered! Pretty sure same sex weddings would actually be more civilized than that… What follows is likely the same in my opinion.

  93. rjmarrella says: Oct 1, 2012 10:02 PM

    I wasn’t aware that most football players knew how to spell marriage.

  94. tbd3 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:03 PM

    “…but then want to spit in the face of what GOd says marriage is.”
    ———————————
    Are you getting this from the Bible? Because the Bible also says:

    “If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother .. all the men of his city shall stone him with stones that he die.” (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21)

    “Whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 31: 15)

    “You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19: 27)

    And there are plenty more.

    Look, if you do believe in God, please realize that whatever the Bible says is not necessarily what God would say. Do you think if there were an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being, that he/she/it would care at all about whether you SHAVE YOUR BEARD? The Bible was written by men, not by God. Men make mistakes, “inspired” or not.

    To cling to this notion that the Bible says gay marriage is bad is antiquated. Would you stone your child for being disobedient? Would you kill someone for working on the Sabbath? No! (At least I hope not.) Cultures and customs change and the Bible is not immune to this. It is the test of time and all is subject to it. Divorce was banned in the Bible, but legal now. What is the difference?

    And don’t give me the “it affects my kids’ lives” argument. Chances are that when your kids grow up, they’ll realize that gay marriage isn’t so bad after all … Because it doesn’t affect them! At all! Look it up, statistics show that the majority of young people have absolutely no qualms whatsoever with gay marriage. It is becoming more and more acceptable and mainstream.

    Furthermore, the outlawing of gay marriage is an overt violation of the separation of Church and State. This separation is clearly outlined in the First Amendment and the banning of gay marriage is in apparent contradiction of this.

  95. ireportyoudecide says: Oct 1, 2012 10:03 PM

    I find it interesting that so many of you are calling him a bigot and inhumane because he opposes same sex marriage, yet you fully support the freedom to be able to rip a 8 month old fetus’ arm and legs off becuase, hey it’s their body.

  96. demo1984 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:05 PM

    What is it that makes it so important to gays and lesbians to be able to be legally married ? I have lived with my girlfriend for 15 years and neither of us really care if we are married or not. We are just as committed to each other even without a ring. So why is that not good enough for the gays and lesbians ? Hell they can even have a civil union.
    The only reason I can see are the marriage benifits, file taxes jointly, can be on partners health insurance plan, and any other benefit that married couples recieve that singles don’t.
    If that is not the reason please tell me the real reason and why it is so important.

  97. rmc1995 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:07 PM

    The punter is wrong to write that freedom of religion means freedom from religion just as much as it’s for religion. It’s the free excercise, which means “to apply”. The founders didn’t fear religion, they feared a gov’t preventing the freedom to apply religion. No one ever says they have freedom from speech or freedom from the press. There are certain provisos to all three but there is no right to be free from first amendment rights.

    Secularly, same sex marriage is bad for society because marriage is meant to promote having children. Children will pay taxes, the fewer children, the fewer taxes that will be collected to pay for the $16 trillion. Marriage has already been attacked with no contest divorce, and I think Matt Burke would be against that as most religious people. Are they on the wrong side of history for opposing divorce?

  98. lunchbox92 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:09 PM

    Why was there a link to what Kluwe wrote but not to what Birk wrote?

  99. mancave001 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:11 PM

    The problem is that people oppose gay marriage for ANY reason are immediately indicted as bigots, hate mongers, religious zealots or just plainly stupid. Those who support gay marriage are ironically the ones who are often intolerant. Respect for differing opinions has to work both ways.

  100. 1972wasalongtimeago says: Oct 1, 2012 10:12 PM

    Even the most zealous advocates against gay marriage, really only care if the people involved are dudes.

  101. davidcl77 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:12 PM

    Marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. A man kissing another man…. Sickening.

  102. deacon19782012 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:14 PM

    How about put the government in charge of civil unions (for everybody, same sex and opposite sex) and we put churches in charge of marriages? There are plenty of churches who would be glad to perform both kinds of marriages. So, if you want to have a legal contract, go get a civil union license from the government. If you want to be married, then go find a church to perform your religious ceremony.

  103. yourmadre says: Oct 1, 2012 10:16 PM

    I’m not going to state which side of this debate that I fall on, because it is irrelevant.

    I just want to point out how refreshing it is to see two people disagree on a matter in such a respectful way. There’s nothing wrong with having different opinions; the biggest problem with our political system is that people don’t respect differing opinions, they resort to name calling and acting like 5-year-olds whenever somebody disagrees with them.

    Our politicians need to take note.

  104. librarianfootballfan says: Oct 1, 2012 10:18 PM

    2ruefan says:Oct 1, 2012 8:58 PM

    The posts on this topic are typical of the debate. Immediate name calling of Birk, ASSUMING you know what he said, calling him “stupid” for not agreeing with the popular culture of today.

    Read his article on the StarTribune. It is thoughtfully and intelligently written. He is stating his opinion while at the same time calling out for the respect for all to be able to state their own opinions.

