Letter: What mark do you want to take, Hastings?
To the editor,
The upcoming elections this November represent a crossroads for both Minnesota and our country. Despite the cluster of decisions we all must make come election day, I've chosen to write to you regarding a social issue that is being battled out right here in Minnesota, namely the marriage amendment that is being included on the ballot.
I'll admit that I am biased on the issue because of my political, spiritual, and professional views and it will show in my writing. However the purpose of this article is to define what a Yes and a No vote means for the future of Minnesota.
Constitutional amendments are distinct from presidential elections in that the outcome of the vote will not phase out four to eight years later. The decision reached by Minnesotans on November 6th will be the law that must be abide by for generations to come. Therefore, if you are intending to fill in the "Yes" bubble on the marriage amendment, please note that this is not a benign vote. Voting Yes can be done with only one thought in mind, that thought being gay marriage should be made illegal despite what future generations may think. You've taken it upon yourself to limit both the future freedoms of religion within the church, and to skew the accurate representation of the people in the generations to come.
Secondly, there is the decision to vote No on the amendment. This decision can be done with two philosophies in mind. Those who adamantly support gay marriage will fill this bubble in with gusto and likely a small "hurrah" underneath their breath. They are voting with hopes to peruse legalization of same-sex marriage in the future. However, there is a second group that fall into this vote No category. These are the people who are undecided or withdrawn from the subject. These voters will fill in the "No" bubble with the intent to keep things the way they are. They are not prepared to impose on future generations a law that they either haven't paid much mind to or frankly don't care to think about. The No vote in this case is simply to maintain the status quo.
In conclusion, I hope I've summed up the distinction between what a Yes and a No vote means for the future of Minnesota. The Yes vote is an active movement against a social issue that still illegal in the state of Minnesota, and it holds real ramifications for our future generations. While the No vote is a much more benign choice and allows for future generations to decide what is appropriate for their era. What mark do you want to leave Hastings?