Letter: Civil marriage smacks of segregationist thinking
To the Editor:
I learned with dismay but not surprise about Tim Kelly's proposal for a civil union bill as his alternative to the Freedom to Marry bill currently awaiting a vote by the Legislature. I had asked him two days earlier if there was anything anyone could say to convince him to change his opposition to the marriage bill, to which he categorically and unequivocally stated no.
His action in submitting his proposal contradicts his position before the last election that in opposing the marriage ban amendment to the Minnesota Constitution, he stated he was opposed to more government intrusion in our lives.
For him to say by his current action that this is all he is willing to give and we should be satisfied with it is neo-segregationist. This is nothing more than the old segregationist philosophy that rationalized the behaviors by those who would have us believe that separate but equal is equally acceptable, and is in diametric opposition to the final six words of the Pledge of Allegiance which says "with liberty and justice for all."
I would ask Mr. Kelly rhetorically to whom does the word "all" refer?
To those of us who supported Tim Kelly in the last election I would urge a careful reconsideration of our support in the next election. I, for one, certainly will.