    Why is it that there seems to only be ONE opinion on this matter that is acceptable in today’s “PC” world?

    ————

    The trouble is that Mr. Birk’s opinion excludes, while Mr. Kluwe’s includes. Nevermind that maybe the “PC” world is for enforcing civil rights.

  105. fdugrad says: Oct 1, 2012 10:20 PM

    Not only should people be able to marry anyone they love and experience all the benefits and rights of a legally binding marriage, but how in God’s name could same-sex spouses POSSIBLY screw up the institution of marriage any worse than it already has been by opposite-sex spouses?!

  106. Sixx says: Oct 1, 2012 10:22 PM

    What bugs me the most about any of Kluwe’s opinions is that they each come with a heavy dose of arrogance. He’s just trying too hard too hard to be cleverly humorous…..it’s just annoying to me.

  107. buckeye94 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:31 PM

    Wow not saying I agree with Birk but some of you callin him a bigot cuz of his opinion. He’s a grown man it’s his opinion jus like you have yours if you can’t respect his than maybe your the bigot and also stating that he is wrong and jus mis informed upon the subject only makes you a greater dumbass.

  108. onebucplace says: Oct 1, 2012 10:38 PM

    Worry about the balls on the field and not the ones in peoples mouths. I may not even disagree with you but I don’t want to hear about it.

  109. blanchonegro says: Oct 1, 2012 10:41 PM

    thank you for taking a stand matt birk!

  110. hifive123 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:41 PM

    The way people are treating Birk, bashing him and making derogatory domments about his motives reveal who the real bigots are. Same sex marriage is equivalent of square circle; a marriage is only one thing. If it’s defineable at a whim, then it sn’t anything at all, nor is there any ground left to make a meaningful case against any other arrangement people want to call marriage. Logic and reason are on the side of truth. Emotion is all same sex marriage advocates have going for them. If, as someone stated earlier, I’m on the wrong side of history, then so be it. I don’t care to run with the crowd in matters of moral thinking.

  111. onebucplace says: Oct 1, 2012 10:48 PM

    For a legit point, what is marriage if it’s not the union between a man and a woman? Gays can have civil unions which give them the same rights, and most states already have this — and to be clear I’m completely for that. But what’s the big deal if it’s called marriage from their side?

    So going back to the point, if marriage isn’t the union between a man and a woman what is it? Is it a man and a woman and a man and a man and a woman and a man? What is that based off of? How come it can’t be a man and a woman and a woman? Polygamy has much more of a historical claim to marriage than gay marriage yet they’re being discriminated against.

    Also if it’s just about legal issues and not an agenda why can’t people marry their dog? It’s not about sex it’s about making sure if they die their dog will be taken care and maybe it just gives them comfort.

    Also why can’t a man can’t marry a child? Mohammad was marrying 6 year olds and “consummating” the marriage at the age of 9 (seriously, look it up). If he did that now he’d be called all sorts of names, could you image all the KFCs in Egypt that would be on-fire if America told Mohammad he can’t marry that little girl?

    Laws, smaws – that’s what I say.

  112. changsteinelgamal says: Oct 1, 2012 10:51 PM

    1 – The gov should have nothing to do with marriage. I don’t need The Man’s stamp of approval on who I choose to spend my life with.
    If churches want to marry people, fine, that’s their business and between them and the people getting married. No need to involve anyone else.

    2 – I never understand why anyone cares if gay people get married or not. If you think it ‘hurts the institution of marriage’ or ‘goes against God’s vision’ or what have you, divorce has got to do both of those 10 times worse than same sex unions. So I would like to see you campaign against divorce 10 times harder than you do against gay marriage.

    For the guy who ‘views marriage as a sacrament’ but has no problem with civil unions… sounds like you feel really strongly about a word and not strongly at all about what it is supposed to symbolize.

    Good day.

  113. couple1314 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:53 PM

    Ignorance comes in all forms. Even Harvard educated, millionaire, professional football players.

  114. ytsejamer1 says: Oct 1, 2012 10:57 PM

    While I personally disagree with Birk’s viewpoint, I nonetheless respect the manner and grace that he presented it. He realizes that this is one of those issues where this is no right or wrong answer. It’s based on an individual’s viewpoint, morals, upbringing, etc.

    I think his respectful manner of bringing up his opinion should be commended. It’s okay to disagree. What Matt Birk believes will have no bearing on me…or you.

  115. gmenfan1982 says: Oct 1, 2012 11:04 PM

    Chris kluwe article is AWESOME. Articulate and well written. Couldn’t agree more. Face it, this isn’t an opinion matter. If you oppose gay marriage you are simply wrong and prejudice. Gays, lesbians, etc deserve anything that any other human being deserves. Human is human, gay or straight.

  116. bobbyhoying says: Oct 1, 2012 11:10 PM

    This debate is a joke. God created woman for man. He clearly opposes relations between people of the same sex. What any person thinks is simply not relevant. Those who oppose the Creator do so at great peril.

