Partly Cloudy / 82° F
Protect marriage in Nov. 6 vote [UPDATED]
Published 9:28am Friday, October 26, 2012 Updated 3:57pm Friday, October 26, 2012I 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.
Lois Undseth
Fergus Falls
This letter is a clasic example of what happens when people have an opinion and then look at history to support their opinion. It really should work the other way around. Let me offer a couple of quick corrections. Thomas Jefferson was in France and had nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution proper.
His opinions and those of his mentor, George Mason were minority positions and relavent only in the Bill of Rights which was added to the Constitution. To suggest Jefferson was some Constitional god is nonsense and not supported by history. Second, regarding the seperation of church and state–The letter writer says the Constitution was to protect religion from government, not government (of the people, by the people) from religion–it was actually designed to do both. Goggle up a picture of the front fascade of Notre Dame of Paris. Notice the statues above the doors. During the mob riot of Paris at the beginnning of the French Revolution, the mob pulled the statues to the ground thinkijng they were represetative of the kigs of France. That is how intertwined religion and government had become, the governemnt having control over your physical being and the church control over your eternal soul and one supporting the other. Why does French history matter? It is a reflection of the thinking of the times and their times are also our times.
Precisely. As I pointed out in my letter, the phrase, “separation of church and state” was in a letter by Thomas Jefferson. It is not in the Constitution.
So, Larry, are you proposing mob rule as a solution to our problems? I guess it really worked in France, eh? France is such a paragon of virtue and rationality, after all.
Have you ever considered becoming a copy writer for Starbucks? I can just picture your simple and trite evaluations as the eye candy on a sub-par cup of coffee…
Lois Undseth, is correct, the United States Constitution does not require a separation of church and state. The Supreme Court does.
If Ms. Undseth likes I can supply a long list of things we take for granted in law that are not mentioned in the constitution. That doesn’t make her wishful opinion correct.
Rape is “God’s will” but homosexuality is my “choice”, some of you people are making stuff up as you go.
No Camillabill, I’m not. But thanks for confirming your homophobic nature.
I’m not sure that’s right, if you read the text of the Constitution, there is no reference to God (for or against), but if we consider the Bill of Rights to be part of the Constitution, then the first amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The order is important, so our “First Right” is to be free FROM religion. Government cannot establish a “national religion.” It seems to me that means that religion and government are separate entities that should not be mixed (because when they are you end up with Iran). You religion may be a reason for you to do, or not do, something, but it’s not a reason for anyone else to behave in a similar way (unless they share your religion). Only the hypocrite or the idiot could call for something to be a legal issue based on their religion and, at the same time, say they are in favor of liberty and freedom.
Then the amendment continues, now that you’re free from religion (the state is a separate entity), feel free to practice whatever religion you want (Muslim, Hindu, Christian, Taoism, whatever), the state has no interest in your personal convictions and/or relationship with whatever divine entity you choose (because the state recognizes that people are going to consider their religion the only true religion, because that’s the one they chose). So it seems prudent for the state to be separate from religion (they learned from the history of the Crusades and Dark Ages where a combination of church/state leads).
I agree. I think that the first amendment is saying that government cannot establish a “national religion.” Remember the pilgrims who left England because they did not want to be a part of “the church of England.” Don’t forget the next phrase, however–”or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” So if I don’t believe in “gay marriage,” and don’t want to use my photography business to photograph a “celebration ceremony” for a gay couple, the government can sue me? Something is terribly wrong with this picture. I can see how this could get out of hand, however. Islamic extremists are killing many people in the name of their faith. To say that religion cannot or does not influence government or law is just wrong. Have you heard “Do not commit murder, do not steal,” etc from Exodus 20? A lesser known verse from James 1:27– “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” I know we most likely come from a very different world view, but where does the idea of a moral code come from? It sounds like you will label me hypocritical or an idiot. That’s okay. But I just want to submit to you that the God of the Bible is the only God who sees the problem of humanity and sent His very own Son to cure the problem. If you want to look at history, look into the reality of Jesus Christ living here on earth 2000+ years ago. Everyone agrees He was a “good teacher.” But it was He himself who claimed to be God. So, as C.S. Lewis said, He was either a lunatic, a liar, or He is who He says He is. And if He is who He says He is, He had a lot to say about how we should live. I don’t expect everyone to agree–Jesus said people hated Him, so they will hate His followers too–but His ideas about life prove true whether you believe Him or not. Liberty and freedom are not boundless. Just like my driving–I must obey the rules of the road to stay safe and free.
