letters

On behalf of the group of mayors who have been advocating for calling a special session on local government aid and general property tax relief, I want to thank the governor and legislative leaders for meeting with us over the past several months and expressing their willingness to do something yet this year.

Significant property tax increases is an issue that many cities across the state are facing and just as each city is unique, so is their story. In all cases, though, there are real problems that are affecting real people as cities struggle to hold down property taxes while still providing the necessary services.

However, there is still time to get something done. Instead of rhetoric that drives people apart and gets in the way of solving problems, we urge our state leaders to put aside their differences and work together in the best interest of property taxpayers statewide.

STEVE COOK, MAYOR, HUTCHINSON, MINN.

A vote, but not really a consensus

In his Nov. 18 column about the University of North Dakota "Fighting Sioux" nickname, Nick Coleman wrote, "Just last week, the tribal council on the Standing Rock Reservation ... reiterated its opposition [to the nickname]."

Coleman omitted an important fact. The tribal council has 17 members. Nine voted on the resolution, two members present at the meeting did not vote, and six council members were absent. In other words, nine members voted and eight did not vote. That hardly consists an overwhelming consensus.

Why doesn't the tribal council hold a referendum on the issue and let all tribal members voice their opinion?

JON RAYMOND, ST. PAUL PARK

A second-class solution

In her Nov. 18 Opinion Exchange column, "Civil unions offer solution to vexing question," Mary Catherine Preus states both sides of the gay marriage issue should make concessions. But what concessions do opponents make? Gays get to concede to be second-class citizens with the "allowance" of civil unions and opponents get to keep marriage?

Preus needs to get her facts about marriage straight. Marriage gives over 1,100 federal benefits including veteran's benefits, Social Security, housing, welfare, and Family Medical Leave Act benefits, tax benefits, civilian and military service benefits, employee benefits, immigration and naturalization issues, Native American laws, family violence and crimes issues, and finally, loans and bankruptcy laws. We can't get any of the above with just civil unions. See U.S. General Accounting office report www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf.

No religious institution is required to perform either marriage or civil unions. Example: Catholic Church doesn't perform marriage if the couple is cohabiting. It's not even an issue with churches and they need to stay out of it.

Opponents want to protect marriage by banning more people from getting married? Where is the logic in that? This is oddly familiar to the civil rights issues of the '50s and '60s when interracial couples were fighting for their right to get married.

If people want to protect marriage, they'd rally to ban divorce and stop the bigoted campaign against same-sex families.

JOE KIEFFER, ST. LOUIS PARK

Don't even go there

About Mary Catherine Preus' Nov. 18 article, "Civil unions offer solution to a vexing question": Same-sex marriage is same-sex marriage, no matter what you call it. And it's wrong.