By Jake Rossen
By Jesse Marx
By Michelle LeBow
By Alleen Brown
By Maggie LaMaack
By CP Staff
By Jesse Marx
I congratulate the churches that have stopped performing legal marriages for adding an important and necessary perspective to the debate about marriage and union rights for same-sex couples ("The Wedding Crashers," 11/21). Although the "civil union" laws that have been proposed or enacted in some places so far do not always allow the same protections that marriages do, the fact remains that the national debate about defining marriage is only about government recognition of marriages, and thus, in principle, only about "civil unions," period. The use of the word "marriage" in the debate stirs up heated emotions, probably needlessly so, because of the religious and ceremonial customs that word so naturally implies.
Unfortunately, we suffer as a society from a sort of collective short-sightedness, blinding us to how much we have let our understanding of state-sanctioned versus religion-blessed marriage blur. Too many people raising a fit over the threat of "gay marriages" forget that no matter what laws pass, they are free to belong to religious institutions that don't recognize same-sex unions, free to condemn such unions as unnatural, free to make friends and enemies along those lines. I don't suggest that we encourage intolerance, but that we recognize that our country will not agree on the moral status of same-sex unions in any of our lifetimes. By reminding ourselves that legal marriage, religious marriage, and marriage as cultural and family ceremony are three quite distinct things, we can hopefully move toward at least a basic consensus on giving same-sex couples the simple legal rights that heterosexual couples already claim.
Sam Morrison Minneapolis
I was really shocked at Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl's review of Saffron. Feeling ready to unleash my wrath about how vehemently and violently I disagree with her review, I came to this one single thought: Maybe you, Dara, have outgrown your usefulness as a restaurant critic.
Some of the best chefs in town agree on the spectacular cuisine at Saffron.
Your review was like listening to my grandmother ranting on about tattoos, hybrids, and the internet...out of touch.
Usually, I despise the elitist attitude people have surrounding food in general, which is religion to me, but this review seemed to me to be about something else.
How can people put trust in a restaurant critic who contradicts some of the best palates we have in the Twin Cities?
To say that you hate a cuisine that celebrated chefs love makes you sound incompetent.
I get the food at Saffron and I am a devotee, and frankly I would step up to the challenge of your job: critiquing food based on integrity, flavor, skill, and passion, no matter how young the chef you are reviewing is.
Name withheld by request nior.ink.muse(at)gmail(dot)com
Let's see, the Republicans appoint a woman who does not support the party platform on issues of abortion and same-sex marriage (let's see the Democrats do that!) and all City Pages can do is carp that the party did not use the oh-so-PC term "chairperson" ("Suffragette City," 11/21).
Your intellectual dishonesty is showing.
Charley Underwood Minneapolis