Lois, you’re not reading what you are writing. Our government can not establish a religion nor can it keep you from practicing your religion. In the case of murder, the people via our government CAN prohibit murder because it to do otherwise would be taking away someone’s liberty. It CAN NOT prohibit murder because the Bible says it is a sin or whatever on the direction of god, any god.
Walt, I agree with you. Government cannot establish a religion, nor can it keep me from practicing mine. I do not pretend to be a scholar, particularly of law, but I do know that laws are not made solely on the principle of whether or not they restrict someone else’s liberty.
Lois, many laws have been created for a variety of reasons but those laws which were created on the basis of “religion” have been struck down over and over again as being unconstitutional. It was that way with Roe v. Wade, the laws against sodomy, the laws against intra-racial marriage, the laws that deprived kids with difference from an education paid for at the public expense and that would allow perpetual detention of those kids. Marriage in the Christian sense of the word is a sacrament; a promise between two people and God if they so choose to respect that part of of the sacrament. It has nothing to do with the civil law of marriage which extends property rights, tax advantages and survivorship rights. The civil benefits were created to “buy” votes or settle legal questions and have nothing to do with supporting a religous basis for marriage. Were it based differently it, marriage, would be unconstitutional as it would then be establishing a religous belief.
First off, let’s get the facts right.
“The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a Christian graduate student expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program after refusing to provide services to a gay client. “A university cannot compel a student to alter or violate her belief systems… as the price for obtaining a degree,” the 6th Circuit wrote. “Tolerance is a two-way street.””
I was particularly pleased with the “two-way street” comment, but it looks like we’ll have to wait and see what happens in the New Mexico case, since that appeal is still ongoing. However, we should note that:
“New Mexico law does not recognize same-sex marriages or civil unions for same-sex couples, but its Human Rights Act requires that places of public accommodation not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Or to put it another way, this suit would have happened regardless of whether or not they had a constitutional amendment, so to suggest that these kinds of things are happening because of, or can be eliminated by passing a “marriage amendment,” is wrong. But it should also make you a little wary of how long this amendment might stand – if it conflicts with previously established laws, the court could throw it out anyway. Any rule that is directed at an identifiable group of people (white, asian, black, gay, etc.) in such a way as to deny them something that “everyone else gets” is, by definition, discrimination and wrong.
As for your question “but where does the idea of a moral code come from?” The obvious answer is from people. The Old Testament, from what I’ve seen, is usually dated between 1400-800 BC, but the earliest moral code that I’m aware of is Hammurabi’s Code (1795-1750 BC), “the earliest-known example of a ruler proclaiming publicly to his people an entire body of laws, arranged in orderly groups, so that all men might read and know what was required of them. The code was carved upon a black stone monument, eight feet high, and clearly intended to be reared in public view.”
And it’s not terribly surprising to find that the moral rules we find in the New Testament were originally formulated in Greek thought 200-400 years before Christ’s birth. We could also use your argument for Buddhism, The Buddha was considered a “great teacher” and “He had a lot to say about how we should live.” as well. But I’m guessing that you’re not actually interested in the “origins of morality” – you’re interested in pushing your religious beliefs. Your religious beliefs are reasons for you to do, or not do, something, but they’re not reasons for anyone outside your particular faith to act, or even care about, those issues.