  117. ddmcd1974 says: Oct 1, 2012 11:13 PM

    This debate is ridiculous. Marriage has always been a religious ceremony until yep you guessed it the govt. Needed another way to collect fees and track it’s people. So stop saying it’s town hall etc. They are only in it for the money and the data. The church performs marriage per it’s mandate. Two very different things. The govt can do as it pleases but no one connected to the church will care or go along with it. Oh and race and gay are also two very different things so comparing the two cannot and will not be compared. Don’t try to rationalize it that way. A interracial marriage can make babies but a gay marriage cannot. Get it.

  118. drainbameged says: Oct 1, 2012 11:14 PM

    “Free speech is fine, you are not a bigot, you are not a nut job, you are not full of hate, you just don’t have an understanding of the separation between church and state.”

    Logically it seems that EricDre is separating a religious ceremony from governmental policy…or quite literally separating church and state.

    I find it hilarious that the same folk who supported the free speech of one player label another a bigot. I could understand the label if he was saying we should go out and hunt down gay people but he is actually voicing his support for their fight for equality while upholding his religious view points.

    lastly, I hate to break it to you but this is not dividing locker rooms. I’m willing to bet money that these men are more focused on mentally preparing for their next opponent then discussing socio-political issues.

  119. andrewfbrowne says: Oct 1, 2012 11:21 PM

    You would think that a guy who has another man’s hand on his butt 80 times a game would not mind two guys getting married. Just sayin…

  120. filthymcnasty1 says: Oct 1, 2012 11:21 PM

    So that’s why he left the Vikings.

  121. sdsockers says: Oct 1, 2012 11:23 PM

    It’s Birk’s right to say what he believes. That’s what Free Speech is, and it’s why this is the greatest country in the world.
    Personally, I believe that he’s wrong, and what he espouses is discrimination, plain and simple. How would he feel if we made it illegal for all NFL players to vote in any election or get married? But, no matter how wrong or bigoted I feel he is, he has the right to say or write what he feels.
    And…can we get back to SPORTS, please?

  122. vikefan says: Oct 1, 2012 11:29 PM

    He stated his opinion and as a vikings fan i will always love him for ever BUT how he is stating his opinion is beyond narrowminded. HIS idea of a real family is of a father & a mother, that may be all good & fine BUT are you telling me that any available child up for adoption would never be allowed to be adopted by a singe parent or a gay couple? While you think you are doing the right thing for the adult society you would be adversely affecting any decent child that deserves a warm & loving home regardless of race, religion, or gender & that is NOT fair to any child in the foster care system anywhere. EVERY child deserves a decent loving home and your opinion puts every child in the social welfare system in jeopardy to some capacity and is not acceptable in the world we live in today.

  123. dhudge says: Oct 1, 2012 11:31 PM

    “Bigotry” is defined by “intolerance”…it’s idiotic to label Birk a “bigot” because he voices an opinion. It’s the same as labeling Ayanbedejo a “bigot” for being a proponent to same sex marriage.

  124. realfootballfan says: Oct 1, 2012 11:36 PM

    I love the holy rollers (who btw often contradict the rest of the Bible the way they actually live) who love to push that nonsense on everybody else.

    Marriage is by definition a legal contract in this country. Maybe in some African village or Saudi Arabia it doesn’t carry that simple definition, but we live in America, try to keep up.

    I know when I married my wife, that’s what it said when we signed the legal documentation.

    It has nothing to do with religion, God, or affects anyone else who do get married.

    Now if you’re talking about the silly ceremony that surrounds it that brides waste fortunes on before getting divorced 8 years later when they hit the wall, individual churches or even whole religions have every right to say, gay people aren’t getting married in our make believe utopia where we beat people out of money in exchange for access to God without paying taxes.” That’s valid, bigoted, but valid and I doubt if gay people would care.

    Those are two separate points. Why two people who are of legal age aren’t able to execute that simple legal procedure has no basis inreality. Anyone arguing otherwise is an idiot.

  125. johntonioholmes says: Oct 1, 2012 11:45 PM

    I’m in favor of stoning people because the bible tells us to.

    Why don’t more Christians support stoning people?

    I think they are just being selective in what they want to believe.

  126. skolvikesskol says: Oct 1, 2012 11:46 PM

    Totally unnecessary.

  127. johntonioholmes says: Oct 1, 2012 11:47 PM

    ericdre

    I’ll bet your life that you’re on the wrong side of history.

    You people always are.

  128. thatyankeedude says: Oct 1, 2012 11:49 PM

    Ok moron find separation of church and state in the united states constitution that you piss on everyday. Gay marriage makes those who are opposed, such as Christians and other non Christian folks, pay for their benefits. Why should I be forced to pay for something that’s completely against my religion? The gay sympathizers on here are relentless and show they are true hateful bigots every time they complain about somebody that is against their communistic liberal agenda. Sorry libs your going to get a wrath upon you that will never ever be forgotten. Hope your arrogance and ignorance serves you well in the afterlife. But for now live it up. Don’t take responsibility for your actions. Continue to engage in your crusade to make everyone gay. Itll be well worth your time I’m sure.

