On Friday, the Post Bulletin published a letter from school teacher Chrissie McKinnon of Rochester. In the letter, McKinnon shares that she plans to vote no on the mean-spirited marriage amendment this November.
She goes on to talk about how her decision will impact LGBT youth:
By voting no, I will let LGBT youths know that there are people ready and willing to stand up for them. By voting no, I will help spread the message that love belongs to everyone and that I understand marriage provides all of my students with security and stronger families.
Gay youths are carefully watching this issue, and they will remember what we, as Minnesotans, will say about their worth with the outcome of this election.
Last week, I blogged about another letter written by Bemidji school teacher, Marie Blumhardt. In that post, I shared that it gives me hope to have folks like Blumhardt educating the leaders of the future. This week, I add another teacher to the list that gives me hope. Thank you, Ms. McKinnon, for speaking out for love.
Here’s an opinion piece in response to Chuck Darrell’s arguments for the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. In this response, Deborah Factor of Rochester agrees with Mr. Darrell’s believe that we need to “promote family structures that foster positive outcomes for kids” and that when same-sex couples have the right to marry, they do just that. Their lives, and the lives of their children, become more secure. Factor goes on to say that by providing same-sex couples the same stability and dignity given to their heterosexual counterparts, we actually strengthen the institution of marriage across the board.
Kudos to you, Ms. Factor. I, for one, will be voting NO with you in November!
Here’s an opinion piece posted by Chuck Darrell, Director of Communications for Minnesota for Marriage. Mr. Darrell speaks to why traditional marriage is so important to society, yet provides nothing to indicate why allowing a same-sex couple to share their love would be so damning to that institution. In fact, the first comment posted reads:
This seems more like an argument against allowing divorce … than an argument against same sex marriage.
Remember, the people who are for this thing always rally behind the cry of “protecting marriage,” yet that’s really not what they are after. Marriage between one man and one woman is in no way “protected” by updating our state constitution to address something that is already disallowed in our state (remember, marriage is already clearly defined in the state of Minnesota and same-sex marriage is already prohibited).
So, while Mr. Darrell makes some great points on why marriage is beneficial to society, he fails to make a point on how allowing same-sex marriage would threaten the institution.