Dear Senator Petersen.
I am deeply disappointed you have chosen to break with the
GOP platform and co-sponsor a bill to change the definition of marriage in
Minnesota.
It has nothing to do with bigotry or discrimination. I wish all my gay brothers and sisters the
very best in their lives and no unjust discrimination, ever! Gays and lesbians have a right to love who
they want, but they have no right to change the definition of marriage for all
of society.
Please think about this: If marriage is really just a public celebration of feelings, then why on earth should the government be involved in licensing it?
But if marriage truly is something deeper, something that civilization literally depends on for its long term survival, perhaps we'd better think a bit harder about it first before leaping to a decision based on emotion.
MN giving marriage licenses for: love, commitment, and responsibility could not legally (now or challenged in the future) exclude any adult relationship, correct? Could it apply to roommates, close friends, mother/daughter, brother/sister, two brothers; any two adult people who love each other, are committed to each other, and who feel a responsibility to each other? Would marriage then be open to any adult pair who finds they would benefit from legal and economic benefits that are offered in marriage?
Marriage has been promoted by governments, as it is a wholly unique institution, unlike any other, because...marriage is the “only institution” that can bring forth brand new human life and bind mothers and fathers with their biological children. No other “institution” can do this--that is why marriage in not able to be redefined.
Again, I reiterate below:
It has nothing to do with bigotry or discrimination. I wish all my gay brothers and sisters the very best in their lives and no unjust discrimination, ever! Gays and lesbians have a right to love who they want, but they have no right to change the definition of marriage for all of society.
Also, I feel it bears reminding that the 2012 vote on amending the MN Constitution to include a traditional marriage definition was supported by many precincts.
Additionally, "no votes" were cast by those who were uncomfortable with amending the constitution, yet they were still not in support of redefining marriage in MN. signed a MN voter
Please think about this: If marriage is really just a public celebration of feelings, then why on earth should the government be involved in licensing it?
But if marriage truly is something deeper, something that civilization literally depends on for its long term survival, perhaps we'd better think a bit harder about it first before leaping to a decision based on emotion.
MN giving marriage licenses for: love, commitment, and responsibility could not legally (now or challenged in the future) exclude any adult relationship, correct? Could it apply to roommates, close friends, mother/daughter, brother/sister, two brothers; any two adult people who love each other, are committed to each other, and who feel a responsibility to each other? Would marriage then be open to any adult pair who finds they would benefit from legal and economic benefits that are offered in marriage?
Marriage has been promoted by governments, as it is a wholly unique institution, unlike any other, because...marriage is the “only institution” that can bring forth brand new human life and bind mothers and fathers with their biological children. No other “institution” can do this--that is why marriage in not able to be redefined.
Again, I reiterate below:
It has nothing to do with bigotry or discrimination. I wish all my gay brothers and sisters the very best in their lives and no unjust discrimination, ever! Gays and lesbians have a right to love who they want, but they have no right to change the definition of marriage for all of society.
Also, I feel it bears reminding that the 2012 vote on amending the MN Constitution to include a traditional marriage definition was supported by many precincts.
Additionally, "no votes" were cast by those who were uncomfortable with amending the constitution, yet they were still not in support of redefining marriage in MN. signed a MN voter
No comments:
Post a Comment