Letter: Don't put marriage 'out of reach'As someone who is opposed to the marriage amendment on the November ballot in Minnesota, I've followed with interest David Farrar's letters to the editor and the responses these generated.
By: Jo Seton, The Republican Eagle
To the Editor:
As someone who is opposed to the marriage amendment on the November ballot in Minnesota, I've followed with interest David Farrar's letters to the editor and the responses these generated. While I respect both Dr. Farrar's right to his opinion and his desire for what he sees as best for our society and appreciate the very civil way in which he makes his case, I feel compelled to respond.
Two comments in response to his latest letter:
First, anyone who's married knows what an incredible amount of hard work and commitment this involves. If people (of any gender) are prepared to take on together that difficult task, why on earth we would want to deny them the right to do so?
Why, for example, should my several lesbian relatives who have been in committed, loving relationships for far longer than my own marriage of 19 years, be denied the full rights, privileges (and yes, responsibilities) that marriage entails?
Why should they have to settle for a civil union, a policy which Farrar claims he could accept? Would heterosexuals settle for a second-class marriage of this ilk?
Second, the following bears reiteration: no matter what happens Nov. 6, same-sex marriage will not suddenly be legal in Minnesota. The proposed amendment is an attempt to place a definition of marriage essentially "out of reach" (within the Constitution) of any future, potential (and, I would argue, inevitable) change. I've always understood that constitutions exist, among other reasons, to protect minorities, not to discriminate against them. And yet, this amendment would do just that, by enshrining in the Constitution a definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, thereby denying the benefits of marriage to a specific class of people, because of sexual orientation.
Contrary to those who suggest that same-sex marriage would undermine, weaken or threaten the institution of marriage, and by extension, society, I believe it can only strengthen both. But that's another whole letter to the editor.