Marriage amendment not needed

To the Editor:

A recent Star Tribune poll showed people are pretty much so-so for or against the upcoming marriage amendment. There are a couple of reasons I plan on voting against it.

In the first place, state law already prohibits same sex marriage. There is no need whatsoever for this amendment. The other reason is it’s what the Republicans want.  I will vote against anything that are nothing but tax cuts for what the rich party wants.

The Republicans say they want to cut government spending. How much is this needless amendment going to cost the state? They can’t even balance their own operation, how can they possibly hope to fix the state’s budget.

That’s like their other pet project, voter photo I.D., a solution for a problem that isn’t there. Maybe they should put their personal agenda aside and work with the other side to solve real problems like unemployment.

But please, don’t come up with that tax cuts for the rich bull. — Bill Wieczorek, Little Falls

  • Mitch Mueller

    I don’t understand this letter at all. What does a marriage ammendment have to do with tax cuts for the rich? How could the marriage ammendment possibly impact the state budget? This doesn’t even make sense. I don’t think anyone would realy vote against the ammendment for budget reasons because it’s not a budget issue, its a sociological issue. It’s and issue about education, and about religious freedom vs. sexual freedom -not the budget.

up arrow