  129. 2ndaryinsanity says: Oct 1, 2012 11:50 PM

    Call this what it REALLY is….a Civil Rights debate. There are Americans who do not enjoy equal rights simply because they are gay. It does not matter if you agree or disagree with marriage equality. It doesn’t matter if your delicate sensibilities are offended.
    What matters is that our great country is not living up to its own Declaration of Independence….”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.”
    By the way, denying someone equal rights based on your religious belief is still called bigotry

  130. joe2jerry says: Oct 1, 2012 11:50 PM

    Freedom of speech and freedom of religion mean nothing to liberals unless it’s their opinion. If they don’t share the view they get to call people like Birk whatever name they want, and then claim he is the one who spreads hate. Pot, meet kettle

  131. swedishfish14 says: Oct 1, 2012 11:58 PM

    Birk says “As long as everybody respects everybody else’s opinion, that’s the main thing.”
    REALLY MATT? I wonder how it would go your locker room if you said it’s important to respect those opinions who were racists and againt blacks sitting on the same bus as whites. Should we respect the KKK’s opinions too?
    Oh wait. You think this is different? It’s not.

  132. keepingitrealdumb says: Oct 2, 2012 12:08 AM

    ericdre says:
    Oct 1, 2012 8:33 PM
    If it’s the wrong side of history why has it failed every time it’s appeared on the ballots. I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers. Try looking in the mirror. America speaks every time this comes up to vote. I do agree with Matt Birk and applaud him for taking what is seemingly and unpopular stance. I also believe this is not an issue for us to decide. I have no problem with same sex civil unions. I view marriage as a sacrament and peformed by the church and therefore it should be left up to the church who receives that sacrament. I know many will spew venom at me for these opionions. Call me a bigot. Say I’m full of hate. Say I’m a religious nut job. They will do this because I don’t agree with them. They will do this because I don’t hide my faith like it’s some blemish to be ashamed of. I am confident though that the next time this appears on a ballot I will be able to stand proudly on the side of history that agrees with Matt Birk and I. Congrats Matt Birk for not being afraid of bullies!
    ————————————————–

    hey man .. what’s with you religious people trying to hijack marriage as being exclusive to religions? same with you religious people trying to hijack morality as being exclusive to your religion .. NO.

    fact: marriages exist in non-religious societies .. look into it.

  133. defscottyb says: Oct 2, 2012 12:13 AM

    Go ahead and get married… Who cares. Now you can experience divorce, alimony etc like the rest of us. Congratulations!

  134. denverscott says: Oct 2, 2012 12:14 AM

    I don’t see how anyone could argue with Kluwes’ points. Especially the religious aspect. That’s what it boils down to. All other arguments are smoke screens to push religious views on others.

  135. deathonwings410 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:23 AM

    I don’t like the Ravens’ players becoming embroiled in all this political intrigue. They need to remember the 2012 motto: T.E.A.M. and focus on bringing the Lombardi trophy back to Baltimore, MD.

  136. tbd3 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:31 AM

    All of you who say that marriage is between a man and a woman only need to read what Kluwe wrote. He points out, quite correctly, that marriage has been changing ever since it first existed. It was once commonly between a man and many women, between children, between siblings… All of these are mentioned in Kluwe’s piece. Read it.

  137. ranksarot says: Oct 2, 2012 12:33 AM

    “I’m very sick and tired of left wing liberals calling everyone who stands opposed to their viewpoints as bigots and hate mongers”

    I’m a conservative and sorry dude, yours and my religious beliefs can’t infringe upon the rights of others. Thats separation of Church and State. Look it up. Here is what I did to remove myself from your one sided bigotry nonsense. I turned off fox news. I’m a conservative, but I’m not one of you republicans. You hate. That’s all you do. Time to move on.

  138. ace8842 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:44 AM

    It’s quite obvious to see that if you believe in a Divine Creator as our founding documents reference, that a male human body and female body were made to fit together, like pieces of a puzzle. There is design there, and that is why on average they can reproduce (other than a few exceptions). Two gay people never can naturally produce. That is why we can’t act like we are comparing like things.

  139. trevor123698 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:58 AM

    Its absolutely mind boggling how many of you are supporting gay marriage through your thumbs up and comments. What is wrong with the world? Well, for starters you all let somebody else think for you.

    There is absolutely no logical argument for gay marriage. It is a terrible sin, nothing you can ever say will change this. Sad thing is the majority of you are a trained monkey evolution believer; even the christians of the world have allowed themselves to become trained monkeys and have thrown out scripture for new age dogma. its sickening, to me.

  140. Sixx says: Oct 2, 2012 1:09 AM

    Ever notice how your gay friends on Facebook seem to always be having a blast? I’m starting to think they may be on to something.

  141. rap49er says: Oct 2, 2012 1:13 AM

    If marriage is such a wonderful thing, why would anyone not want others to experience the same joy?? Doesn’t make sense.

