The editorial recommending a "no" vote on the marriage amendment was really a poorly made case.
The Oct. 22 editorial recommending a "no" vote on the marriage amendment was really a poorly made case. It stated that the amendment is "ill-conceived," but noted that the courts are trying to overturn the federal ban. We have a problem with activist judges who want to rule us.
The editorial also suggested that society is changing on this issue, but in every state where the people have voted on similar amendments, they have been passed.
It admitted that marriage is good for children, but missed the point that that each parent brings something unique to the childrearing.
It went on to say that some restrictions on marriage are for good and obvious reasons. Who decides what is "good?" I don't think anyone wants to see people treated unjustly, but there is nothing being taken away when it wasn't there to begin with.
The editorial concluded by saying that we are basically fair people who believe in human rights. To that I would ask: Where is the outcry against the killing of unborn children?
The truth is that this is an issue of religious liberty and freedom of speech. If we consider what is truly good and moral, it should lead to a "yes" vote on the marriage amendment.
SHARI SWANSON, BUHL, MINN.
What is the most important thing to a first-term president? Getting elected for a second term, of course. And in order to achieve that, any first-term president will avoid doing anything that would be unpopular, especially raising taxes. Recall what happened to the first President Bush when he made the courageous choice of going back on his "no new taxes" pledge.
America faces some very hard decisions that should include raising taxes and cutting entitlement programs to one degree or another. Doing either of these things will be very unpopular. If President Obama is re-elected, he has nothing to lose by vetoing legislation that doesn't effectively address the long-term problems the country faces. Mitt Romney would want to see a second term, and couldn't force Congress' hand as Obama could.
ROBERT EDWARDS, RAMSEY
• • •
Our economy is in tatters. Look at what the young people are thinking of. Forty percent of young people in their 20s say that they do not trust Wall Street and will not invest in any stocks. Those people are the future; if they think like that, our economy is sinking. Also realize many college graduates since 2008 are living at home with mom and dad -- and that mom and dad have their own problems with their vanishing 401(k) plans and retirement dreams.
With 75 million baby boomers forced to continue to work and the rest trying to retire, where will the money come to keep spending? Consumer spending is 70 percent of our economy, and without it, we are going to hit the wall. A bad mix, people.
KIM M. HUNTER, BROOKLYN PARK
• • •
It's frightening to face four more years of Obama's charging and jailing courageous and honest government employees for blowing the whistle on crimes by government officials. Fourteen-year CIA officer John Kiriakou revealed the U.S. officials involved in waterboarding ("Ex-CIA officer pleads guilty to leaking colleague's identity," Oct. 24). However, the news article did not identify waterboarding as a crime. Especially frightening is the imprisonment and loss of jobs to those thousands of honest law enforcement officials like Kiriakou who will be silenced from revealing governmental crimes.
Obama has now charged more than seven people under the 1917 Espionage Act for alleged mishandling of classified information. Prior to Obama there were only three such cases in 95 years of American history.
The United States executed World War II Japanese officials who had ordered waterboarding of U.S. prisoners, and U.S. and international law has classified waterboarding as torture and supported those laws ever since.
ROBERT HEBERLE, ST. ANTHONY
• • •
Another Republican congressional candidate thinks women who suffer rape shouldn't be allowed to seek abortions, and we're shocked? Why? The GOP platform states: "The unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life which cannot be infringed." GOP candidates asserting their belief in no exceptions are merely and absolutely holding the GOP line. Paul Ryan sponsored no-exception abortion legislation.
In reality, no ethical middle ground exists in the abortion debate. You believe women have a right to choose or they don't. You believe life begins at conception or it doesn't. A woman's most important role is serving as a God-designed vessel for the unborn or it's not.
Political quibbling about abortion exceptions merely diverts women's attention from this fact: Our next president will likely nominate two Supreme Court justices. Mitt Romney says he'd "be delighted" to sign a bill outlawing Roe vs. Wade -- making all abortions a crime. Believe him.
MELANIE BUSCHER, DENVER
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.