I disagree with the Minnesota Daily Editorial BoardâÄôs statement that âÄúMinnesotans should not confine their definition of a civil marriage to the definition of marriage according to a particular religious group,âÄù which they made in an Oct. 20 editorial.
You donâÄôt need a religion to believe that marriage should be kept between a man and a woman.
For all of human history, marriage has been the way societies take the children that are born into the world and attach them to their biological mothers and fathers, adoption being the exceptional case.
Given the universality of this practice, itâÄôs no surprise that all historical religions happen to adhere to this conception of marriage as well.
In our day and age, same-sex marriage is just one of the many things that work to separate children from their biological moms and dads âÄî divorce, in vitro fertilization and abortion are other examples.
The fact is that same-sex partners, however they wish to have children, must always do so in a way that separates children from at least one biological parent. This attaches the child to at least one person, if not two, who has no blood relation to the child.
ItâÄôs a provable fact that children perform better when raised in a home with their biological mother and father.
Therefore, next November, far from having a referendum on religious beliefs, Minnesotans will be choosing which is more important: that society recognize two men or two women love each other in a special way, or that the admittedly tax-subsidized institution of marriage works, at least in the ideal, to give children the best chance possible.
David Hottinger
University student