The key to this nation’s survival is ‘yes’ to the marriage amendment

To the editor:

Just how confusing can one person be?

In his letter to the editor, Bill Randall wrote: “I believe marriage is based on love, respect, commitment, and spiritual connection.”

This is hardly a startling revelation to any adult. Who would ever challenge these beliefs as essential to carrying out the marriage vows of chastity, fidelity, and the commitments that spouses make?

Yet, somehow Randall misses the purpose of marriage and the state’s concerns that marriage is for “the common good.”

This requirement is met in the current Minnesota statute that prescribes marriage is between a man and a woman. Nor will these essential elements change one iota with the proposed marriage amendment.

This helps us all understand that the purpose of marriage is to conceive and raise children. All of the available empirical data clearly demonstrate that a marriage between a man and a woman best fulfills these critical requirements.

We must never forget that the future of our state, nation and culture is dependent on its basic building block, the family. Voting “yes” for the marriage amendment will be the key to this nation’s survival.


  • Jan Dobson

    You bring up a good point, Ruby. Marriage is an institution geared toward moral procreation. For one thing, our species’ progress depends upon keeping track of bloodlines. I lived for some years in a society that encouraged marriage between first cousins. Disorders of the eye were especially prevalent.

    Another aspect of marriage and moral procreation is that marriage identifies which man is responsible for the care, feeding, clothing and housing of the offspring of which woman. (At no time in history has there ever been any doubt as to who the mother was.) I can’t help thinking that caveman grandpas were probably the first ones to come up with the idea of a public proclamation of commitment from their daughters’ would-be caveman suitors.

  • Mr. Q

    “This helps us all understand that the purpose of marriage is to conceive and raise children. All of the available empirical data clearly demonstrate that a marriage between a man and a woman best fulfills these critical requirements.”

    Using your logic – heterosexual couples who are infertile, have children from previous marriages or choose not to have children should not be allowed to marry.

    You may say that they could still adopt, but then you would be assuming homosexual households are unable to raise adopted children as well as heterosexual households. There is absolutely NO empirical data to support this claim. All of the data that we have shows children develop just as well under homosexual parents, given equal socio-economic factors (which really is the big determining factor, not sexual orientation).

    You’re on the wrong side of this human rights issue and history will look back on sentiments like yours the same way we do with slavery, women’s suffrage, interracial marriage, inter-faith marriage and a host of other “biblical principles” and “religious rights” – as arbitrary declarations being peddled by patriarchal charlatans who get their followers to line up with pitchforks in order to maintain power.

    The only thing that will be taken away from you is the privilege you’ve enjoyed to impose your religious views on others. I understand that is unpleasant to go through, but in order for there to truly be freedom OF religion, there needs to be freedom FROM religion as well.

  • FreethinkEric

    “…the purpose of marriage is to conceive and raise children.” Are you kidding me? So marriages where children are not conceived and reared are illegitimate? Listening to people try to rationalize this proposed discriminatory constitutional amendment is truly fascinating.

  • Veda Kanitz

    Dear Ruby,
    I hate to be the one to inform you of this dear, but Minnesota families are alive and well and extremely diverse! Allowing committed same-sex couples to marry does not diminish what is already happening in every city and town across our fine country. It merely gives them the freedom and respect they deserve and strengthens families. It wasn’t that long ago that mixed race couples were not allowed to wed in many states. Have the foundations of our society been rocked by this? Am I to really believe the only reason to wed is to have children? If you take the time to meet real people who are affected by this, people and families that are just like you and me in every way except their sexual orientation; then you will understand why we must VOTE NO!

  • Rosie from Rosemount

    “it is simply not possible for a state law to be valid under our Constitution which makes the criminality of an act depend upon the gender of the actor.”

  • Jan Dobson

    Ruby rightly points out that the basic building block of nation and culture is the family.

    History proves that tinkering with the traditional family unit is risky business. In the 1960’s and 70’s the traditional American family was profoundly altered by the women’s liberation movement. Today the gay marriage movement proposes to do the same. Parallels between women’s lib and the gay marriage movement are easily drawn. Both are presented as matters of equal rights. Both are highly political. Both presume to tinker with the structure of the traditional American family.

    When the women’s lib movement started up it was widely encouraged by many. Politicians trampled each other in a mad dash to align themselves with the vote-getting platform of equal rights for women. The movement was massively and favorably reported on television and in newspapers. Leaders of the movement were painted as courageous heroines. TV Sitcoms of the day portrayed single childless females who put career first as brave, strong and independent. Sitcom mothers who worked outside the home were eventually dubbed “Super Moms” because they could have it all, career and family. The clear implication, whether spoken or unspoken, was that traditional stay-at-home wives and mothers were not strong, not super and not independent. Women’s lib was a hard-hitting multipronged ad campaign aimed at getting women out of the home, into the workplace and earning taxable incomes. Believe me, it was pretty intimidating. And it worked. Women wanting to wear the badge of strength and independence entered the workforce. Of course, those with kids had to farm out their childrearing duties.

    Fast forward a half century. Compare the quality of kids’ lives now with the quality of kids’ lives back then. Child suicide is now epidemic. Child pregnancy is now epidemic. Child drug abuse is now epidemic. Children are routinely prescribed legal mood altering drugs. Autism is widespread. Child obesity is now epidemic. Nowadays many of our kids can’t even read and write.

    And what about the working moms? How many of us have been scammed out of seeing our kids’ first steps by the women’s lib movement?

    Just as women’s lib did over fifty years ago, the gay marriage movement proposes to tinker with the structure of the traditional family unit. Such tinkering devastates generations, new and old. We are living the historical evidence that proves it.

