Readers Write (Oct. 23): Marriage amendment, mineral rights, breast cancer, political action, political rhetoric

I'm a lifelong Democrat and faithful supporter of many Minnesota DFL positions that I believe make the state a good place to live.

So it's with a mixture of surprise, humility and profound respect that I applaud the commentary by Republican businessman and politician Wheelock Whitney ("Why I reject the marriage amendment," Oct. 16).

It was among the most logical, sincere and plainspoken pieces that I've read on the subject.

I fervently hope that any Minnesota citizen who thinks that banning marriage for same-sex couples makes any person's life better or improves Minnesota on any level will take another look at Whitney's words of wisdom.

Like Whitney, I am a parent of a gay person who's now a loving parent herself. I'm confident that if every Minnesotan who has the privilege of knowing one or more gay people who contribute to our state is willing to stand with Whitney and vote down this proposal, we'll all be better for it.

NORMA WILLIAMS, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

I agree wholeheartedly with Whitney's argument that "needless laws ... drive away innovative people of any sexual orientation who simply want to live in a place that respects and celebrates the diversity of life."

My own life has, for decades, been focused on sustainable agriculture, living lightly and small-scale sustainability. Those beliefs are all about diversity of life. Why would I fight for diversity of plant and animal life and not include humans?

My life is by far the richer for having met and loved people of all sexual orientations; such richness is to be celebrated. I, too, will get to the polls next fall and vote against this small-hearted amendment.

I will also help educate my fellow Minnesotans that a "no" vote is what we need, even as we mean it to say "yes" to the greatest diversity of life.

BETH WATERHOUSE, EXCELSIOR

I'm not Catholic, but am concerned about the Star Tribune attacking the church for its stand against gay marriage. To say that religion needs to conform to the society's whims shows how out of touch you are with faith and history.

Marriage has been, for all of western civilization, defined as the joining of one man with one woman. Period. For those of us who honor that covenant, I will never accept marriage defined any other way.

DAVID ELLIASON, NORTHFIELD

* * *

Thank you for your balanced editorial on mining ("Blame fear for delay in mineral leases," Oct. 16). In Ely, Minn., mining was more than a lifestyle and a way to make a living -- the ore became the backbone of this country.

I don't own mineral rights under my home because I am not interested in recovering the minerals owned by the people of Minnesota. Mineral exploration at or near my home could affect my life, and I accept that fact. Although I "own" my property now, ownership is temporal.

ANNE SWENSON, ELY, MINN.

* * *

Like the cancer survivor in the news story, I, too, see red from all of the "pink" marketing in the name of breast cancer ("Is pink blitz for breast cancer going too far?" Oct. 16).

Working in retail, I see the never-ending array of pink-ribbon products. If one really wants to help, he or she can honor a family member, friend, acquaintance, coworker or the random female bald head in the crowd by donating directly to organizations.

* * *

Two groups of highly educated people, unable to find jobs and angry about the concentration of wealth among a powerful few, took to the streets in protest. They both used social media and smart phones to organize mass demonstrations across the world.

One protested governments whose policies created the wealth concentration; the other protested the financiers who provided capital for job creation. One took time away from small businesses and risked imprisonment, torture and death, demanding relief from grinding poverty.

The other sold their video games, risked getting a ticket and demanded relief from student loans. One had a common purpose and changed the world with the Arab Spring. The other had no purpose and accomplished nothing with Occupy Wall Street.

PHIL VAN SCHEPEN, MAPLE GROVE

The revolt in Libya against a tyrant exposes once again this current political propensity for criticism that bears little relation to reality.

Republicans transparently orchestrated a fusillade of praise for England and France to counter any positive reaction to our efforts in the overthrow of Moammar Gadhafi; for which our president provided appropriate support and risked no lives to successfully end an insurgency we favored in seven months.

Since the time of the Clinton administration, journalists have provided a megaphone for this Republican tactic, which, I fear, has been all too successful.

The "popular" press uncritically repeat these catchphrase criticisms and similar news release diatribes, leaving it up to "The Daily Show" to set the record straight.

It's sad that we have to rely on satire for real news, while this paper is complicit in unprofessionally echoing false facts and a party line filled with venom and very little real information.