.

Letter to Editor: Marriage Resolution not Representative of all Park Residents

The St. Louis Park City Council will be voting tonight whether to formally oppose the Minnesota marriage amendment.

Editor's Note: This letter was originally sent to St. Louis Park City Council members by a resident after the council announced intentions to pass a resolution . That amendment would create a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Minnesota.

I just learned on Wednesday of last week that the City Council is considering this resolution, too late for me to submit an editorial to the Sun Newspaper. It appears to me that this proposed resolution was put together without the proper opportunity for the citizens of SLP to make their opinions known. How can you possibly make a resolution stating that the City opposes the Minnesota Marriage Amendment when you haven't talked to everyone in St. Louis Park?

My information is that you will be voting at the City Council meeting on Monday, March 5, on whether or not to adopt a resolution stating the City of St. Louis Park does not support the Minnesota Marriage Amendment. If you do vote, and if that is the consensus, I would like to ask you to do me a favor.

Since I did vote for many of you in elections over the years, you represent me. Please let the Council Meeting minutes show that not everyone in St. Louis Park supports your resolution. I support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman.

Thank you for listening. I hope and pray that you will think hard and pray about how you will proceed regarding this proposed resolution.

-Joan Fenton, St. Louis Park resident

James P Berka March 06, 2012 at 10:28 PM
It is indeed the job of our elected officials to stand as examples for the rest of our society. If we feel they are doing a poor job, we can vote them out. Until that happens, I feel it is absolutely in their power as elected representatives of the people to stand for or against particular issues.
Deb March 07, 2012 at 02:10 AM
I feel sad for people like Joan who have an unopened mind and heart for she is missing out on a wonderful group in our community.
Jack March 08, 2012 at 03:21 PM
Stand for or against, but don't push through without the voice/wisdom of the very people who make this vibrant community what it is today. Your actions have now left me to wander what you will decide for me next, with regards to social issues..... Next election, my vote will be for the candidates that don't lead by emotion, but by law and order. There was absolutely no democracy in what just happened on March 5. It was pure political-pontification accompanied with the need to show one's "power" by ignoring the rules of the very democracy that this country was founded on. It is a sad day in this republic when our elected officials can make my mind up for me on a social matter, without asking me if/what I think about the matter..... What are you gonna tell me I have to accept/reject next? The matter was a good one for debate and I am happy for the many couples that are affected positively by this. It's just the process by which it was done that I am not happy with. It could have been anything, it just so happened to be the same-sex unification issue. I'll opine again the next time I learn that my local government makes my mind up for me on a social issue. I love the USA
David J Rotert March 10, 2012 at 07:19 PM
We should be reminded that we live in a Representative Democracy, and as such this 'vote' (non-binding, and 'pontificating' as it may be) is appropriate. Disregarding the social issue for a moment, this amendment is poor government on its very face. The Constitution should never be used for politics or legislation (as this effort does), nor should a Constitution be used to restrict rights (as this effort does) but only GRANT rights (see: the failure of prohibition, etc). I remain 'straight' and proud of the action of the council...this is good government against bad policy.
Nancy E Gertner November 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM
There was no constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage in Minnesota. The Minnesota Constitution does not define marriage parties, and a majority of Minnesota voters rejected the proposed amendment to add a definition.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »