Skip to content

Kluwe will debate an empty chair over marriage equality

120920.05 Getty Images

Vikings punter Chris Kluwe wants to debate a supporter of the proposed Minnesota marriage amendment, which would limit the definition of the term to a union between a man and a woman.  But invitations extended to folks like former Vikings center Matt Birk and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann weren’t accepted.

So Kluwe will be debating an empty chair.

Yes, the tactic has been used recently by Clint Eastwood, but if no one will step up to the stage and take on Kluwe, then he has no choice.

The “debate” will happen Friday night, and it will be “moderated” by local radio personality Tom Bernard.  Here’s hoping he keeps the chair in line.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Home, Minnesota Vikings, Rumor Mill
61 Responses to “Kluwe will debate an empty chair over marriage equality”
  1. Charles says: Oct 18, 2012 4:38 PM

    At least he’s using his celebrity for a positive cause.

  2. trollhammer20 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:39 PM

    Kluwe better watch it. In recent polling, when added to the Presidential race as a third-party candidate, The Chair was leading.

  3. mycm1127 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:39 PM

    Who cares what this guy thinks? He’s a freaking punter who just wants to see his name in the headlines!

  4. sdelmonte says: Oct 18, 2012 4:39 PM

    That chair is making the rounds. I wonder what kind of speaker’s fees it gets.

  5. thestrategyexpert says: Oct 18, 2012 4:40 PM

    I will definitely be watching. Kluwe is an American hero.

    I wish the Lions could find a trade for MIN where he was a throw in since we have one of the worst punters in the league.

  6. thelastpieceofcheese says: Oct 18, 2012 4:41 PM

    Doesn’t this give Kluwe an unfair advantage?

  7. mattolikesthevikes says: Oct 18, 2012 4:43 PM

    This dude is crazy. Love it.

  8. theralph2012 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:46 PM

    Alright Chris we get it, you have strong beliefs. And you want attention. Now go back to playing 5 downs a game and shutup.

  9. nyyjetsknicks says: Oct 18, 2012 4:47 PM

    I hate that he makes me like a punter. Keep it up, Kluwe.

  10. migoli says: Oct 18, 2012 4:48 PM

    mycm, so because hesva punter he’s not allowed to support this situation????

  11. icecubeusedtobeangry says: Oct 18, 2012 4:51 PM

    mycm1127 says:
    Oct 18, 2012 4:39 PM
    Who cares what this guy thinks? He’s a freaking punter who just wants to see his name in the headlines!
    ————————————————–

    Who makes more money than you ever will.

  12. gromit45 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:52 PM

    My money’s on the chair.

  13. psuskifan says: Oct 18, 2012 4:52 PM

    Its a good thing Michele Bachmann didn’t except. Listening, thinking, and then speaking is not her forte.

  14. burnz1379 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:53 PM

    I used to like kluwe but he’s getting annoying… Can he even vote in MN??? I’m pretty sure he lives in CA for most of the year… I think its time we look for a punter who’s not so starved for attention that he’ll say anything to get in the news… Go back to Cali buddy

  15. barroomhero80 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:54 PM

    The dudes always entertaining. Quit hating girls

  16. dylanmanning11 says: Oct 18, 2012 4:57 PM

    This is a logical fallacy:

    “Minnesota marriage amendment, which would limit the definition of the term to a union between a man and a woman.”

    You are implying that gay marriage has been already legal and is now becoming illegal.

    The correct term is actually “would ban gay marriage”, same sex marraige was NEVER legal in minesotta, you morons

  17. tfbuckfutter says: Oct 18, 2012 5:00 PM

    An empty chair has about as valid an argument against gay marriage as anyone you could put in the chair would.

    Just put a sign on it that says “It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!!!!!1111!!!” and it’s actually more logical than Michelle Bachmann or Rick Santorum.

  18. trbowman says: Oct 18, 2012 5:01 PM

    This guy was amusing at first, but his act got old yesterday.

  19. superputman says: Oct 18, 2012 5:03 PM

    I wonder if someone gave him a binder of chairs to choose a chair out of.

  20. skittlesareyum says: Oct 18, 2012 5:04 PM

    What’s with the hate on punters? I mean, I get not caring much about them either way, but posters on here act like punters stole their car and slept with their wife. Yes, they only play a few downs a game – they’re still more famous than 99% of the population.

  21. mediasloppy says: Oct 18, 2012 5:06 PM

    He also wants to debate “Citizen United”. Good for him. Should be entertaining.

