Too often, the rhetoric of people with power and privilege goes unchallenged. This can be especially true if the authority figure is a religious leader. Followers assume if a faith leader makes a statement, it must be true. But just because the archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis pens an opinion piece for the Star Tribune calling for a constitutional amendment in Minnesota to outlaw gay marriage ("Let's Protect the Meaning of Marriage," April 28, 2010), that doesn't make him right. Rev. John Nienstedt, in his op-ed piece, makes broad generalizations that aren't substantiated. He states it's "...common-sense wisdom that children need a mom and a dad working together to protect them." Yes, children need protection (more on that later), but it is not gender that provides that protection – it's a nurturing and loving parent, or parents, of any gender or sexual orientation, that makes for good parents. The archbishop writes that, "Defining marriage as simply a union of consenting parties will change the core meaning of marriage..." How will that happen, Rev. Nienstedt? How will extending same-sex couples with the same rights and responsibilities that come with marriage change its "core meaning?" Has heterosexual marriage changed in Iowa since gays and lesbians have been allowed to legally marry? "Marriage," Rev. Nienstedt says, "exists in civil law primarily in order to provide communal support for bringing mothers and fathers together to care for their children. Same-sex unions cannot serve this public purpose." Heterosexual couples who can't have children, don't want children, or marry after child-bearing years might disagree with the archbishop on this one. But what in the world does Rev. Nienstedt mean that "same-sex unions cannot serve this public purpose?" One reason that many same-sex couples want the legal right to marry is for this very reason: "to provide communal support" for their children. And yes, gays and lesbians have children, too. Rev. Nienstedt makes the case that marriage is one way to protect children. It can be, both for straight and gay people, but there are others ways to do that. Instead of advocating for Minnesotans to vote on a marriage amendment, the archbishop might want to acknowledge the Catholic Church's lapses in protecting children from sexual abuse and ensure that protections are in place for future generations. That is something that would actually protect children and families. That is the opinion piece that should have been written. Archbishop Nienstedt asks, "What will happen to children growing up in a world where the law teaches them that moms and dads are interchangeable and therefore unnecessary, and that marriage has nothing intrinsically to do with the bearing and raising of children?" Of course, no one is saying that heterosexual moms and dads are unnecessary. But be that as it may, the question should be, what would happen to children growing up in a world where gay relationships are acknowledged and celebrated the same way that straight ones are? In that world, it is likely that there would be greater tolerance of differences. Greater appreciation of diversity. Greater protection of children. That's what I would want in a family. And that's what I would want in a church.