  142. zanadude says: Oct 2, 2012 2:37 AM

    A couple simple points:

    1. Marriage has become a legal matter, not just a religious sacrament, thus…

    2. …church and state are separate in this country, so gays marrying in a courtroom should have all the legal rights involved.

    The simplest truth is that the church really has no say in a matter of American law. Clinging to religious reasons to justify legal disagreements in people’s romantic lives…that really IS bigoted and hateful.

    Simple truth.

  143. zanadude says: Oct 2, 2012 2:38 AM

    Oh…and Kluwe OWNED Birk in this matter.

    As a Vikings fan, I like both guys…but Matt’s wrong, and Kluwe demonstrated why brilliantly.

  144. xjokerz says: Oct 2, 2012 3:40 AM

    Keep your bs ghost stories known as religion out of Everyone else’s life. Just because you’re a moron shouldn’t give you the right to mingle in other people’s life’s. gotta love Amurica …

  145. squared80 says: Oct 2, 2012 4:35 AM

    Love Birk, but disagree 100% with him.

  146. critter69 says: Oct 2, 2012 5:23 AM

    There have been several mentions of marriage and divorce in Vegas.

    Whether anyone believes it or not, the Roman Catholic Church has a diocese in Las Vegas, with a Bishop and Cathedral. Nevada allows ‘quickie’ marriages AND ‘quickie’ divorces.

    Anyone want to go to Vegas, get a ‘quickie’ divorce, ‘hitch’ up with the bar girl with the big boobs, hightail it down to the cathedral and talk to the Most Reverend Joseph A. Pepe (bishop of the diocese of Las Vegas) and have him marry you and the bar girl within a couple hours? Even though neither of you are members of the congregation, both live out of state, and both have had a divorce?

    Hint – Father Pepe will speak to you (maybe), but he’ll not marry you for several reasons, one of which will probably be that you are divorced.

    For those who say state law FORCES a church to marry anyone and everyone, tell me how the Roman Catholic cathedral (and in fact all RCC churches) in Las Vegas and the rest of the state are able to get away with not marrying two people who the Elvis impersonator working in the wedding chapel down the street would have no problem marrying.

    Oh, and someone tell me exactly what ‘traditional marriage’ is? Post Loving v Virginia? Post Mormon ‘plural marriages’? Pre- or post- common law marriage? Pre- or post- arranged marriages?

    And if you’re going to quote Leviticus, then remember that Leviticus came a few years prior to King Solomon (generally spoken of in admiring tones in the bibble), who was able to have 700 wives of royal birth and 300 concubines (I Kings, Chapter 11). Did King Solomon participate in traditional marriage?

  147. bigfuzzy says: Oct 2, 2012 6:01 AM

    Fantastic response by Kluwe.

    Why am I not suprised by neanderthal response from a guy that looks like a neanderthal? Correlation? Maybe Kluwe can chime in on that intelligently unlike me who simply resorted to name calling? :)

  148. crazyfootballfun says: Oct 2, 2012 6:15 AM

    It is almost comical to see folks praising Birk for sticking up to bullies, when it almost every case of bullying between a gay/straight person, it is the gay person who is being bullied. And just how are birk’s kids going to be affected by 2 people who love each other getting married? He throws out that comment as factual without anything to back it up. Are there marriages going to be less valid? will they worry so much about 2 men who marry they can no longer have their own relationship? why does religion get to decide this? When they talk about traditional marriage, they absolutely ignore that in the bible they claim to believe in, marriage has not always been about 1 man and 1 woman. There were multiple marriages, marriage was a property exchange only ( I will give you my daughter for 6 cows), marriage solely for the purpose of procreation, and in the New Testament, a man is required to marry his brother’s widow. Marriage has continually changed, and so has society’s opinions. Previously, most states have made 1 man 1 woman laws, but currently many of those same states have polls that show the results would be different now. society is changing, as it always does. Kids today go to school with kids who have 2 moms or 2 dads and they do not see it as the same way. they have friends who are gay and it does not seem weird to them. churches should not be forced to marry gays, but this is not an issue for the churches to decide. IMO, it is an issue of fairness….and I am convinced that some day the folks today who are against gay marriage will be viewed in the same way we view those who were against interracial marriages. History will look back at those folks as bigots, which i believe they are. It is not enough that they have their own opinion…they want their beliefs to be made law and to prevent other people from having the same rights they themselves have. If that is not bigotry….

  149. theandy59 says: Oct 2, 2012 6:15 AM

    I knew I’d see it and onebuc delivered – the idiotic argument equating the marriage of two consenting adults with marriage between a man and an animal, or a child.

    There is nothing more idiotic than belief in some magic man in the sky, all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, who gave us a set of rules to live by, and if we break those rules, condemns us to burn in eternity in hellfire….but he loves us. (HT, George Carlin)

    Religion as a crutch against the fear of death, the unknown, injustice in the here-and-now, I can live with….hey, if it makes you feel better about the utter insignificance of all of our lives, go for it. But religion wielded as a tool to control and oppress, which is it’s actual purpose? Please. The amazing thing is you god-freaks don’t realize that the only difference between you and the murdering Muslim fanatics of the world is just a matter of degrees, of where you draw the line.

