Weather Forecast


Letter: Marriage is moral, religious issue

To the Editor:

I could not agree more with Wm. David Farrar (R-E, April 10). This debate over unnatural marriage is so crucial. Kids will be hurt -- 97 percent of the children.

A 6-year-old girl asked her mother shortly after the November referendum, "Mommy, does this mean I will have to marry a woman?"

What do little boys and girls think of, hope for, dream of but growing up and getting married?

Embedding the possibility of boys marrying boys and girls marrying girls into law will bring into question those dreams, if not destroy them.

This 6-year-old was expressing a fear that she would be forced into something very unusual, something that is difficult if not impossible for children to understand.

There will be more confusion among children and teenagers about their sexual identity.

Enough confusion has already been introduced into children's hearts and minds by 20 years of sex education, which has attempted to explain the unnatural as natural and, for many religious people, the immoral as moral.

There is no reason to rush into a decision or a vote on this issue. As one Supreme Court member said "same-sex marriage is newer than cellphones." We need to think hard and long on the consequences of overturning thousands of years of societies, not government, approving of marriage between one man and one woman.

We should not rush into taking a position which 95 percent of the religious people in the world believe is immoral.

This is not a "rights" issue and it is not a "love" issue. Government is not supposed to set the moral standards of a society.

Our Founding Fathers knew that democracy without morals would fail. Morals, they all understood, came from religion, not government, not the courts. That is why religions have always been protected and encouraged by our government.

If morals do not come from religions, where will they come from? The wealthy? The powerful? The loudest? Hollywood?

Ron Stehr

Red Wing