On the other hand, I’d agree that liberty and freedom aren’t without boundaries, but limiting the liberties and freedom of a group of people based solely on your particular interpretation of what the bible says (how many different denominations of Christianity are there?) is morally abhorrent because it fails to equitably apply the rule to everyone. So we’ve identified the red herring in your argument.
To be clear, voting NO on the amendment doesn’t “allow” same-sex marriage – it’s still illegal in MN because of a different law. So, the “slippery slope” doesn’t follow either, but, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it did and marriage becomes defined as a relationship between two consenting adults. That already rules out multiple partners or children or animals, so it’s pretty clear where the line is drawn, to think otherwise is silly.
I need to end our discussion, but I would like to respond to you, Phaedrus. First of all, we are having a discussion on two levels, as you know. The first being our independent philosophies of life and world view–roughly polar opposites. The other level is on the issue and related facts. Regarding Julea Ward who was indeed expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s counseling program: EMU has not given up their fight. I would be thrilled if they would acknowledge that “tolerance is a two way street.” They have not. Of course these examples I have brought up are not “because of gay marriage,” because gay marriage has not thus far become the law of the land for the most part. If it does become the law of the land, are you saying the issue will be resolved? Of course not. You are right, of course, regarding what the courts will do. They have already done it in California–taken out of the hands of the people the right to determine the definition of marriage. So much for “of the people, by the people.” It is quite convenient for someone to say that religion cannot tell me what to do. That way, if I don’t like some particular law that also happens to be found in, say, the Bible, I can just say, “Well that’s just what you think, and I don’t agree.” What I have stated more than once is that religion, or more specifically, Christianity, does and has influenced our government and society. I did not say I believe my religion should dictate what you do. I am saying that a belief in the God of the Bible DID influence what our founding fathers wrote and believed. This cannot be denied. Hammurabi’s Code is not inscribed on the walls of our Supreme Court. The Ten Commandments are. Listen to what the Declaration of Independence says,”All men are CREATED equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable rights…” or “We, therefore… appealing to THE SUPREME JUDGE OF THE WORLD for the rectitude of our intentions,” and again,”and for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE…” They believed in God and were INFLUENCED by this belief. Regarding the issue of marriage in particular, this is not mainly a religious issue. Yes, my religion does speak quite effusively of marriage. But so does social science and the cultural experience of every people group in history. Sociological research overwhelmingly shows that children who are raised with a father and a mother do far better than those who are not. You malign my motives in each of your comments. If you would truly listen to me, I would tell you that my motives are for healthy families that have minimal pain in their lives. I will readily acknowledge that divorce will always be a more common malady than parents of the same sex. That does not mean I cannot promote what I believe to be the best for families just because it also happens to be my religious viewpoint. If that were the case, you could censor me at every turn, because at the center of my life is God. He informs every aspect of what I do and think. This is why, at the bottom of all of this, I am most saddened that you somehow have come to the conclusion that Christians only want to tell you what to do. I see that you have missed my point in your comment about Buddha. Buddha did not claim to be God, nor did he rise from the dead. You will no doubt dismiss my comments, but as I stated before, Jesus Christ was a real person in history whose followers, though doubters themselves, ended up testifying that He was alive after being dead. If you could put aside just for a moment your doubt, can you fathom if this were true? A Creator God came to this earth He created to show us who He is, and to woo us back to Himself? It really is an amazing story, and actually takes no more faith to believe than that everything you see outside your window today came from NOTHING.
Lois, I think I see where a unintended connection is being made. This sort of thing happens often when we project our own values or experiences and believe others have the same values and experiences. For us Christians we believe God and Jesus to be one in the same. We believe God created the heavens and the earth. These two statements might be accurate. In my experience I have come to believe they are true. But it can not be said ‘they are endowed by Jesus with certain unalienable rights.’ See the difference? We make the incorrect asumption that because the “founding fathers’ used the words creator and the word god they were talking about a specific creator or god, one we accept, and therefore our whole system of law and basis for our laws are Bible based. This is not correct. I’m afraid the founder’s idea of god, at least in the collective sense, is a generic one.