    If you’re against gay marriage, don’t have one. Explain to your gay child why you believe that he or she isn’t entitled to the same rights as your straight child because somehow when “God” created them, he sorta screwed up and made he/she less equal than the other. Oh, and before you start moralizing against other peoples behavior, take a look at your own. Glass houses and all that…I think that’s in your bible….look it up.

  150. realityron says: Oct 2, 2012 6:36 AM

    The main issue with conservatives, is and always will be this…due to their high and mighty stances and viewpoints, they always seem to want to try and dictate policy under other peoples roof. They want to force their ideals on those around them, and within their communities as if they themselves have been ordained as some type of moral police. Bottom line is this, and it’s really simple…social issues are personal and subjective, so when it comes to something like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, or whatever, follow these simple examples:
    Don’t support gay marriage? Cool, don’t be gay. If you are, don’t get married.
    Don’t support abortion? Don’t get pregnant and abort a fetus.
    Don’t support stem cell research? Don’t get sick and use treatments developed as a result of stem cell research.
    Don’t support the use of marijuana? Don’t use marijuana.
    Isn’t that simple? Wasn’t that just so easy? If it wasn’t, it should have been. People, worry about yourselves, your households, and your loved ones. Stop worrying your pretty little heads about people you don’t know, relate to, or interact with. Stop trying to force feed your ideals on those around you. Keep your Gods to yourselves. Where does it stop? If you have your way, it won’t be long before you’re attempting to legislate not eating meat on Fridays, not working on Sabbath days, and the teaching of science in schools. Get a grip, and worry about you and your’s, and not they and their’s…

  151. cincyhokie says: Oct 2, 2012 7:49 AM

    I am not understanding why you cannot “support traditional marriage” in your own marriage. How do you “support” something which is ultimately to be AGAINST someone else’s freedom of choice?

    What does someone elses relationship have ANYTHING to do with yours?

    Can any of the “traditional marriage supporters” answer that?

    I see a big push for a continuation of “religious freedom” from the SAME people that want to eliminate other people’s freedoms.

  152. pskotte says: Oct 2, 2012 8:04 AM

    Rights come from God, not the State!

    “You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.” – John Adams (2nd President of the United States)

    We have them due to our humanity simply because we exist. It is the job of government to make certain they are not stripped away.

  153. sj39 says: Oct 2, 2012 8:12 AM

    I could care less if Brady and Gronk wish to wed.

  154. ewoods6 says: Oct 2, 2012 8:18 AM

    To deny same sex marriage or unions is unconstitutional, plan and simple. There can be no religious or spirital argument attached to it as we are suppose to have a separation of church and state and in a country where we have Freedom of Religon , to put 1 religions principles over the other hundreds of religions practiced in this country, is pretty arrogant and just isn’t right.

    Christians are telling everyone their way is right and thats that. It’s b/s and there is no study/argument out there that can truly defend opposing SS Marriage. Just tell people: “I like to support things that discriminate others and is unconstituional.”

  155. ewoods6 says: Oct 2, 2012 8:20 AM

    Does everyone forget that Christians rode around killing everyone they saw that didn’t want to convert all in an effort to kill off all other religions?? That’s right, the Christian religon spread throughout Ancient Europe and to America because of mass murder.

    They chopped down Thor’s tree for crying out loud!!

  156. rbirving says: Oct 2, 2012 8:47 AM

    Opinions are just like hemoroids and cowbay hats, sooner or later every a-hole gets to have one.

    The only argument against “redefining” marriage is a religious one and therefore does not belong in the discussion. How the government defines marriage has nothing to do with how your church defines the “sacrament of marriage”. No church will be forced to perform or “sactify” a same sex marriage.

    IMO, the better answer would be for my government to get out of the marriage business altogether. Remove all special priviledges and rights associated with “marriage” so that all adults are treated equally in all ways.

  157. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 2, 2012 9:33 AM

    thatyankeedude says:
    Oct 1, 2012 11:49 PM
    Ok moron find separation of church and state in the united states constitution that you piss on everyday. Gay marriage makes those who are opposed, such as Christians and other non Christian folks, pay for their benefits. Why should I be forced to pay for something that’s completely against my religion? The gay sympathizers on here are relentless and show they are true hateful bigots every time they complain about somebody that is against their communistic liberal agenda. Sorry libs your going to get a wrath upon you that will never ever be forgotten. Hope your arrogance and ignorance serves you well in the afterlife. But for now live it up. Don’t take responsibility for your actions. Continue to engage in your crusade to make everyone gay. Itll be well worth your time I’m sure.

      _________________________

    You’re book of fairy tales has no say in how this country is run.

    Seeing how you don’t want to give equally rights and tax breaks to consenting adults, I assume you are 100% for churches paying taxes. Why should my tax dollars fund your religion? There’s a church on 53rd and 5th in NYC, it’s one of the most expensive streets for real estate on the planet and they are there tax free.