  22. skolvikings2011 says: Oct 18, 2012 5:11 PM

    What a shock – a Professional Congresswoman and a full-time NFL player on another team would not agree to a political debate with a Punter.

  23. claymath52 says: Oct 18, 2012 5:16 PM

    Our government has no right to limit our liberty on many accounts along with deciding who can marry. With that said, Kluwe comes off like an attention Wh*** and I doubt the way he spreads the message will be well recieved by the conservative mids he is trying to change. Kind of like the college kids coming to my house to ask me to vote no on the marriage ammendment….. and the voter ID bill. Make it a liberal thing…

  24. dizoakiusmaximus says: Oct 18, 2012 5:17 PM

    This is rather awesome. It highlights the lacf of moral fiber of those opposed to it; if you feel so strongly about the measure, then by all means defend it in a debate to the best of your ability.

    The problem is, they can’t defend it without sounding like the hate spewing, close minded bigots that they are.

    Bottom line, it’s a moot point because the Supreme Court WILL rule on this in the coming year and if you think we’ll see a replay of the Dread Scott decision then you’re living in the wrong century.

  25. icecubeusedtobeangry says: Oct 18, 2012 5:19 PM

    dylanmanning11 says:
    Oct 18, 2012 4:57 PM
    This is a logical fallacy:

    “Minnesota marriage amendment, which would limit the definition of the term to a union between a man and a woman.”

    You are implying that gay marriage has been already legal and is now becoming illegal.

    The correct term is actually “would ban gay marriage”, same sex marraige was NEVER legal in minesotta, you morons
    ————————————————–

    Um, thats what the amendment to the MN state Constitution would do, it would make the definition of marriage to between one man and one woman. Making it, so it will be impossible for two dudes or two women to get hitched, legal like.

    The verb-age used in the story in no way speaks to the current legality of same sex unions.

  26. mdd913 says: Oct 18, 2012 5:49 PM

    Kluwe is a dork. Give me Pat McAfee any day. You’ll probably get free drinks and a welcome absence of political rhetoric.

  27. castleofcheese says: Oct 18, 2012 5:53 PM

    I hate the Vikings, but Kluwe might be the coolest player in the NFL ha.

  28. johntonioholmes says: Oct 18, 2012 6:06 PM

    I know evangelical Christians who oppose gay marriage because of their beliefs…and they also support it because a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional.

    Granted there are probably like 4 people in America who fall into this category (I know 3 of them), but they understand that, in America, the Constitution–not your religion–is the basis of all American law.

    Anyone who knows anything knows that there is no Constitutionally sound argument against gay marriage. My friends recognize this largely because they are in law school, or have taken several pre-law undergraduate courses.

    People like Matt Birk just don’t have a legal leg to stand on.

  29. johntonioholmes says: Oct 18, 2012 6:13 PM

    dizoakiusmaximus

    I’ll be surprised if the ruling is anything less than 6-3 in favor of equality. It might even be 7-2. I doubt Scalia or Thomas will see the light. Scalia still thinks you can legislate against sodomy–talk about a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution.

    I don’t know where Alito will fall–probably in the wrong direction.

    I’ll be very surprised if Roberts and Kennedy don’t side against DOMA and Prop 8.

  30. r8rh8r says: Oct 18, 2012 6:24 PM

    “Its a good thing Michele Bachmann didn’t except. Listening, thinking, and then speaking is not her forte.”

    Spelling is not yours my friend.

  31. dizoakiusmaximus says: Oct 18, 2012 6:24 PM

    Well, today the NY State Supreme Court struck down DOMA as unconstitutional, so it’s already rolling. This is a big deal, by the way, as any argument the opponents would have would rest on the precedent of DOMA as introduced by 104th Congress and signed by President Clinton.

    If that is struck down as unconstitutional, then there’s nowhere else to go, except to make your prima facie case as “But it’s icky and God says it’s a no-no.”

  32. dizoakiusmaximus says: Oct 18, 2012 6:29 PM

    *correction: It was the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. I’m not a lawyer, I just play one on TV.

  33. spidersfrommars72 says: Oct 18, 2012 6:43 PM

    Of course he wants to debate an empty chair. He’s so used to seeing them at the dome.

  34. notthathand says: Oct 18, 2012 7:17 PM

    “skolvikings2011 says:
    Oct 18, 2012 5:11 PM
    “… Professional Congresswoman…”

    I was going to say something about ‘bush league’ about the subject at hand but that might be construed as sexist.