So to your point that two parents of opposite sex are God’s idea for the best method for raising children might be accurate but it is not and can not be codified in our laws on that basis.
I’m going to try and copy and paste something from John Locke, who’s writings, as you know, are the basis for the Letters of Virginia on Independence, written by George Mason, which became the foundation for Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence. (We give TJ way too much credit for on matters of independence he seems not to have invented the idea.)
Locke, writing his Letters Concerning Toleration (1689–92) in the aftermath of the European wars of religion, formulated a classic reasoning for religious tolerance. Three arguments are central: (1) Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth-claims of competing religious standpoints; (2) Even if they could, enforcing a single “true religion” would not have the desired effect, because belief cannot be compelled by violence; (3) Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.
McGrath, Alistair. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. p.214-5
Fair enough, but I’m most interested in things that are demonstrably true, and while EMU may be appealing the decision, I didn’t find anything in my reading that would lead me to believe that.
“So much for “of the people, by the people.” – I’m not sure I’m following you here, the courts are there to protect the rights of ALL the people. Are you saying that if someplace like Hawaii (the only state that’s never had a white majority) decided that they wanted to bar white people from owning land, and they put it on the ballot and it was passed, that would be OK? The courts are there to keep the majority from abusing the minority (even if that’s what the majority wants to do).
It’s interesting that you use the Declaration, particularly since that was sent to a King, telling him that they didn’t think much of the way he was conducting business – it’s probably a good idea to s ay you have God on your side. In any event, God didn’t seem to think that it would be a good idea to create all people equal (some are faster/slower, stronger/weaker, smarter/dumber, etc.). It was through the work of secular humanists that we get to the notion of political equality in the form of one person/one vote and MAKING everyone equal in the political sense.
However, while no one will dispute that religion has influenced people and through people influenced government, but that’s clearly not the sole influence, or even the most important one (since there is no reference to God in the Constitution). It would be more accurate to say that Christianity was an influence for some, but certainly not all, of the founding fathers (some were notable Atheists).
As for the Supreme Court, “the Court excused its own Ten Commandments display [from rulings barring it in other places] because it is “in the company of 17 other lawgivers, most of them secular figures.””
“Sociological research overwhelmingly shows that children who are raised with a father and a mother do far better than those who are not.” I’d like to see that research. If the researching is telling us the children do better with a mother and father than they do in either single parent category, that’s consistent with what I’ve read. But that’s not evidence that a child won’t do equally well in a household with two parents of the same sex. Quite frankly, I don’t see how that is related to the marriage issue. If the research isn’t comparing children raised in gay/lesbian/transgendered couples to heterosexual couples to single-mothers to single fathers, it’s just saying that children do better with two parents. Of course, that makes sense. They would be more likely to get more attention, help with school work, etc.
And I have no interest in “censoring” you – I’m only interested in whether or not what you say is true. You’ll notice that my original comment was about whether or not we can analyze the language of the amendment to see if we can read it as dictating a separation of church and state (which I obviously think it can). You were the one that started down the road of “Christian persecution” (which is a recognizable trope), and then changed the subject to whether or not it was an “influence”, using the Ten Commandments as evidence of a Christian influence, (of course, even an society based solely on secular principles would prohibit murder and theft). I would have been happy to stick to the original issue, rather than pursue all these tangents (and they seem to be multiplying).
I’ve read and re-read this letter several times, I still wonder what her point is. I understand she hates gay people and is scared to death that being gay is contagious and she thinks Christian businesses should be able to violate the law if thy don’t believe in the law.
She jumps around from issue to issue, never staying long enough make a point. Her grasp of history appears to have been absorbed from a bubble gum wrapper and reinforced by some group of fundamentalist zealots from the hills of Alabama.
