In reply to Patricia Jones’s letter of May 11, (Will be voting ‘yes’ for amendment), I have several comments. Jones says she wants to define marriage as “the union of one man and one woman in a lifelong, exclusive relationship … open to the conception of children.” Would she then support laws outlawing divorce in all cases? How would she approach the marriage of one man and one woman when there is not the possibility of children, either because of age, medical condition, or personal preference? Are those couples entitled to call themselves “married?”
She then says she wishes to “proclaim and defend God’s plan for the optimum environment for raising children,” to which I would simply point out that the United States is not a theocracy. Our laws ought not be based on what Patricia Jones or anyone else’s particular interpretation of their holy book seems to say. Rather our laws should seek to provide the most opportunity to the most people, without harming others. Allowing same-sex couples to marry offers them joy and happiness akin to that of any other committed couple. At the same time, the existence of same-sex marriage does absolutely no harm to Patricia Jones or anyone else.
Finally, Jones claims that the amendment simply “protects the definition of ‘marriage’ in our Constitution.” Frankly, that’s not what it does. It explicitly singles out a minority group of otherwise eligible citizens, and denies them the same opportunities as the majority, for no defensible reason. Jones’s letter closes with “(Marriage) needs to be celebrated, supported and strengthened to protect the ‘public good’ of marriage in society.” To this, I could not agree more. Marriage can be a stabilizing force in society, and should be available to all who seek it. — Christopher Borum, Elk River