Golden Quill letter: Majority, don't impose beliefs just because you canMost of us would probably agree that the freedom to practice our beliefs and morality as we wish, unless it infringes upon others, is one of the things that makes our nation truly great.
By: John Kern, The Republican Eagle
To the Editor:
Most of us would probably agree that the freedom to practice our beliefs and morality as we wish, unless it infringes upon others, is one of the things that makes our nation truly great.
We might further concur that there are many, perhaps hundreds, of subgroups including religions, nationalities, and social organizations that each espouse different beliefs and practices, some of which seem foreign and even strange to us at times. We are thankful that we, the majority, aren't forced to practice what we don't believe.
Imagine, then, how different our country would be if each group was given the right to impose, through law and constitutional amendment, one or two of their favorite beliefs or moralities upon the rest of the population. There wouldn't be much freedom left, would there?
Of course, we know this fantasy is ridiculous and would never happen, because most of these groups are too small in number and therefore in political clout to force us to enact their beliefs and morals.
This begs the elephant-in-the-corner question: Does the fact that we, as Christians, do have a majority in America and have the political clout to force our beliefs and morals upon others make it OK to do so?
The proposal that Minnesota add to its Constitution that marriage should forever be only between a man and a woman is just such a religious or moral belief.
Same-sex marriages do not infringe on anyone's rights. There is ample, scientifically documented evidence that children of successful same-sex unions are just as well-adjusted, become just as well-educated, and have just as productive adult careers as do children of successful heterosexual marriages. They are no more likely to be homosexual than anyone else.
The rate of successful same-sex long-term relationships is at least as high as heterosexual partnerships. There is also absolutely no economic argument of any credibility that supports this amendment. It is, plain and simple, an effort to force a relatively powerless minority to bend to the morals of a much larger, more powerful majority, for no society-serving reason other than we think it's right and, by golly, so should everyone.
We all need to consider seriously whether this is what we want to use our Minnesota Constitution for. I plan to vote "no" on the marriage amendment in November, and I encourage you to as well.