Can you imagine what life in the United States would be like if these people were in charge? It wouldn’t be long before we were dipping people on lever chairs into lakes to see if they had the spirit and if they didn’t we would drown them or burn them at the stake. The slightest disagreement with a bible passage (some bible passages) currently in vogue would mean you’re a witch. And we all know what Christians filled with love do to witches. A dictatorship of the Christian bible is a perfect America to like minded people.
“These people”? Lumping all Christians into one category? Your bigotry never ends.
Holly, your comment only reinforces my premise.
And e-mailing your DJ comments to yourself at your blog – that’s precious. What does your wife think about your constant stream of bigoted statements? You must be a joy to live with.
what about you?
if i was at a party, a dinner party, not a gathering in your garage, i get the impression richard might be a neat guy to talk to. not a new best friend but clearly he thinks about things, that usually makes for decent discussion.
now you and i haven’t met, so i can’t say for certain… but are you any fun at a social gathering, or are you the wet blanket who tells everyone else to sit down or god will make spanky?
just curious.
Benjamin –
If he mixed in blatantly racist comments during your discussion, would you still think he’s a “neat guy”. If you wouldn’t, then why is his stream of religious bigotry OK, but racism is not? Not trying to be a wet blanket – just pointing out the hypocrisy.
Huh?
Why can’t you ever just answer a question, why does everything your crowd says have to hinge upon an incorrectly used metaphor?
“Yuh see, hating god is like being racist, so you’re a hypocritical racist!”
What?
Hey everyone, want to see Holly spin her wheels?
Hey Holly, I’ll play your devil’s advocate. So if racism is unacceptable, and “religious bigotry” is unacceptable, why is being a homophobic jerk okay?
Hey Benjamin – I never said that being a “homophobic jerk” was OK. Never. Not here, not anywhere. You find it far too easy to put people into “your crowd” or “my crowd”. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy of Mr Olson, who decries racism and homophobic bigotry, but has no problem with being a religious bigot. And you think “he might be a neat guy to talk to”? I disagree.
Benjamin – can you come up with even one post from me that has “put ‘the gays’ in their place”? No you can’t, because I have not done so. You decry homophobia and the associated bigotry. You probably think racism is bad too, no? Yet you’d enjoy having a conversation with a person who constantly makes bigoted statements about anyone who believes in a higher power? It is you, Ben, who is spinning your wheels.
Oh Holly, Holly, Holly…have a seat. And do so carefully, so you don’t hurt your brain.
Your attempt to make religious busy bodies the victim here is certainly laughable. Bigoted comments against religious warriors? Hehe, sure.
Christian folks are giving themselves a bad name by pushing and shoving their way into the lives of a group of people they don’t even like. Why?
The spite based politics of the right wing nutjobs who propagate this completely non-productive wheel-spinning…it’s just so stupid and the complete opposite of anything that makes society better. But then again, don’t look to simpletons to make society better. I would suggest gay activists get angry and start a war against the tax exempt status of churches, especially ones that involve themselves in policy debates.
Here is what Dr. Madalyn Murray O’Hair said. I reprint it here because it reflects my answer to her constant hectoring about what she calls religious bigotry, because she loves to portray herself as a victim who suffers for her faith.
“”I’ll tell you what you did with Atheists for about 1500 years. You outlawed them from the universities or any teaching careers, besmirched their reputations, banned or burned their books or their writings of any kind, drove them into exile, humiliated them, seized their properties, arrested them for blasphemy. You dehumanised them with beatings and exquisite torture, gouged out their eyes, slit their tongues, stretched, crushed, or broke their limbs, tore off their breasts if they were women, crushed their scrotums if they were men, imprisoned them, stabbed them, disembowelled them, hanged them, burnt them alive.
And you have nerve enough to complain to me that I laugh at you.”
