A spiritual director’s view: Marriage amendment would put discrimination into constitution
October 15, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
In Minnesota today, two people can meet, fall in love, vow to spend their lives together, raise a family and contribute to society; but if they are of the same gender they cannot be legally married.
Continue Reading
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
33 
52
Exactly how would same-sex marriage prohibit you from free exercise of your religious beliefs? As has been stated over and over ad naseum they could not force religious entities to conduct same-sex ceremonies. They also couldn’t force you to marry a same-sex partner…so I’m really baffled by how it would force prohibitions upon you…unless of course you’re subscribed to one of the cult-like religious orders (which IMHO many fall into…Catholic, etc.) whose religious beliefs are currently taught to oppress others. Then I guess you’re right it could prohibit in a sense your practicing of religious beliefs.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
44 
17
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
11 
26
Ever heard of Hindu? Several sects of Hinduism actually have 5 specific genders and marriage between any of them is a religious right.
Regardless of whether or not you know of something, it is still possible for it to exist.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
27 
5
Allen Van Loon,
1. Nice attempt to use the Constitution. Keep reading though. The 14th Amendment Due Process Clause makes it so that a good chunk of the Bill of Rights (including the First Amendment) applies to states as well as Congress. The U.S. Constitution creates a floor. A state (or it’s people) can enact laws that give people MORE rights than the Constitution, but even an amendment to a state constitution cannot infringe upon rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. So, yeah, it is relevant here.
2. I’ve never understood how establishing gay marriage prohibits you from the free exercise of your religious beliefs. That’s like saying a law allowing for images of religious figures (Jesus, Mohammed, etc) infringes on the beliefs of Muslims because non-Muslims would be able to have images of the Prophet and, by the rules of their faith, Muslims are not allowed to have images of Mohammed. If your religious beliefs don’t allow for same-sex marriage, don’t marry someone of the same sex. Simple as that. Also, the First Amendment would clearly prohibit states from forcing a church to marry gay couples if gay marriage was against the church’s beliefs. My friend’s father is a Greek Orthodox Priest. According to his religion, he is not allowed to perform marriage ceremonies (in his religious capacity) unless both parties are members of his faith. In short, he’s allowed to discriminate against all other religions with regards to what marriages he performs. The same would hold true for gay couples.
3. There are a number of religious sects that allow for gay marriage. The Quakers have been marrying gay couples since the 1980s even though states have refused to recognize those religious marriages. Internationally, the Lutheran Church of Sweden and the Church of Denmark both allow for full same sex marriages. A number of Christian sects in the US and abroad have ceremonies for blessing same sex couples. Just because you aren’t aware of something, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Also, courts have consistently ruled that having the right to choose your own religion also means the right to choose no religion. There are many atheists who believe in marriage equality. There are also many Christians who are non-denominational and believe in marriage equality.
Like or Dislike:
14 
1
No matter your beliefs, this law comes down to more governmental control. Let’s bring on the revolution.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
43 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
26 
59
The government regulates marriage because it has tax implications. There are implications of guardianship of children where marriage is concerned, but I think it’s an overstatement to say that “protecting the interests of children is the primary reason that gov’t regulates and licenses marriage.” The only reasonable argument that marriage must be ONLY between a man and a woman is from a religious standpoint, and, according to our Constitution, our government must not subscribe to any one set of religious beliefs. A legal definition for marriage has no obligation to fall in line with a religious one.
Furthermore, there is NO consistent evidence that the children of same-sex couples suffer in ANY measurable way. Adoptive children deserve to grow up in a happy, healthy, supportive home, and there is NO reason that same-sex couples cannot provide that just as well as opposite sex couples.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
51 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
16 
26
Here is a list of the rights and benefits marriage provides:
Rights and benefitsRight to benefits while married:
employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
veteran’s disability
Supplemental Security Income
disability payments for federal employees
Medicaid
property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
wages of an employee working for one’s spouse are exempt from federal unemployment tax[3]
Joint and family-related rights:
joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
joint parenting rights, such as access to children’s school records
family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
domestic violence intervention
access to “family only” services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from “due-on-sale” clauses.
Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
Court notice of probate proceedings
Domestic violence protection orders
Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
Funeral and bereavement leave
Joint adoption and foster care
Joint tax filing
Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
Legal status with stepchildren
Making spousal medical decisions
Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
Right of survivorship of custodial trust
Right to change surname upon marriage
Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
Right to inheritance of property
Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)
For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse’s benefits, including:
Social Security pension
veteran’s pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
survivor benefits for federal employees
survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
renewal and termination rights to spouse’s copyrights on death of spouse
continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
Witholding any kind of tax benefit or government supported programs from one subset of people based on sexual orientation is discriminatory and against the core of American values. if you have an issue with homosexuality for moral or religious reasons, that’s fine, you are entitled to your beliefs but they should not be justification for the denial of rights to others. We are ALL granted the same freedoms under the US Constitution, that includes the freedom from persecution.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
61 
15
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
26
Pay attention Bob and read the last paragraph
Like or Dislike:
20 
9
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
9 
21
@Bob, it’s not verbatim in the Constitution, but the sentiment exists.
James Madison once said “The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” Though religious and general moral beliefs can overlap, they are NOT one in the same.
