Marriage needs state protection

To the Editor:

In response to a letter published in the Jan. 8 Record, I have to say that I believe that the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment is absolutely necessary. You only have to look to Iowa and New York to see how judges and legislators are working to redefine marriage without the consent of the people.

Here in Minnesota, we have legislators who have introduced legislation to change the definition of marriage from one man and one woman to a genderless institution.  We need to protect — in our constitution — something as foundational to society as marriage so that it requires a vote of the people to change the definition rather than letting activist judges or legislators do that without our consent. — Jennie Zeitler, Royalton

  • Joe

    When more than half of all marriages end in divorce the argument that they are sacred or special is laughable. When a church that lays claim to the sanctity of marriage hides and tolerates pedophiles they are laughable. We need no amendment to protect something that we do not hold in high esteem.

  • Bill

    I would go and say that when Jesus was asked what the greatest commandment was he said something like love God and love one another as I have loved you – so who is the state to deny anyone love (yes even gay people). While I don’t understand homosexuality I have to believe in my heart that it is not a choice (who in would choose to be alienated and discriminated against?).

  • Jerry Clarke

    Thanks Bill, for pointing out that this is all about love and the right of gay people to form families and receive the same support from our government and community as straight families do. Having stable families and healthy children should be something everyone can support.

  • Matthew Ott

    Government has no business regulating monogamous marriages. If any government regulation should exist regarding marriage, it should be against polygamy and the marriage of minors. A church can choose not to bless a particular marriage if it wishes, but marriage in the sense of civil union is a civil right. Civil rights, as Dr. King and Jesus taught, are about “liberating the oppressed” and welcoming the outcast – the leper, the blind, the lame, and now people who happen to be gay now fit into this category.

  • Erik Warner

    Rather than amend our constitution to limit freedoms, I propose we eliminate “marriage” entirely from our laws. Let any two consenting adults enter into a state recognized/sanctioned “Civil Union” and leave “Marriage” to religious communities. This would honor both individual and religious liberty. Individuals would be free to enter into legally recognized, committed relationships with the partner of their choosing and religious communities would be free to determine which of these relationships they would recognize as marriages. This honors the religious freedom of faith traditions that do, and do not, honor same sex marriage.