  35. ppdoc13 says: Oct 18, 2012 7:17 PM

    Lets all remember that the chair has a valid opinion too and likely has a higher intelligence than that of combining Harry (the village idiot) Reid and Nancy (we have to pass the bill to see what in it) pelosi.

  36. seanb20124 says: Oct 18, 2012 7:51 PM

    Bachman is hot compared to Sotomayor or Kagan.

  37. matty507 says: Oct 18, 2012 8:03 PM

    I’ll debate him. Take away the behavior and they are indistinguishable from people. Its not a civil rights issue. Follow the pre-requisites for marriage, an institution of the church. Get your own term to decribe your union. Twinkling comes to mind.

  38. guessthenguessagain says: Oct 18, 2012 8:40 PM

    Hey! Leave the chair alone… all it wants is a seat at the table.

  39. catquick says: Oct 18, 2012 8:41 PM

    Kluwe failed biology

  40. JSpicoli says: Oct 18, 2012 8:48 PM

    But it IS icky and God says its wrong.

    Now go ahead and lecture me on how tolerant you are as you hurl slurs.

  41. zn0rseman says: Oct 18, 2012 9:19 PM

    They should redefine marriage to allow a human to marry an animal too. It makes about as much sense when one examines the purpose of marriage in the first place.

  42. mazblast says: Oct 18, 2012 9:50 PM

    likely has a higher intelligence than that of combining Harry (the village idiot) Reid and Nancy (we have to pass the bill to see what in it) pelosi.
    ————————————–
    Add John (Orange Tan) Boehner and Mitch (Mumbles) McConnell to that list, and it’s easy to see why a lot of people think it doesn’t matter who controls each house of Congress, we’re f***ed either way.
    ———————————
    Bachman is hot compared to Sotomayor or Kagan.
    ———————————
    Perhaps, but hearing the knee-jerk, party line crap coming from any of them is enough to give any man a limpie.
    ———————————
    Getting back to the subject–I believe the idea of amending the state constitution this way is to make it more difficult to pass a law allowing gay marriage. If this passes, an amendment repealing this provision would have to be passed before any law allowing gay marriage could be passed.

    Speaking as someone who opposed gay marriage for a long time, I have to admit that I’m in favor of it now. Why shouldn’t gays be as unhappy as straight married people?

  43. whatjusthapped says: Oct 18, 2012 10:02 PM

    Kluwe is supporting this cause because so much of their fan base is of that persuasion.

    He’s helping the Vikings sell tickets so it is in his vested interest to support this cause.

  44. cuda1234 says: Oct 18, 2012 10:13 PM

    I bet the chair wins.

  45. catquick says: Oct 18, 2012 10:14 PM

    Jspicoli….. It IS icky……….and GOD does say it’s wrong.

  46. johntonioholmes says: Oct 18, 2012 10:14 PM

    JSpicoli

    You first assume that God exists. You then assume that God cares. And you follow that up by assuming that God talked to humans. And then you assume that humans understood him.

    What you cannot assume, however, is the secular nature of our laws. God says it’s wrong, you say. Fine. Tell me where the Constitution says it’s and then we’ll have a discussion.

    As for people like me being intolerant? That’s a real convenient inconsistency. I never try to take away any rights from Christians, nor do I support laws to single them out.

    In fact, I champion your right to think gay marriage is wrong.

    I think believing in an unmistakably mistranslated, misunderstood, inconsistent and historically inaccurate book is wrong.

    The difference is, I’ not trying to legislate my religious beliefs into the system. You do not have that right. It was not conferred by God and it is not conferred by the supreme law of the land–the U.S. Constitution.

    If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. I don’t like your beliefs, so that’s why I don’t go to church.

  47. jimmylions says: Oct 18, 2012 10:14 PM

    All of these Christian Taliban haters getting mad at Chris Kluwe for having an opinion and not being afraid to express it.

    It’s funny how many of you guys love football, but hate football players. You want players to just be quiet, entertain you, sign your merch so you can sell it on eBay, and then vanish when they get hurt.

    If Pat Tilman were still alive, he’d be standing side by side with Chris Kluwe on this issue.

  48. johntonioholmes says: Oct 18, 2012 10:17 PM

    matty507

    Are you including the definition of marriage that says you have to marry your dead brother’s widow should she still be a virgin?

    Why aren’t you fighting for those laws?

    If you don’t like the word choice, call it something else. Don’t try to pretend like you have any principled opposition toward using the term.

