Archived Story

Amendment protects traditional marriage

Published 8:58am Monday, June 4, 2012 Updated 11:27am Friday, June 8, 2012

Isn’t marriage just a different expression of the same marriage institution we have always known?

Some have said that same-sex marriage is just a different expression of the same marriage institution we have always known, and that it can exist in Minnesota law along-side traditional marriage.

That is what gay marriage activists want people to think. What’s a stake are two competing definitions of marriage. The union of any two people regardless of gender, versus the collective understanding of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Under the law, one definition of marriage would NOT exist alongside the other. But in fact, marriage as we know it would be replaced by genderless marriage.

As an article in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy observed, “…once the judiciary or legislature adopts ‘the union of any two persons’ as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman.

Therefore, legally sanctioned genderless marriage, rather than peacefully coexisting with the contemporary man-woman marriage institution actually displaces and replaces it.”

In fact, it will be forced on everyone – whether you agree with it or not. The new law will allow no room for those people – a strong majority of Minnesotans – who for personal, ethnic, moral or religious reasons cannot agree with the new definition.

Legal experts on both sides of the issue warn of a “sea of change” of litigation against individuals, small business and religious organizations. And it’s already begun in other states where genderless marriage has been forced on the people either through the courts or the legislatures.

For example, Christian innkeepers have been sued for refusing to allow a same-sex reception in their bed and breakfast. Wedding photographers who do not wish to be involved in a same-sex wedding have been fined and sued.

Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston, Washington, D.C. and Illinois have been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies because they believe children deserve a mother and a father and their religious beliefs prohibit adopting children to same-sex couples. The Ocean Grove Methodist Church lost part of its state tax exemption for refusing to make its facilities available for same-sex unions.

And, whenever schools educate children about marriage, they will have no choice but to teach this new definition.

In Massachusetts, second graders were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of the class. The author of “Who’s in a Family?” a book about gay relationships used with first graders in public schools says, “The whole purpose of the book was to get the subject out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced there’s another way of looking at life.”

It’s even worse in Canada where the Canadian Ministry of Education is poised to take away the rights of home and private schools banning them from teaching marriage is between one man and one woman.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect is the law will consider those who do not condone same-sex marriage to be what Joe Solomnese, President of the Human Rights Campaign called the legal equivalent of “outright bigots.”

Alternatively, the Marriage Protection Amendment doesn’t change anything. Nor will it pit child against parent, parent against school, or threaten rights of conscience. It simply preserves our historic and traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Additionally, passage of the amendment ensures that the people of Minnesota themselves, and not activist judges or politicians, decide how our state will define marriage in the future.

Vote yes on marriage in November.

 

Chuck Darrell

Minnesota for Marriage

  • BrendanJanssen

    What the heck is this crud?

    Chuck quotes from some Harvard journal, “the union of any two persons’ as the legal definition of civil marriage, that conception becomes the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanctioned marriage that any couple can enter, whether same-sex or man-woman.”

    Does this not only refer to civil marriages? You know, the kind that allows the government to recognize a marriage and allow for all the benefits, right? Therefore, unless the “traditional” definition of marriage is only one endorsed by the government (and apparently not the church or religious institution that one typically thinks of when referring to a traditional marriage), then this entire argument is moot. Sorry, but traditional marriage needs no protecting. I’m still not seeing how one needs to worry that religious insitutions will be forced to accept gay marriages. No where does anything say this. This ammendment is so dumb.

  • Swedegirl

    Once again, “YAWN”. Religious beliefs masquerading as bigotry and intolerance. Didn’t we already do this in the 1960′s?

    • camobabe

      Oh? And your comments are not anti-religious beliefs masquerading as fairness and tolerance?

      • BrendanJanssen

        Please explain how this is anti-religious?! This should NOT be a religious issue. Your group of like-minded people is making it into a religious issue. You are taking something that should only be looked at from a governing standpoint and throwing some of your own personal religious beliefs into it!

        Not a single soul advocating for the rights of homosexuals is trying to force you or your church to accept gay marriage.

      • Swedegirl

        No, they’re not. I am a regular church attender, Camilla, and I would NEVER use my religion as a weapon of bigotry and intolerance against others. I believe we are to love everyone as we love ourselves and to reserve judgement for the Lord. “Judge not lest we be judged”. I also happen to believe in fairness and equality for all regardless of sexual orientation, which I BELIEVE is still protected under the US Constitution. So go ahead and keep judging me, Camilla. You’re quite good at it.

      • Swedegirl

        No, they’re not. I am a regular church attender, Camilla, and I would NEVER use my religion as a weapon of bigotry and intolerance against others. I believe we are to love everyone as we love ourselves and to reserve judgement for the Lord. “Judge not lest we be judged”. I also happen to believe in fairness and equality for all regardless of sexual orientation, which I BELIEVE is protected under the US Constitution. So go ahead and keep judging me, Camilla. You’re quite good at it.

  • Walt Henry

    Dear Mr. Daily Journal, You are not helping. Too often you print letters and comments from people who are not accurate in the “facts” they present. This from a letter from the Catholic Bishops of Ontario regarding their desire to continue to receive government funding (something not allowed in the USA)

    “The eight-page booklet prepared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (CCCB) doctrinal commission released June 27 on its website (www.cccb.ca) comes when publicly-funded Catholic schools are under pressure from the Ontario government’s equity polity.

    The letter recognizes the “enormous pressures” facing young people grappling with same sex attraction such as “unjust discrimination, the sense of invisibility and isolation, and ignorance of their particular situation.”

    “We deplore all such attitudes and actions,” said the document.”

    Somewhat different than the letter writer implies, don’t you think? Math, facts and an accurate understanding of history is important.

    • Walt Henry

      Dear Mr. Fergus Falls Daily Journal, Love you anyway. this journalism stuff is tough. :)

  • Walt Henry

    Why do we so graciously allow people to distort facts to the point they are not factual or truthful anymore?
    1.”Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, a Methodist organization that owns the pavilion property. In a letter dated Saturday that revoked the longstanding certification, Ms. Jackson, the environmental protection commissioner, wrote, “It is clear that the pavilion is not open to all persons on an equal basis.” NYT-Published: September 18, 2007
    2. Ottawa – Canada’s Catholic bishops have published a pastoral letter on ministry to young people with same-sex attraction that warns against “watering down” Church teaching yet shows sensitivity to the challenges faced by homosexuals. Earlier this year, the Ontario bishops sent out a letter encouraging Catholic schools to set up clubs to combat bullying based on sexual orientation in response. The Canadian bishops’ statement declares, “Avoidance of difficult questions or watering down the Church’s teaching is always a disservice. Such attitudes could lead young people into grave moral danger.” The eight-page booklet prepared by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (CCCB) doctrinal commission released June 27 on its website (www.cccb.ca) comes when publicly-funded Catholic schools are under pressure from the Ontario government’s equity polity.

    {Notice PUBLICLY FUNDED Catholic schools)
    Facts, math and an accurate understanding of history matter.

Editor's Picks

Graduation the theme of the weekend

With the close of May comes the day that every high school senior and his or her parents have been equally looking forward to and ... Read more

Father suing city, police for missing birth of child

Man alleges police wrongfully detained him A Battle Lake man is suing the city of Fergus Falls, the Fergus Falls Police Department and two police ... Read more  | 1 comment