With two months before the critical vote on an anti-gay marriage amendment, the rhetoric in the letters section and opinion pages of Minnesota’s newspapers is heating up.
Pastor Kirk Schield of Shepherd of the Lake in Two Harbors sent a letter in to the Lake County News-Chronicle titled, “God votes yes.” (And if the other amendment passes, God will need a photo ID as well).
Now, I know some will say, “You’re unloving. Why can’t you love and accept people for who they are and let them be.” One of my answers to their questions is a question: “If a child was about to put her hand on a hot stove what would you do? Would you say, “I’ll just let her be, I don’t want to “limit” her freedom? Or, if your neighbor’s house was on fire would you say, “That’s their business, I’ll just let them be”? No, if we truly love someone, we will want to keep them from hurtful behavior. Hurtful behavior could be some sort of addiction such as alcohol or gambling. It could be gossip, or petty theft, to name a few. It’s not just the heated issue regarding marriage. In any case God loves that person and wants to forgive them of any sin. And that’s what God calls us to do: to love people. And this not because we have to, but since God loves us we also love others. That’s why a “Yes” vote is God’s vote: because He loves us.
University of St. Thomas law professor Robert Delahunty, raised the ire of many Star Tribune letter writers with his article that claimed “Whenever the law expands the freedoms of one person or group, it necessarily contracts those of another.” The freedom he was addressing was the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/letters/168689646.html
MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
A closer look at proponents’ ‘freedom’
Paul Chillman of Minneapolis wrote, “Delahunty believes he can identify what “freedom” I’m losing: “that of living in a social world in which marriage has a particular meaning and is related in specific ways to natural reproduction and family life.” That’s an awfully Orwellian kind of freedom. By the same logic, the Republican Party’s “economic freedom” message doesn’t hold water, because it’s actually a direct attack on my freedom to live in a world with higher taxes and more regulation.”
Richard Painter was chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush. He wrote:
Delahunty writes that he is concerned about “an important freedom … of living in a social world” without gay marriage. How about those who prefer the freedom to live in a world with no gays at all? And no Jehovah’s Witnesses? And no socialists? And no Jews?
And that is yet another reason we should not allow Delahunty or his supporters anywhere near the Minnesota Constitution.
John Rupkey in the Winona Daily News takes Minnesota’s Catholic bishops to task. “They believe — correctly, in my opinion — that the only way to be assured that this injustice will continue is to amend our constitution in a way that will enshrine this injustice into our Minnesota Constitution.
Do Minnesotans really want to live under an unjust constitution?”
http://www.mndaily.com/2012/09/06/conservative-argument-marriage-equality
University student Christian Bjornson send an opinion piece to the Minnesota Daily about his evolution on marriage equality as a conservative Republican. He conludes:
The issue of marriage equality is an issue where conservative and liberal principles should come together perfectly. The liberal cause of equality has met the conservative cause of protecting and promoting marriage. Now is the time for us as conservatives to support expanding the institution, not in spite of but because of the values that we hold most dear.