Readers Write (Oct. 25): Marriage amendment, Social Security, hunger

Teresa Collett's recent counterpoint urges that the marriage-amendment debate include facts (Opinion Exchange, Oct. 21). I would buy that, but she proceeds to misuse facts. She cites statistics about children raised outside the homes of their married biological parents and about the benefits of family stability. All are very interesting points but with no readily apparent relevance to the proposed amendment. Such facts are the result of instability in heterosexual marriage, which can hardly be blamed on gays.

Collett goes on to demonstrate that there are only 10,207 same-sex couples in Minnesota, compared with more than a million heterosexual couples, and that only 2,000 of these gay couples is raising children. It seems to me that she has demonstrated that the amendment is offered to resolve a problem that doesn't exist. Why discriminate constitutionally against such a small minority with so little apparent impact on children? For my part, I just don't get it.

JOHN F. HETTERICK, PLYMOUTH

• • •

While I may vehemently disagree with them, the archbishop ("Bishops begin fight for marriage vote, Oct. 15), Katherine Kersten ("We can expect aggression on marriage vote," Oct. 23) and others are entitled to their opinions about the marriage amendment. But I will not stand idle and allow these people to play the victim. We, as Minnesotans, should have no pity for amendment supporters. They should claim their work for what it is: discrimination wrapped in a pretty bow. There is really no "win" for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender persons from this amendment; either way, there will still be no marriage rights on the morning after the vote. Such victim mentality on behalf of amendment supporters is disrespectful to those of us who have been wounded, whether in body, mind and/or spirit, by systemic bullying of GLBT persons. And, by the way, that would be most of us.

CHAD O'LEARY, ST. PAUL

One really has to wonder if it is willful ignorance, a penchant for conspiracy theories or a little of both that would lead an Oct. 22 letter writer to suggest that the 2012 Social Security cost-of-living adjustment is an election-year ploy perpetrated by the administration.

Moreover, this alleged vote-buying method has been proven not to work. In the days before the 2008 election, it was announced that the benefit, also extended to disabled veterans, would increase by 5.8 percent. This did not deliver a President McCain.

MARTIN DEMGEN, MINNEAPOLIS

If you can afford to eat at a full-service restaurant, can you also afford just one dollar to help feed undernourished people?

During a recent road trip, my wife and I ate at a restaurant that's part of a national chain. At all the tables was a little placard asking customers to add a dollar to their bill. That single dollar would provide a school lunch for four children in an underdeveloped nation. A little math shows the real potential for this program, or others like it, if more restaurants would make a similar effort. The two of us had placed the 56th order on this particular weekday, and it was only 4 p.m. If 100 orders had been placed by the end of the business day, and if one dollar had been added to each of those orders, 400 meals would have been provided. The potential numbers get more interesting if we multiply by 362, assuming the restaurant is open almost every day. That yields about 145,000 meals for $36,200 from just one outlet. Multiply again, this time by the 13,000 locations this chain has worldwide, and that produces almost two billion meals from total contributions of approximately $47 million. If my assumption about 100 percent participation seems excessively optimistic, divide all the figures in half, and they're still impressive.

The ability we have to save lives is clear. We can even assume that if food is available at the involved schools, more kids will actually go to school, so we're not just giving them a "fish," we're helping them learn to fend for themselves someday.