To the editor,
This November we have an historic opportunity to make gay marriage unconstitutional for a few years, perhaps a few decades, before we make it constitutional again. That's because the definition of marriage is changing yet again.
In the big picture, I'm OK with either result. Throughout human history, the definition of marriage has always been determined by culture and society. While heterosexual, monogamous marriage has always been included, its meaning has shifted dramatically over time in terms of alliance, economics and love, as well as the rights, obligations and status of the wife and husband.
The prevalence and nature of polygamous marriage have similarly changed over time, not least in whether women may also have multiple spouses.
Homosexual unions, while far less common, also have an ancient history — sometimes recognized as marriage, sometimes not, and with varying levels of acceptance.
In the flow of history it is not surprising that the definition of marriage may be shifting agin in our nation and in our time. Nor is it any surprise that for us the cultural deliberation is very public and heated - ranging across homes, churches, radio, TV, internet, courts, legislatures and executive branches. These are the ways we define and shape our culture.
For us it is perfectly natural that our debate over marriage include an attempt at a state constitutional amendment.
Personally I feel that the most important thing to know about gay marriage is that it has no downside whatsoever other than the clash between activists on both sides.
Christian marriage, prominent in the current debate, is an issue for Christians alone. Those religious communities that oppose gay marriage have a simple solution if they loose the debate: don't perform any. Religions have shaped marriage, but marriage also exists independent of religion and predates all Judeo-Christian faiths.
There is some evidence that children having two parents of the same gender is not as ideal as having both a loving mother and a loving father. There is other evidence that it makes no significant difference. But I can't imagine that having gay parents is worse than having overworked, divorced or single, straight, caring parents — never-mind addicted, negligent or abusive parents.
Gay parents are obviously superior to having no parents at all. Until foster care starts running a shortage of children we can ignore the question of which good parents are the very best.
Marriage is a core institution of human societies, the most basic political and economic structure. Married couples rely less on government services, live longer, are less vulnerable to poverty and provide a better environment for raising children. Naturally society will benefit if this institution is extended to gay couples as well.
As a Minnesotan strongly in favor of marriage I'll vote no on making gay marriage unconstitutional.
But if the counterproductive ban does become law I take solace knowing that it can be reversed when more Minnesotans realize that the many advantages of gay marriage outweigh the complete lack of a downside.
James Yount
International Falls, MN
