Hastings´ source for news and information for over 150 years

Published October 19, 2012, 09:43 AM

Letter: Letter missed the mark last week

I am writing in response to Sharon Matzek’s “Vote Yes for Marriage” letter in last week’s paper.

To the editor,

I am writing in response to Sharon Matzek’s “Vote Yes for Marriage” letter in last week’s paper.

Sharon: Are you saying that the 85 percent of Christians should be wondering why they are going to be taken down by the minority — the 15 percent — on this particular vote?

And what you are saying in your last paragraph is that if we don't vote “Yes” on this particular ballot, that the country will be "wrong" every time on a ballot? Excuse me, but I usually think of one thing at a time with these things. These issues are important to resolve, and nothing usually interrelates one vote from another. What matters is if it is morally right and a violation of personal freedom.

Besides, every topic is different that you chose to bring up: abortion, birth control and polygamy. Every one is a completely different subject, besides the fact that all are in the Bible. If the controversy is with the Bible, it should be a done deal because to use it as a tool for morality is simply outdated. Have we not moved past the Bible in terms of morality yet?

With the vote, “No” is giving gay people over 500 rights that they deserve, just like everybody else. It is simple as that. They are still human beings, just like everybody. What difference does it make if they are gay or not? The United States is evolving into a place it didn't used to be. It's called the future. Just like the outlaw of slavery, women voting and the desegregation of schools, it will become normal in society to have gay couples being married. We might as well get it passed now.

Jack Haren

Hastings

(Editor’s note: The amendment we are voting on this November needs some clarification here.

Voters are not being asked to decide whether or not to make same-sex marriage legal in Minnesota.

We are being asked to decide whether or not we want there to be a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Homosexual marriage is not legally recognized in Minnesota now. Even if the amendment is defeated by voters, that will not change.)

Tags:

More from around the web