  49. johntonioholmes says: Oct 18, 2012 10:31 PM

    whatjusthapped

    It’s funny that you think that’s even an insult. Seriously, who cares?

    Are you 12?

  50. catquick says: Oct 18, 2012 10:50 PM

    Chris Kluless

  51. catquick says: Oct 18, 2012 10:53 PM

    Johntonio……..if you’re correct, why are drugs illegal? There has to be some moral standards, and they have to come from GOD, otherwise, anything goes, and that is an unlivable life.

  52. The Doctor says: Oct 18, 2012 11:11 PM

    Funny how Kluwe uses his warped knowledge of his brand of Christianity to defend his position, and then goes and poses for a gay magazine. If he really knew the Lord, he would realize that he is on the wrong side of this issue, and that his actions are speaking louder than his words.

  53. purplengold says: Oct 19, 2012 12:46 AM

    Be careful Chris, remember how Clint Eastwood looked during his debate with The Chair.

  54. teamnorsecore says: Oct 19, 2012 4:07 AM

    Not everyone has tons of extra time on their hands like you Mr. Kluwe……you punt a football 4-5 times a game and earn a weeks wage for it. Birk lives in Baltimore and is a Center for a offensive line (his football job is a bit more demanding than yours). Bachmann is attempting to win re election right now. Needless to say, both people have a little more on their plate right now then “debating” you over whether gays should or shouldn’t be allowed to marry. Congrats for your stance but good grief……why so intense about it? Cast your vote and settle down…..how about the 8% in this country that are unemployed right now….doesn’t that warrant any press from you Kluwe?

  55. icecubeusedtobeangry says: Oct 19, 2012 9:52 AM

    The Doctor says:
    Oct 18, 2012 11:11 PM
    Funny how Kluwe uses his warped knowledge of his brand of Christianity to defend his position, and then goes and poses for a gay magazine. If he really knew the Lord, he would realize that he is on the wrong side of this issue, and that his actions are speaking louder than his words.
    ————————————————-

    This isn’t a religious issue!

  56. katoelf75 says: Oct 19, 2012 12:42 PM

    We have it backward. The problem is the government recognizing marriages at all. All religious couplings can be marriages or whatever term they want to use and left in those churches. The government shouldn’t recognize anything along these lines except civil unions for tax purposes. Can we get back to football now?

  57. schrutebeetfarms says: Oct 19, 2012 1:15 PM

    Will there be room in the room for the chair with Kluwe’s ever growing ego and Tom Bernard’s ego all in the same room?

  58. thatswhatimsayin says: Oct 19, 2012 1:58 PM

    johntonioholmes, Wow! you sure know how to dominate a thread. Thank you for all of your brilliant wisdom. I didn’t think i got my fill with 12 years of public education and then four years of College. way to force your world view down people’s throat. Stop being so closed minded and intolerant towards the Bible. Oh, i almost forgot bigoted and xenophobic.

  59. icecubeusedtobeangry says: Oct 19, 2012 2:23 PM

    thatswhatimsayin says:
    Oct 19, 2012 1:58 PM
    johntonioholmes, Wow! you sure know how to dominate a thread. Thank you for all of your brilliant wisdom. I didn’t think i got my fill with 12 years of public education and then four years of College. way to force your world view down people’s throat. Stop being so closed minded and intolerant towards the Bible. Oh, i almost forgot bigoted and xenophobic.
    ————————————————-

    Sorry man Johntonioholmes is right on mark. I am a christian, but there is no place in a state, or our nation’s constitution for legislation based on religious beliefs. His feelings on the bible and its teachings are his, and he has every right as an American to express them, just like you have every right to disagree with his opinion.

  60. blanchonegro says: Oct 19, 2012 4:25 PM

    Good for Kluwe. It sounds like the chair has more courage than the people supporting gay marriage.

  61. johntonioholmes says: Oct 19, 2012 7:34 PM

    thatswhatimsayin

    Are you serious? Stop forcing MY views down YOUR throat?

    What a twisted perception of the world

    You have every right to believe what you want to believe. That’s literally what I’ve said in almost every post.

    I will defend your right to be a Christian if it’s the last thing I do.

    But you do not have any right to force your beliefs upon anyone else. And that’s exactly what you have done.

    Please explain to me how saying, “We shouldn’t make laws based off of religion” is forcing my worldview onto you. If you want to live in a theocracy, move to Iran.

Leave a Reply

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