Readers write for Sunday, Aug. 22

The entire basis for Katherine Kersten's tirade against gay marriage ("Problems with Prop 8 ruling? Where to start," Aug. 15) rests on the false claim that marriage exists solely for procreation. First, let me thank her for marginalizing every couple who cannot or chooses not to have children. By Kersten's logic, people in childless marriages should not be allowed to file joint income tax returns, make medical decisions for their incapacitated partners, or enjoy any of the other legal and economic -- one might even call them "civil" -- rights granted to married couples.

As for the supposed "universal belief that kids do best with both a mom and a dad," an extensive study recently published in the journal Applied Developmental Science found "no significant differences among families headed by lesbian, gay, or heterosexual parents in terms of child adjustment, parenting behaviors, or couples' adjustment." Actually, the children of lesbian couples perform better, both academically and socially, than their peers.

If a same-sex couple adopts or has a child by surrogate, the child is planned and wanted, every single time. Does that really sound like a recipe for marital disaster?

Marriage does contribute to societal stability. However, Kersten's view of marriage and its purpose is not just outmoded, it's illogical and insulting. And in case Kersten thinks I'm offering a biased opinion, let me clarify that I am heterosexual. Can you believe it's possible for those in the majority to want equal rights for the minority, Katherine?

TARINI GOYAL, APPLE VALLEY

Ah, the Kersten household (cue the chirping birds) -- envy of all upright Americans.

In her column ranting against Judge Vaughn Walker overturning Proposition 8, Kersten writes that the two sexes bring different strengths to parenting. Mothers "are more attuned than fathers to the cries, gestures and language of babies," while fathers "are particularly good at ensuring safety and encouraging children to shoulder challenging tasks. Men's size and strength provide an advantage in discipline, particularly with boys."

Are we to believe that Kersten has never experienced the tenderness of a father at a bedside, soothing a child through sickness or fear; never known a tiny woman who could shape behavior with no greater power than a ferocious glare?

Kersten ends by calling for Walker's opinion to be vacated because he failed to disclose that he himself is gay. Surely then it should follow that all undisclosed heterosexual opinions on the topic of gay rights be negated as well.

KATHLEEN WEDL, EDINA

• • •

As a college student and supporter of marriage equality, I found Kersten's latest diatribe against same-sex marriage both amusing and frustrating.

Frustrating because people like Kersten somehow still shape the national conversation about same-sex marriage. While Kersten has every right to throw around phrases like "bigot" and "quasi-totalitarian" in raising the specter of "activist judges who want to rule your life," young people of my generation frankly have no interest in this inflammatory rhetoric. We accept same-sex marriage as a question of not "if" but "when" and in doing so refuse to participate in the culture wars that our parents' generation remains so keen on waging.

ZINTIS INDE, EDINA

An Aug. 15 story featured a physician who has decided to stop paying his mortgage because the value of his house has fallen ("Sunk"). Since we homeowners are all in the same boat, I shudder to think what would happen to our banking system if we all took the same self-centered action! What gives with people today?

BARRY KING, MINNETONKA

• • •

One held themselves accountable; the other blamed their lender and gave other reasons why they were walking away from their obligation on the mortgage note they agreed to repay.

Will student loans be next?

BRUCE A. HENDRICKSON, MINNEAPOLIS

Your story about Target Corp. shareholders really reinforces my view that I really only get about one-fourth of the truth when I read the newspaper ("Target feeling investor backlash," Aug. 20). It only took a very quick Google search to reveal that two of the three companies have deep Democrat ties. One is heavily beholden to labor unions as its main clients, and the other has a president who has a long history of donations to Democrats. I would think this information would be valuable when determining the true reasons that these companies have a problem with Target donating to a group that supports a conservative candidate.