I don't regularly read the obituaries or the memoriams, but on Thursday a woman's photograph on page B4 caught my eye as I read a nearby article about the University of St. Thomas. The woman in the photo was standing outdoors, looking relaxed with sunglasses and a smile, her hair blowing in the wind. Beneath her photo was a heartfelt message from a man, writing to her, the woman he loves, though she died 18 years ago.

My husband and I recently celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary, and friends and family marveled at the length of that commitment, but I feel humbled by this man who is so ardent and dedicated in his love that he proclaims it in such a public way. "Time does not heal all wounds," he writes.

I clipped this small article from the paper to remind me that even in the midst of all the polarization in our society, the ills and wars, threats domestic and foreign, there is deep, abiding love.

Lisa Wersal, Vadnais Heights

Regarding John Kass' commentary on "birthing persons" ("There's no birthing person in all the world like that dear old birthing person of mine," Opinion Exchange, June 17):

The Star Tribune published two letters (written by I assume men, or should that be "ejaculating persons"?) pooh-poohing Kass' concerns regarding the politically correct language making its way into our popular vernacular ("Twists and turns of language," Readers Write, June 18).

I have a question: Why is it seemingly always women who are being asked (or rather, told) how to refer to ourselves? "Menstruating people," "birthing persons" — all language that to me feels like being put into a story by Kafka. I am far from right-wing, but my impatience with this latest fad in wokeness bothers me a great deal. If it were truly an inclusive movement, then the words "men" and "male" would be changing as well. But I've seen no evidence that men are being redefined in the same way. I have a few ideas: "ejaculating persons," "persons with testicles" … how about it? Sounds awkward and stupid, doesn't it?

Xandra Coe, Minneapolis

•••

Apparently the term "mother" is now obsolete and being replaced by "birthing person." Please help. For years I've been called "mother" or "mom" by my two children, even though they are adopted and I did not give birth to them. There must be thousands of us in this situation, and we are all legally mothers, having been so adjudicated at their formal adoption proceedings, but we couldn't be called "birthing persons." Is there a new term for us? Apparently the Harvard Medical School has officially adopted the term "birthing person" in lieu of mother, but does the Harvard Law School agree?

Mariana Shulstad, Minneapolis

•••

The timidity of the U's refusal to make vaccination mandatory is wholly unsuited, as the commentators said, to a great university widely seen in many ways as the state's exemplar.

I had two kinds of measles as a child. The damage that did, if any, was minor. If the U requires measles vaccinations, with a few exceptions, how un-smart is it not to require the COVID vaccination when this virus can do such grave harm and when no one can know what new variants may pop up?

Regarding the degradation of language that George Orwell foresaw and that John Kass crisply denounces, anyone who dares call me a "birthing person" shall be crossed off my friend list forthwith and forsooth.

But there's another insult to plain English much more deeply entrenched that needs calling out for the gobbledygook it is: referring to people as "individuals." Who started this depersonalizing usage I don't know. It sounds like something hatched in the FBI or the IRS. Regardless, I raise a plaintive plea to let us all, with the possible exception of criminal suspects, go back to being just plain "persons."

And, where appropriate, "mothers" and "fathers."

Whether or not their claims are meritorious, medical marijuana advocates pushing for Second Amendment rights at the state level are misguided ("Medical cannabis users push for right to own guns," June 17). Under federal law, its illegal for a user of marijuana to possess a firearm. Federally licensed firearms dealers are prohibited from selling firearms or ammunition to any person who is a marijuana user. Advocates who seek to assert Second Amendment rights should urge their representatives and senators to change federal law.

It's illegal for a marijuana user to possess or buy firearms and ammunition, even if state law allows the drug use. Anyone attempting to buy a gun from a licensed seller must truthfully answer the question, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?" A medical marijuana user could answer "no" but would be violating federal law by doing so.

In legal marijuana states, federal law for gun ownership applies. It means that a medical marijuana user could end up subject to a serious federal weapons charge. The message is, don't use marijuana if you want to own a firearm or give up marijuana and be a gun owner. Under the circumstances, Minnesota marijuana advocates and legislators would be well advised to direct their time and effort to other issues where they can make a difference.

Michael Daub, Shorewood

•••

Time to stop wringing our hands and getting numb to news of another death. Bring back the assault weapons ban — or at least ban the sale of ammunition for weapons of mass shootings.

Next, start treating guns like cars — registration of all kinds of guns, renewable licenses to use, proof of safe storage and liability insurance to aid victims with medical or funeral expenses. No exceptions!

As a senior who occasionally likes to leave the house, I do not want to worry that anyone of any age might be armed and ready to shoot somebody for some perceived wrong. If other developed countries can do it, why can't we?

Betty Wentworth, Minnetonka

The imposition of metal detectors to the State Fair ("State Fair is back on as COVID cases fall," June 11) is just an example of how "security theater" is supposed to make people feel "safe." And unless everything that every exhibitor and contractor brings in is thoroughly checked and the site is on lockdown between events, they are meaningless. Anyway, someone can toss a weapon over the back fence at night. The fair's only accomplishment here will be long lines in the hot sun. But perhaps the intent is to send a message to the "wrong kind" of people. That is certainly easier than working with the Legislature for effective gun control. In any case, by attending, Minnesotans further lose privacy rights while teaching their children a terrible lesson in fear and helplessness. When people shrug such things off, their acceptance makes them normal, and we all lose. Then our national anthem about being "brave and free" becomes a joke. I suggest we ignore the event and spend our money at county fairs.