Letter to the Editor Reply

I would like to try something new (for me at least). I would like to try and feature various "letters to the editor" with comments inserted.

Here is the inaugural attempt. It is from the Star Tribune today by Mike Fry of Minneapolis.

State Sen. Michele Bachmann, R-Stillwater, likes to say that if put to a vote, citizens in Minnesota would amend our Constitution to ban any recognition of relationships other than marriage (including civil unions and domestic partnerships) and to limit marriage to straight people. Her argument does not hold water.

When it comes to civil rights, equal protection is supposed to trump majority opinion. Civil rights are those such as life, liberty, etc. These are items vital to life and dignity. This is not for social topics. That is why our founding fathers established this country not as a democracy, but as a constitutional democracy. Since we are playing semantics games here lets point out that it is a constitutional republic, not a constitutional democracy. Our nation was structured specifically to protect unpopular minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Actually, it is a balance that must exist. The Will of the Majority balanced against the Rights of the Minority. In the end, as long as basic rights to exist are not being denied, the will of the majority must win. That is why we have a Constitution.No. We have a Constitution to protect us from the government. The people's will, through a divided-power government, should be the rule.

Bachmann and her supporters either do not understand the role our Constitution plays, or they do not care. I am not sure which possibility I find more frightening. Considering how off you have been thus far I would say you do not understand or are intentionally omitting key portions of the Constitution's role. I am not sure which I find more frightening.

Had any of the great civil rights advances made in our history been left in the hands of a majority vote, we would still have segregated schools. That is a different matter than if social rules of government should changed. Interracial marriage would be illegal. And women would still become the property of their husbands when they tied the knot. Again, that is a matter of life and property of oneself. Completely different than letting gays alter social rules regarding marriage.

How would Bachmann feel if her marriage were to be put to a vote by the gay community? HERE IT IS. The gay movement is not about equality. It is about gay superiority. They want the 'gay community' to have legislative authority. Bachman wants the entire citizenry to have legislative authority.

Gay marriage is not a civil right. Marriage is a civil privilege and everyone may marry...there are certain restrictions. Just as there are restrictions on who can enjoy their 2nd Amendment rights and in what manner, there are restrictions on the civil privilege of marriage. You may marry someone of the opposite sex. Everyone is allowed, a gay person chooses not to. No problem. I choose not to carry a firearm. But by choosing not to utilize a positive right does not entitle the person to create corollary rights. Just because I do not carry a firearm I am not suddenly entitled to carry a crossbow.

Marriage is defined in a manner that encourages healthy raising of society continuing children. Period. That is why siblings cannot marry. That is why most states outlaw polygamy or intra-familial marriages.

That is it. Plain and simple. As Shug said in the Color Purple: every child needs a pa. And every child obviously also needs a mother. That is just a rule of nature.

So, you gays who think you have no choice in being gay...you want to portray the idea that "gayness" is a state of nature and thus the rest of the world must accept gays. I am telling you that it is also a state of nature that society is best advanced by encouraging a male-female union/marriage to encourage the best possibility for child raising.