    • Mr. Q

      Maybe you should give back your right to vote, if you really want to be practice what you’re preaching. I’m sure a man would be a better person to decide.

      • Jan Dobson

        Perhaps you are confused, Mr.Q. Perhaps you are attempting to instigate confusion. The fact is this; your reply is irrelevant to the comment. The comment dealt with observable devastating effects of tinkering with the structure of the traditional family unit. The women’s lib movement of the 1960s and ‘70s was presented as an example.

        For some reason you introduced two separate and unrelated issues in reply, 1) women’s suffrage and 2) an assumed superiority of men over women.

        1) Women’s suffrage is stipulated by the nineteenth amendment to the US Constitution. That amendment became law in 1920. Giving women the right to vote didn’t directly alter the structure of the traditional family unit. The women’s lib movement of the 1960s and ‘70s promoted farming out parental childrearing duties. Parental childrearing duties became secondary to a job which did directly alter the structure of the traditional family unit.

        2) Men are not superior to women. Examples proving it are too numerous to mention.

        • Mr. Q

          I don’t assume that men are superior to men. You’re the one assuming that the furthering of women’s rights is a negative thing, without factoring in all of the other political and economic conditions that are the real causes of our problems.

          I was simply making the point that if YOU get to decide where women’s rights should begin and end, then why stop in the 1960’s? Why not go back to the early 1900’s? Or earlier?

          You have no logical basis for your claims, other than an obvious prejudice for those who are not just like you. For those who don’t have the ability to stay at home, for those who want to learn and work in the world and those who don’t accept being given a role by society with having a choice.

          Your claims are equivalent to me saying that African Americans experienced so many problems and caused so much social unrest because of the Emancipation Proclamation, therefore we would have been better off without it.

          To claim that giving people more civil rights and equal access of opportunities is a BAD thing is morally abhorrent and out of touch with reality.

          You should consider looking at the problems that face this country and ask deeper questions as too what factors are really causing harm, rather than just blame one group of people who don’t follow your nonsensical rules and fairy tales.

          • Jan Dobson

            Observable devastating effects of tinkering with the structure of the traditional family unit was the subject of my original comment. Your first and second replies attempt to distract from that subject by throwing out frantic barrages of unrelated topics and preposterous assumptions. Distraction, an all too popular strategy in discussion, doesn’t address anything. Using a campaign of distraction only confirms that you are either confused or trying to instigate confusion.

            Do you have anything at all to say about the observable devastating effects of tinkering with the structure of the traditional family unit?

  • Bill Roehl

    That was totally tongue-in-cheek I hope. Otherwise: wow.

    • Bill Roehl

      My bad, didn’t realize there was threaded commenting. This belonged under Jan Dobson’s comment.

    • Jan Dobson


      “Wow” good or “wow” bad?
      “Wow” agree or “wow” disagree?
      “Wow” yea or “wow” nay?

      “Wow” on its own equals “no comment.”

      • Bill Roehl

        You’re right…it means ‘no comment’. It’s clear that you are a foregone conclusion and there is no reason I should attempt to change your closed mind.

        • Jan Dobson

          1) If one’s comment is no comment, why bother commenting in the first place?

          2) Is it closed-minded to call anyone who won’t give in to your opinion closed-minded?

  • Rosie from Rosemount

    Ruby, I find your comment, “Yet, somehow Randall misses the purpose of marriage and the state’s concerns that marriage is for “the common good,” a bit of a slippery slope. I submit that the concern for “the common good” of the state in this circumstance abridges civil rights. One can easily argue that slavery operates in for “the common good” as it provides a layer of society that promotes wealth, trade, order and many other elements beneficial to society. Of course, it is not so beneficial if you happen to be a slave in the same way that it is not today beneficial to be gay and want to wed. Amazingly as a race we adapt, evolve, improvise, improve and in general, just carry-on. Undeniably, this is not always easy, but as a culture we are far better off than we were prior. Sometimes, it takes longer to counter the negativity of some actions or causes and effects, but if we persevere for liberty and civil rights, the drawbacks will be minor compared to the results. Justice should not be such a difficult notion to embrace.

  • Rosie from Rosemount

    Below is a link to an interesting article in Bloomberg today. The authors are from the highly-conservative Wharton School of Business. It makes a lot of sense. I have cut and pasted some parts I found most interesting and pasted the URL for all to explore:

    “Naturally, couples who have bought into the traditional notion of marriage — with women taking care of the home and men financially supporting them — find the concept of same-sex marriage foreign. Same-sex relationships are less likely to involve traditional roles and separate spheres, as evidenced by the fact that the partners are more likely to both work outside the home. ”

    One might have expected marriage to disappear as its traditional benefits faded. Instead, it has evolved.

    “Modern marriage offers different benefits. Today, we search for a soul mate rather than a good homemaker or provider. We are more likely to regard marriage as a forum for shared experiences and passions. ”

    “Viewed through an economic frame, modern partnerships are based upon “consumption complementarities” — the joy of sharing things and experiences — rather than the production-based gains that motivated traditional marriage. Consistent with this, co- parenting has replaced the separate roles of nurturer and disciplinarian. ”

    This puts into perspective my previous thoughts on our evolving society. Certainly there are rough spots, such as wars, disease, social movements and the like, which clearly have an impact on the family. However, it would seem short-term negative impact isas limited as it is definable, and as such can be corrected. And the upside offers all partiesfar better overall opportunity.

up arrow
Don't Miss A Thing!

Our news stories are now available through email. Simply enter your email address below and click “Subscribe” to see the new stories every day.