Baltimore Ravens, Matt Birk, has taken a stand in support of the mean-spirited marriage amendment here in Minnesota. For those that may not be aware, Birk grew up in St. Paul and was drafted by the Minnesota Vikings in the 1998 NFL Draft (Source: wikipedia). He has written both a letter to the Star Tribune and has recorded a video in which he makes statements like these:
I can put up with a lot from the government, like higher taxes, and while I don’t like it, pushing God out of public schools, but letting a small number of business and government elites and judges define what marriage is for Minnesotans doesn’t seem very fair and doesn’t make a lot of sense.
He can “put up with… higher taxes,” but he doesn’t think two people who love each other and want to celebrate that love through commitment should be able to do so. And then he goes on to talk about fairness? Really?
But Minnesota, don’t worry. Our hometown hero is here to make things right. Not long after Birk initially wrote his letter to the Star Tribune in favor of the marriage amendment, Chris Kluwe penned one of his infamous letters. Here’s just a very small portion of what Kluwe had to say:
Your argument lacks facts, sources, or statistics. You can’t just say “Same -sex marriage is bad for kids because I think it’s bad for kids, and I think it’s bad for kids because it’s bad for kids”. That’s called circular reasoning and it’s a logical fallacy.
Your argument that “government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids” is flawed on two counts. The first flaw is one of simple mathematics – if “marriage” is so necessary to the proper raising of children, why are we not passing an amendment to outlaw divorce? Current statistics from the CDC put the national divorce rate at approximately 50% (of roughly 2.1 million marriages a year, 1 million will end in divorce). They also put the number of same-sex couple households at 685,000, and those with children at 160,000. Let’s say, purely for the sake of example, that every single one of those same-sex households got married. You’re telling me you’re more concerned with the impact of those 160,000 households, as opposed to the 1 million heterosexual couples getting divorces? If this is truly about the children, shouldn’t divorce be first up on the constitutional amendment list, in order to save more children?
You’ll have to read Chris’ letter in it’s entirety to appreciate its true beauty. In it, he refutes everything that Birk has to say and concludes with:
I encourage you to keep speaking out, as we should never be afraid to espouse our views, but from a rational standpoint I simply cannot agree with discrimination against a subset of our citizenry.