You can paint it anyway you want Chip, but it is bigotry, plain and simple. You know it (and you revel in it), and all but your mindless drones like Ben know it as well. You are just another James Hervey Johnson wannabe. And your arrogance and hate for others who think differently than you is so much like Merle that I think you may have been twins, separated at birth (he was in the crib on the right, you on the left). Two peas in a pod. Now that’s funny.
Lois, lastly, thanks for your well considered opinion. It is refreshing to discuss opinions and values; opposite sides of an issue, without the name calling or character assination that so often result in these comments. Thanks again.
I appreciate this, Larry or Walt, whoever you are.
I appreciate this, Walt/Larry. The funny thing about this whole discussion, however, is that it is really not even relevant to the issue at hand. The only reason I brought it up in my original letter to the editor is that I was responding to an editorial that mentioned it. As I have been thinking about this, I have considered, if we get to the point in our culture where someone’s ideas are not relevant because they are “religious” ideas, we are in deep doodoo. Because as you have read, all my thoughts get back to “what does God say about it?” So I can see that in future America, there will be religious persecution like there is all over the world. Not that I am surprised by this, it’s just a little shocking to think that it could be in my or my children’s lives. I believe there are compelling non-Biblical reasons to protect marriage as between one man and one woman. Homosexual people are free in our society to live together and even to adopt children. They can write their wills, their advanced directives, and visit each other in the hospital. In my opinion, they cannot consider themselves “married.” Marriage means something, and I do not think it is our place to change that meaning. I do not believe this is discrimination. Everyone is free to get married! They just need to find someone of the opposite sex to do it. If they don’t want to do that, then don’t get married. By the way, I read your last post, and do disagree, but I need to move on with my life. I have learned a little about who our founding fathers were (such as the signers of the Declaration of Independence), and I am quite confident that our God is the same.
Inter-racial marriage was also once considered “offensive”. Looking back now it seems pretty silly that it was once illegal for two people of different races to marry. Opponents of inter-racial marriage also used the Bible to justify their bigotry. We now look back on those days as a dark chapter in history where discrimination and hate were accepted by society. Thank goodness we’ve come a long ways since those days but we have a long way to go. One day you’ll look back on this argument and realize you’re on the wrong side of history.
Sharon, I’m not familiar with the history of inter-racial marriage debates. Was this federal law or state by state? How was this rectified? You say the racists used the Bible as their argument. Which Bible passages were they using? And you believe everyone on the one side of that debate was a Christian? I suppose their argument would be similar to the framework that Adolph Hitler used, which also had its origins in evolutionary thought and the idea that some races of people were not as “advanced” as others. Proponents of the marriage amendment do not stand on the Word of God alone, however. As I have already said, sociological evidence is overwhelming in its support of the natural family structure. The history of cultures also stands on the side of natural biology. Two eggs, nor two sperm will ever be able to produce a second generation. By the way, you say that discrimination and hate were accepted by society. Really? Some members of society, yes, were in such things as the Ku Klux Klan, but why did that have to be a “secret society” then? Certainly our laws have needed to change over the years. Remember the Dred Scot decision by our great Supreme Court? Black men were not “wholly” men. We had a Civil War over many things, perhaps, but chief among them was the issue of slavery. Don’t think that all or only Christians were slave owners, please. Someday I will look back on this debate, and contrary to what you think, I will be proud that I was brave enough to speak out for what I believe to be the right thing.
“I often wonder why homosexuals need to be seen as married now”
I often wonder why heterosexuals need to be seen as married now.
I want to leave the discussion of early American history with a reminder that the first colonists, the signers of the Declaration, the creaters of the Constitution, and those who added the Bill of Rights were all different groups. There was no universal agreement as to which, what or who God of/in this country should be. A few of the Charters of the early colonies mentioned a Christian God and a specific set of beliefs but as our early history (pre-1800) suggests these institutions were replaced. Taking the “church” out of government and the government out of church is not something new.
