Advertisement

Readers Write (Dec. 23): Sen. Amy Koch, Minneapolis superintendent, manufacturers

December 23, 2011 at 1:58PM
(Susan Hogan — Associated Press/The Minnesota Star Tribune)
Advertisement

KOCH'S RELATIONSHIP

The search for the larger lesson

State Sen. Amy Koch, according to the Star Tribune, "insists that she has broken no laws." But she may have broken several.

Minnesota statute 609.36 states: "When a married woman has sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband, whether married or not, both are guilty of adultery and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both."

If either of the cuckold spouses complains, the offending parties are to be prosecuted.

Minnesota statute 609.43, which relates to misconduct of public officers or employees, includes a clause subjecting the misbehaving individual to fine or imprisonment when she or he "does an act knowing it is in excess of lawful authority or is forbidden by law."

Finally, the Minnesota Senate rules include the statement that "members shall adhere to the highest standard of ethical conduct as embodied in the Minnesota Constitution, state law, and these rules." Breaking an express law, even if not prosecuted, is certainly in violation of the that rule.

Statute 609.36 is misguided and arcane. Minnesota DFL members have tried to overturn it. But it is the law.

Most sensible Minnesotans recognize that intimate relationships are complex.

However, it takes massive restraint not to gloat about this situation, given Koch's leadership role in a party that has created a false mythology about the "breakdown of the family" (families have always varied tremendously) and, most notably, is pursuing the revolting ambition to make discrimination constitutional via the so-called marriage amendment.

Advertisement

This event should be a lesson in the stupidity of laws governing human relationships.

Let's wish the individuals involved in this fiasco the very best outcome for themselves and their families, while acknowledging that there is something deeply hypocritical about the party they serve and the individuals who lead that party.

VINCENT HYMAN, WEST ST. PAUL

• • •

A Dec. 22 letter writer claims that support for the marriage amendment is "about maintaining the freedom to act according to our conscience."

I would like to know how, exactly, the amendment would accomplish that. If it were to fail at the ballot box, would he be required to marry someone of the same gender?

Advertisement

Could his church be required to officiate at or even recognize same-sex civil marriages? Of course not.

Civil marriage is the issue, not church weddings; thanks to our First Amendment, no church could or would be forced to participate in same-sex marriages. How can I be certain of this?

We have the example of civil divorce, which has been legal in this country for a long time, yet no Catholic church has ever been required to perform or even recognize divorce.

The fact is, the proposed amendment would impose the religious beliefs of some on all of us, essentially denying the rest of us the right to follow our consciences and our own religious beliefs.

JOYCE DENN, WOODBURY

* * *

Advertisement

SUPERINTENDENT'S BONUS

Wasn't $190,000 motivation enough?

The Dec. 21 Star Tribune reported on the $12,184 bonus that the superintendent of the Minneapolis school district was granted for doing her job well.

What was her salary of $190,000 supposed to cover? Was she hired at $190,000 to do her job "sort of well," and then if she did better, be rewarded further?

Hopefully, she was hired to do her job to the best of her ability. Her salary may well be four to eight times more than the salary of the parents of many of the students in the district. Enough isn't enough?

If a private company makes a profit and wishes to share the wealth by granting an employee bonus, that is fine, but a public entity such as a school district doesn't make profits.

What it decides to share in the form of a bonus must come from other programs that are likely far more deserving of those funds.

JIM O'BRIEN, NEW BRIGHTON

Advertisement

* * *

REDUCE, REUSE

Manufacturers have a key role to play

A Dec. 19 recent letter was correct to say that having efficient recycling systems can have the effect of enabling unnecessary consumption. However, the writer put the entire burden of reducing on the shoulders of consumers.

Manufacturers have a responsibility for the impacts of their products and packaging. It's true that many of them put things together as efficiently as possible. But not necessarily with as little impact as possible.

Imagine if manufacturers were responsible for making sure products were returned or recycled at the end of their useful lives.

Maybe then we'd see fewer oversized vinyl enclosures for our electronic items. Or perhaps the manufacturers would design products to be easily reused or disassembled for recycling.

TIM PRATT, SHOREVIEW

about the writer

about the writer

Advertisement