  158. oaktown49er says: Oct 2, 2012 10:28 AM

    Drainbamaged, marriage can exist outside of religion, and if a church makes the choice to marry two gay people than the church has that right. However, as there is the separation between church and state, the gov’t shall not force a church to do this.

  159. wtfru2 says: Oct 2, 2012 10:29 AM

    Hey people, these guys are football players not legislators! Who cares what a guy that plays a game for a living really thinks. They aren’t in the real world anyway.

    Get back to snapping or kicking the ball and leave the real world issues to people that can do something about it.

    As long as the guy isn’t checking me out in the shower, who cares?

  160. wildbillesq says: Oct 2, 2012 10:32 AM

    Ya, and while we are at it let’s make gays sit on the back of the bus, and if the bus gets full, the gays have to give up their seats to the straights. I think special water fountains and bathrooms for gays are in order too. (C’mon people. Think of how stupid the anti-gay movement will look to the future…)

  161. godzilla111111 says: Oct 2, 2012 10:37 AM

    Legalize polygamy! I demand my rights!

  162. oaktown49er says: Oct 2, 2012 10:43 AM

    thatyankeedude says:
    Oct 1, 2012 11:49 PM
    Ok moron find separation of church and state in the united states constitution that you piss on everyday.
    ————————————————–
    Well since you asked so nicely:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”

  163. davidcl77 says: Oct 2, 2012 11:03 AM

    I thought this was about football. Now we have tons of garbage about $3 bills.
    Weirdos are taking over the world.

  164. taintedsaints2009 says: Oct 2, 2012 11:08 AM

    we’re less than 6 months from war with Iran and THIS is what americans are concerned about?

  165. tlmoon2112 says: Oct 2, 2012 11:14 AM

    I absolutely love seeing men stand up for what’s right. Kudos to him for having the balls to say it, he’s got my 1000% respect.

  166. fground says: Oct 2, 2012 11:26 AM

    taintedsaints2009…..sadly I think people have become desensitized to war…the military industry has done a masterful job of sanitizing war…for the vast majority of Americans war doesn’t touch their everyday life in any noticeable way. A small percentage of families pay an enormous price and the rest of the country appeases their quilt and lack of contribution by celebrating the soldiers with empty gestures of public support. Any dissenting voices against war are attacked as traitors or un-patriotic.

    They have almost made war the equivalent of cheering for your local sports team.

  167. bunkmcnulty says: Oct 2, 2012 11:59 AM

    @oaktown49er says:

    Oct 2, 2012 10:43 AM
    thatyankeedude says:
    Oct 1, 2012 11:49 PM
    Ok moron find separation of church and state in the united states constitution that you piss on everyday.
    ————————————————–
    Well since you asked so nicely:
    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….”
    __________________
    This is the best response in the history of PFT!

    It’s funny to me how many people forget the founding fathers were also escaping religious persecution in England and the need for separation of church an state was vital to the survival of churches and religion. So many act as though the separation of these powers is socialistic or communistic. Our forefathers were smarter than that!

    As a Christian that supports Same Gender Marriage, let me assure you that Yankredude does not speak for us all.

  168. cincyhokie says: Oct 2, 2012 12:01 PM

    fground says:
    Oct 2, 2012 11:26 AM
    “taintedsaints2009…..sadly I think people have become desensitized to war…the military industry has done a masterful job of sanitizing war…for the vast majority of Americans war doesn’t touch their everyday life in any noticeable way. A small percentage of families pay an enormous price and the rest of the country appeases their quilt and lack of contribution by celebrating the soldiers with empty gestures of public support. Any dissenting voices against war are attacked as traitors or un-patriotic.

    They have almost made war the equivalent of cheering for your local sports team.”

    Well said. Damn good points.

  169. Frazier28/7 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:13 PM

    He still looks good in purple.

  170. vikesandravens78 says: Oct 2, 2012 12:40 PM

    Matt Birk is one of the classiest men in the NFL. The man is just simply stating his opinion on the issue. He’s not standing out on the corner holding a sign with some sort of derrogatory or inflamatory phrase like the Westboro Baptist Church often does. Whether you agree with it or not, the freedom to express one’s own opinion is a great privelege in this nation. Even greater is the freedom to disagree with another’s opinion.

  171. skolvikings2011 says: Oct 2, 2012 3:49 PM

    Good for Birk. He should be able to say what he wants.

    So should Ayanbedejo. I agree with Birk, but both men’s freedom of speech is protected in the Constitution. The voters will decide in Nov.

  172. The Doctor says: Oct 2, 2012 11:13 PM

    ewoods6 says:Oct 2, 2012 8:20 AM

    Does everyone forget that Christians rode around killing everyone they saw that didn’t want to convert all in an effort to kill off all other religions?? That’s right, the Christian religon spread throughout Ancient Europe and to America because of mass murder.

    They chopped down Thor’s tree for crying out loud!!
    __________
    Please do not confuse what happened in the dark ages with real Christianity. Those atrocities were perfomed in the name of a man made religion.

