A pro-marriage citizen writes to the editor of the Minnesota PostBulletin responding to the "fairness" argument for redefining marriage:

"In the midst of all the “Vote NO” signs that litter the landscape, telling us not to “limit the freedom to marry,” I pray we will defend traditional marriage this November. I fear too many Minnesotans are letting so-called “fairness” throw sand in the eyes of common sense.

“Marriage is about love and a committed relationship between two people,” wrote Richard D. Hurt of Rochester in an Aug. 5 Letter to the Editor, “and should be provided irrespective of color, race, ethnicity, religion and gender. To stigmatize a whole group of people by prohibiting marriage is a step backward.”

No one wants to prohibit marriages based on race, ethnicity, or religion. But if a mere emotional bond is the only requirement for marriage, then what prohibits “marriage” between two brothers, two sisters, or a father and son?

Fecundity is a gift exclusive to opposite-sex unions. That fact is no less “fair” than saying humans can’t breathe under water or mosquitoes can’t complete algebra assignments. Healthy societies come from healthy families in which children are not denied their right to be reared by Mom and Dad."