Marriage amendent doesn't address several questions

I’ve been reading the letters to the editor about the marriage of one man and one woman in the papers and have been left with some questions that, I believe, have not been addressed by either side.

• Please define what constitutes "man"/"male"?

• Please define what constitutes "Woman"/"female"?

• Are you considering "only outward physical appearance?"

• Are we, as human beings, not more than simply outward appearance?


• Should we not also consider a human being’s chromosomes in our definition?

• Another thing we should, I think, consider is a human being’s DNA?

This issue is not as simple as the letters seem to make it to be.

Another thing that bothers me greatly is that there is already a law in Minnesota concerning the issue dealing with the situation. Thus nothing will be changed either way. The danger with this vote, I believe, is that a yes vote places it in our state constitution by a simple majority. Once it is in the constitution it takes a two-thirds vote to have it removed. In other words once its there it is almost impossible to get it removed.

David Barker


What To Read Next
Get Local