  173. bigfuzzy says: Oct 3, 2012 8:56 AM

    @ewoods6
    “Those atrocities were perfomed in the name of a man made religion”

    Um, aren’t ALL crimes done in the name of a man made religion? I must have missed the part where someone prove, beyond ANY doubt, that any one religion was anything but man made? It’s why I don’t trust ANY of them.

    Because YOU and other followers believe in it’s divine creation, doesn’t make it so. I believe you exist to give me all your money, and if you’re a hot chick, your booty. Both of us stand on equally shaky ground when it comes to proving it should be so.

  174. supermariojosh says: Oct 3, 2012 12:27 PM

    It’s about what marriage is and isn’t people. Birk and many others believe that marriage BY DEFINITION is between a man and a woman. It’s not about stripping rights from gay people, it’s about recognizing the unique complimentarian relationship between a man and a woman – one that even evolutionary science supports. Same sex marriage, BY DEFINITION is not the same as heterosexual marriage. Society is built on this unique relationship and structure.

    I have no problem giving same sex couples the same visitation, property, and tax rights as others, but again, BY DEFINITION that is not a marriage. Call it semantics if you want, it’s a huge distinction to many people. Why is it crazy that some people might be concerned about changing the definition of the very foundation of society? To me, that’s just as important as any war.

  175. sullijo1 says: Oct 3, 2012 6:04 PM

    It’s NOT OK to have an opinion in this country if it is not politically correct or does not agree with Obama……just ask the main stream media.

  176. hor2012 says: Oct 5, 2012 1:07 PM

    This souldn’t manner but I’m an african american middle age male. And, I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don’t think that makes me a biggot. I have a problem with this issue being called a civil rights issue. That being said I don’t think this is the sort of issue that should be disscussed in the work place. And, the practice facility is considered the work place. Finally, our lawmakers inact laws all the time that people don’t agree with. I elect them to have the ability to rule and govern. If they are really that sure of thier convictions pass into law a federal same sex marriage act. But, they won’t do that because they are worried about the back lash from voters. Now, can we just get back to talking about football.

  177. sariff420 says: Oct 5, 2012 1:25 PM

    is Birk of the assumption that people actually care what he or any NFL player thinks about this? Guess he does.

  178. librarianfootballfan says: Oct 5, 2012 7:34 PM

    From:
    Is Marriage a Civil Right?

    By Tom Head, About.com Guide

    Is Marriage a Civil Right?

    Answer: Recognized federal civil rights law in the United States is grounded in the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. By this standard, marriage has long been established as a civil right.

    The operative constitutional text is section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868. The relevant passages read as follows:
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:
    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 …

    To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
    While the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on same-sex marriage, it is unlikely that it would overturn the foundational premise that marriage is a civil right. Lower courts, even when relying on disparate state-level constitutional language, have consistently acknowledged the right to marry. Legal arguments for excepting same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage as a civil right have rested, instead, on the argument that the state has a compelling interest in restricting same-sex marriage that justifies limiting the right to marry (an argument that was also used to justify restrictions on interracial marriage), and/or that laws permitting civil unions provide a substantially equivalent standard to marriage that satisfies equal protection standards.

  179. mediasloppy says: Oct 5, 2012 9:03 PM

    How can someone smart enough to graduate from Yale say something so dumb. Not about how he feels about the topic. The fact that he said

    “… it’s not my aim, it’s not my goal to engage in any debates with any one person or persons…”

    Of course it is or you wouldn’t say a thing about the topic…

  180. danoj14 says: Oct 7, 2012 12:09 PM

    dhudge says:
    Oct 1, 2012 11:31 PM
    “Bigotry” is defined by “intolerance”…it’s idiotic to label Birk a “bigot” because he voices an opinion. It’s the same as labeling Ayanbedejo a “bigot” for being a proponent to same sex marriage.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————

    Are you retarded? Birk is taking a position that would take away rights from some people. How would Ayanbedejo’s? Maybe look up the word bigot.

  181. supermariojosh says: Oct 7, 2012 10:19 PM

    Nobody is taking away anybody’s civil rights – gay people can marry the exact same people straight people can – they just happen to not be attracted to them. Is it a denial of my civil rights that I can’t go hang out in the women’s locker room, even though it would be fun? I can’t, because I’m a male. I demand my rights!

  182. patpatriotagain says: Oct 8, 2012 12:31 PM

    interesting that the people in this forum and in politics, who claim to be in favor of tolerance seem to use the most intolerant language, much like kluwe.

  183. cags777 says: Oct 8, 2012 4:08 PM

    So, supermario, are you advocting that people marry just for tax benefits instead of love? It kind of defeats the whole purpose of protecting the sanctity of marriage, don’t you think.

    I also read Birk’s commentary on the Star Tribune’s website a while back. While he’s articulate and tries taking the high road as opposed to the original message Vikings punter Chris Kluwe sent to the Maryland delegate, Birk was unable to back up his statements on how gay marriage negatively impacts the family unit. The only people who do more harm to the family unit are deadbeat parents who won’t care for the child financially or emotionally.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!