Protect marriage in Nov. 6 vote [UPDATED]Published 9:28am Friday, October 26, 2012 Updated 3:57pm Friday, October 26, 2012
I take issue with much of the editorial regarding the marriage amendment written by The Daily Journal staff in the Oct. 14 paper.
It is very similar to one written by Joel Myhre a year and a half ago. There is more at stake this time around, however, and the recent editorial demands a response.
First of all, the writer states, “Considering the U.S. Constitution requires the separation of church and state.” It is a problem to base an argument on a false premise.
Our Constitution does not require a “separation of church and state.” This phrase has been turned on its head since Thomas Jefferson first penned it in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in a treatise on the First Amendment.
Recall that the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The idea of the separation of church and state was originally intended to protect religion from the corruption and interference of government. Most certainly it was never suggested that religion did not or should not influence government or society.
The writer of the editorial also states, “there are many acts (the Bible considers) sins, divorce and adultery among them, that are also legal.” Legal, yes, and wreak havoc on families and society just the same.
However, I’m not quite sure what this point has to do with the definition of marriage. The marriage amendment on our ballots in November will ask us, “Shall the Minnesota constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”
This has been the definition of marriage for over 6,000 years. Homosexuality has been around a long time, but we have never needed to mix the two before.
I often wonder why homosexuals need to be seen as married now. One could argue it’s because of taxes and insurance. Are not tax laws and insurance practices that benefit a married couple intended to benefit a growing family?
As a society we invest in future generations. The percentage of heterosexual married couples that have children is quite high. The percentage of homosexual couples that have children would be zero if left to nature.
What is the impetus to redefine marriage? Are we suddenly so enlightened and progressive now after 6,000 years that we need to change the most basic building block of society? Ask yourself, has our “progressive” culture been working for you? Are we now a more trustworthy people? More selfless? More generous and kind? What, exactly, has our progression away from a belief that God made us and knows how we function best in community with each other done for us? Do we have less guilt, less poverty, less suicide?
So let’s say we do re-define marriage. To what? I ask. Once we say marriage is not what its originator says it is, how do we know where to draw the line? How about one man, three women? One woman, two men? Four men? In our current state of “progressiveness,” why not one man and one boy? Or one man and one dog? On what basis would you object?
To say that another’s homosexual marriage does not affect society is ludicrous. Take, for example, the case of Elane Huguenin, the photographer for Elane Photography, Inc. She and her husband, who co-own the business, declined a request to “help celebrate” a same-sex commitment ceremony. This couple believed this to be the end of the matter, until papers came from the State of New Mexico explaining that a complaint of “sexual orientation discrimination” had been filed against their company.
This couple has thus far been found guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination,” and is currently in the appeals process.
Or consider the case of a student in a masters in counseling program at Eastern Michigan University. The student opted out of counseling a homosexual man regarding his homosexual relationship because of her personal faith that could not condone the man’s choices.
Rather than applaud the student for recognizing her bias and allowing the man a different counselor, Eastern Michigan University expelled Julea Ward from its counseling program.
We are not facing a question of tolerance. We are facing a radical demand to condone a lifestyle that is offensive to many.
The writer of the editorial was right on one count. It is likely only a matter of time before the majority opinion on “gay marriage” will change.
The propaganda in media, particularly the television, is downright ridiculous. That is why it is so very important for all who believe this issue is foundational to get out on Nov. 6 and vote yes to protect our most basic unit of society.