To the editor,

While the Star-Gazette editorial regarding the proposed marriage amendment is correct in stating that a "No" vote on the amendment would not make homosexual marriage legal in Minnesota since state law already defines marriage as between a man and woman, it does not state the reason many consider a "Yes" vote essential.

The editorial also fails to mention that not voting on the amendment is counted as a "No" vote, since a majority of all those voting is needed to pass the amendment.

Our neighboring state of Iowa provides an excellent example of why marriage should be defined as between a man and woman in the state constitution, as the amendment up for a vote this fall would provide.

Iowa legislators passed a law in 1998 defining marriage as between a man and woman, similar to the law presently on the books in Minnesota.

But in 2005 a lawsuit was brought on behalf of same-sex couples stating that the existing law violated the equal protection clause of the state constitution. A district court ruled in favor of the same sex couples and later the state Supreme Court upheld the district court ruling. Today same-sex marriage is legal in Iowa.

A similar scenario is likely in Minnesota unless the state constitution is amended to define marriage as between a man and woman.

Anyone who believes children are best nurtured in a setting which includes both a man and woman must vote "Yes" on the proposed constitutional amendment this fall. Again, remember not voting on the amendment is counted as a "No" vote.

Morris Gildemeister

Hastings