To the Editor:
The Editorial Board in the viewpoint section of the Record Sept. 30 believes Minnesotans should vote no on the marriage amendment.
“Voters would, in fact, be making choices for those future generations … That’s oppression,” it said.
When the founders of this country debated and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, they in fact made choices for future generations also. They thankfully restricted future generations from being able to have a dictatorship (unless we let our guard down). Do we think that was oppressive of them?
The Editorial Board says “Moral climates change.”
Yes it can. The creator, though, says, “I change not.” (Malachi 3:6) The ancient Israelites changed their moral compass and were finally sent into slavery.
The Editorial Board says a “Yes” vote “would limit the freedom of same-sex couples to marry.”
In olden days a marriage was agreed to by bride, groom and their families. No state involvement. The “gay” man in the article says he would like the same sense of love, commitment, responsibility and security his parents have.
The marriage laws of the state do not provide love, commitment and responsibility; it only provides security in the financial or child custody aspects of a breakup of the marriage.
Vote “Yes.” — James Steinle, Swanville