I also do not want to spend too much time putting the Letters of Paul into proper hisorical context except to say he wrote to early believers at a time when the message of Christ was not yet well understood in pagan lands. What some believe is a commandment for a man to only marry someone of the opposite sex might very likely to have been an admonishment of “Christians” continuing to practice what we now call pediophelia.
Instead let’s consider, in a more pragmatic way, something about the contract of marriage. I would guess there are times in many and possible even most marriages when the marriage hangs together only by the thread of the marriage license itself; love is gone, relationship is stressed to breaking, eyes wander and only the public promise and legal entanglement keeps a couple together. And yes, from that point the marriage can recover and often does. Might not society be better off if all relationships of a physical nature be done in the context of a public and legally made committed partnership/relationship? Isn’t that really the solution to the growing STD problem? Isn’t that consistent with the intent of Biblical laws? Why should only heterosexual relationghips have the security of the legal entanglements of marriage?
oh lois… this makes me sad. why have you taken and spouted off with this? what has any gay person ever done to you?
someone has sold you a box of rocks, and you’re embarassing yourself and those around you by repeating it. gay marriage would not affect your life in the slightest. lady, it really wouldn’t.
my buddy just got married. the actual legal process of marriage, the part that’s being decided involves going to the courthouse and buying a license and having an accredited person, NOT only a pastor, sign and send it in within a few months.
what part about that process gets you so hot and bothered if it’s done by two men or women instead of what you’ve taken it upon yourself to declare absolute for everyone in the entire universe?
The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another.Man/woman marriage sets the foundation for children to have the same biological, legal, and care giving parents. Same sex marriage separates those functions among different people.
Some people say research shows that children of same sex couples do just as well as children of man/woman couples.But the research is preliminary. We don’t have studies that last long enough or cover enough samples to show the long-term impact of being reared in a same sex household. Very little of the research in this area uses a representative sample of same sex couples. People volunteer to be in the studies, and are usually more affluent, more educated, and more likely to br better parents regardless of sexual orientation. Each member of the same sex couple may be a fine parent, but two good mothers do not add up to a father.
Some will argue that not all married couples have children, so how can you say marriage is about the benefits to children? This looks at marriage from the adult oint of view. Not every marriage produces children, but every child has parents, and every child is entitled to have a relationship with both parents, to be known and be known by both parents. No child can possibly protect these entitlements on her own. So, adult society must protect these rights of affiliation to both parents, through prevention of harm, not merely restitution after the fact. Same sex marriage changes marriage from a child-centered institution to an adult centered institution.
Opinions are great and wonderful things but they really are best when based on facts.
1700s-early 1800s: Under common law, an unmarried woman can own property, make a contract and sue or be sued. A married woman gives up her name and all her property to her husband.
1801-1850
1804: The Napoleonic Code of France considers women—like criminals, children, and the insane—to be legal minors. A woman’s husband controls her property and, in the case of divorce, gets the children.
1868: The 14th Amendment is ratified but does not mention women; thus, they are continually denied the status of legal citizenship. However, also in 1868, women lawyers are licensed in the U.S.
Times change and as we come to a more accurate understanding of the foundations of our culture through a more complete picture of history we gain the opportunity to achieve the goal of equality under the Divine Creator suggested in our Declaration of Independence. Sadly, some who will not learn are scared beyond all reason.
Hey Camillabill, if you’re going to plagiarize the “Eagle Forum” you could at least give that old bat Phyllis Shaftly the credit.
Actually, those statements are gleaned from the Ruth Institute, which gives anyone the right to use their opinions without attribution. Sort of like when you rant on and on without crediting Marx or Stalin, etc.
I have often wondered Camillabill if there is point beneath which even you will not go to spread disinformation, misinformation and down right lies.
Camilla remember what Abe Lincoln once said”you can’t believe everything you read on the internet. “