Readers write for Saturday, May 8

Once again the headlines are about budget shortfalls ("Pawlenty draws dire economic picture," May 7).

Of course, there is the standard complaint that there is never enough. Why is it never said how much is enough? How much per pupil is the correct amount? How much is needed for social programs? How much do the police need? Will there ever be enough?

Maybe if a number were placed on the amounts, it would be easier to deal with the requests. Or at least to understand what real amounts are necessary to achieve these lofty goals.

As a taxpayer, I have a finite amount of money. I cannot fill an infinite number of requests. I am sorry to let everyone down, but I have some wants, dreams and aspirations, too. I want to remind everyone that you are free to donate as much of your own money as you'd like.

H. M. GABRIEL, BROOKLYN CENTER

• • •

I would like to remind Gov. Tim Pawlenty that during the 2006 election he received only 46.7 percent of the votes cast. He won by only 21,108 votes, or 1 percent, over DFL candidate Mike Hatch.

LARRY BEDARD, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

The Minnesota Supreme Court has made a mistake ("Court upends Pawlenty's cuts," May 6).

The court's decision will curb the governor's power in a way that will make it much more difficult to keep spending to a manageable level.

It should be the duty of the Legislature to come up with bills that either the governor will sign or that have enough support to override the governor's veto.

We are all born of immigrants in this country -- even Native Americans migrated across the Bering Strait. But to use that argument to justify coming here illegally, then complain when someone tries to enforce the law, is wrong.

If we aren't going to enforce the law, just open up the borders and let anyone in.

KENNETH BALLARD, Darwin, Minn.

• • •

The Phoenix Suns recently stitched "Los Suns" across the front of their uniforms. These jerseys were being worn not only to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, but to show support for the Hispanic people being oppressed by an unjust law in Arizona.

QUINN BRENNAN, Eden Prairie

Prof. Eileen A. Scallen's argument is that the state cannot lawfully discriminate between which religious marriages it will recognize and which it will not ("Who says Catholics run marriage?", May 5).

By doing so, it unconstitutionally privileges certain religious beliefs over others. As a lawyer, I am convinced that she is right and that it will not be long before the courts require the state either to recognize all religious marriages or none of them.

But until that day, religious congregations that witness same-sex marriages face a dilemma. On one hand, they claim to testify that God intends that same-sex couples live together under the lifelong covenant of marriage on the same basis as different-sex couples. On the other hand, many of them continue to exercise their legal privilege to sign civil marriage certificates for straight couples even though they are not permitted to do so for same-sex couples.

My religious community, Twin Cities Friends Meeting (also known as Quakers), determined last November to join the small but growing number of pastors and congregations in the Twin Cities area and nationwide who decline to sign the documents to legalize marriages until we are permitted to do so for all of the couples whose marriages we witness. Our members may still seek civil recognition of their marriages, but we will no longer participate in the civil marriage process until we can do so on a nondiscriminatory basis.

PAUL M. LANDSKROENER, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Prof. Scallen's critique doesn't tell us what the purpose of marriage is, but history favors the archbishop's view, not the professor's.

Marriage was established out of "the natural obligation of the father to provide for his children," writes Montesquieu, one of our constitution's most significant intellectual sources.

Marriage has typically been viewed a prepolitical institution -- "the true origin of society," in the words of James Wilson, who signed the Constitution and served as a Supreme Court justice.

Marriage wasn't created by any government or religion. As a public, social institution, though, marriage must be defined by lawful authority. If Americans redefine marriage primarily as an equality right for the personal fulfillment of individual adults, the professor's views will become the law of the land. If we recognize it as the best guarantee for the social well-being of this generation and its children, we'll recover richer and deeper traditions of marriage.