We have to call a spade a spade. The push to limit the freedom to marry comes from a place of RELIGION, and for that reason must NOT be adopted by the state of MN, or any state in this country.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
39 
14
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
19 
42
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
21
It just amazes that the Constitutional authors FAILED to anticipate homosexual marriage! I’m sure it was on everyone’s mind back then, too… what cowards!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
21 
3
Hugh J
I don’t think you understand what an oxymoron is. The opposite of being married is being single. The opposite of being gay is being straight. Therefore, an oxymoron would be “a married-single” or a “gay-straight.”
I will concede that marriage is not a Constitutional right. If the state wanted to abolish all marriages they would be able to do that. The state could also eliminate all the benefits the state gives to married couples without infringing on anyone’s Constitutional rights.
However, the Due Process Clause of the Constitution DOES guarantee that any discrimination have, at the very least, a rational basis to justify it. Because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the rational basis cannot be based entirely on religious beliefs as it would be favoring religions that disallow gay marriage over religions that allow gay marriage or those who are not religious and would prefer gay marriage. There is no non-religious rational basis to disallow gay marriage. Therefore, any justification for banning gay marriage would have to have a non-religious reason.
People say marriage is about pro-creation. However, many straight couples choose to not to have children. Furthermore, many straight couples cannot have biological children. Such couples who want children adopt or use various fertilization techniques that are legally equally available to gay couples. Are you going to argue that parents who adopt or rely on other alternatives because one spouse is infertile aren’t really married or that their marriage is somehow less important and protected than couples who procreate in the traditional way?
There are also many single parents out there working hard to raise their children. Yes, the research shows that children are better off living with married parents, but the research doesn’t show that children are better off living with STRAIGHT married parents. Marriage provides a sense of stability and security, both emotional and financial. These benefits apply whether the parents are gay or straight. By not allowing gay marriage, you are denying the children (biological or adopted) of gay parents the same stability that children of straight parents are afforded. That’s not a rational basis for discrimination.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Bob, it’s in the First Amendment.
Hot debate. What do you think?
22 
8
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
8 
20
It is the “establishment clause”.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
22 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
27
BT– What a lame position…we need to pass this because we need to defend the ability to procreate? ROFLMAO….
Yeah, there aren’t enough people on planet…the human race is really in jeopardy from lack of procreation and gays, who are gay anyway and regardless can’t produce children, them not being granted legal rights of marriage and legal protections or being granted legal equal rights, has absolutely zero impact on heterosexuals ability to procreate either way.
Your argument seems to be supporting that the only reason for marriage is to produce children. Wow….
So curious then if take your position, shouldn’t we then be granting immediate marriage annullments to women who have their tubes tied? Should we not allow women who can’t bear children to get married? While at it, should we set age restrictions on women to marry also? Afterall, they can’t bear children at some point, so there’s no point in them getting married and as you put it, us having to pick up the cost for their tax breaks if they aren’t producing children.
Mmmmm…..I’m actually kinda excited about this, as a heterosexual myself I think a whole bunch of immediately available single women with tubes tied could be a really good thing…LMAO. Of course, as an American I feel more obligated to honor my sworn duty to defend everyone’s equal rights….but then wait, if we deny gays right to marriage based on procreation we WOULD be making it equal by granting immediate annulments to women who get tubes tied…oh, yeah, this could work…LMAO.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
32 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
24
So, zimm, do you also believe that a virgin who is raped must marry her rapist (Deut. 22:28-29) or are you just cherry picking from the Bible what you agree with anyway? And should a man be granted all of his wife’s property, as in Genesis 16? Is it alright to have concubines like Solomon or Abraham or a handful of others?
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19 
2
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
17 
41
1. There is no mention of am couple’s unborn children in a legal definition of marriage. Children are attached to their parents by emotional bond, not by government paperwork.
2. Your moral opinion of whether or not 2 moms can equal a mom and a dad is not reason enough to deprive all Americans equal rights.
3. Marriage IS an adult-centered institution; to presume that marriage equals children is discriminatory to those who don’t want, or can’t conceive children.
4. Changing the language and layout of a legal document hardly diminishes fatherhood. I am a good father because I love my children, and because I believe that I owe them the best things in life, not because my name is on a piece of paper.
5. Motherless and fatherless children exist in this world, many are deprived of one or both parents by the parents’ choice. To presume that a same-sex couple is unable to provide for them in the same manner as an opposite-sex couple is naive.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
50 
13
-D/N realize UMD offered Family-law/Psychology/Religion PhD.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
@Karin426, the early studies suggesting male/female couples were less fit have since been superseded. More recent studies (which have used larger populations and been more comprehensive) show no effects for children of homosexual parents. But hey, nice parroting of the talking points for the folks trying to get this silly amendment through.
BTW, a recently reported study in Pediatrics suggests that children of lesbian mothers may actually be *better* adjusted than their heterosexual counterparts. And in the not too distant past Japanese scientists were able to use DNA from one female mouse to impregnate another female mouse. So, perhaps in the long term we should be focusing on encouraging lesbian only relationships for producing children. We men can then focus on sports and other manly activities.
Like or Dislike:
12 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
12 
39
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
10 
28
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
15 
39
You’re right, it’s not a civil rights issue. You’re also right in saying that the people decide the laws. I believe that it is our responsibility as Americans to look past our own nose and validate the beliefs of others. Legalization of gay marriage in MN will not impact me in any measurable way. I am voting no because I recognize others’ desire to have the same marriage rights as an opposite-sex couple.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
9
Yes, even if the religious hypocrites get this amendment passed it can be challenged (refer to California on that one). States can pass whatever they please, so long as it doesn’t violate the United States Constitution (or any rights that have been interpreted from it). Again, if the majority rule were the way the law worked blacks would still be segregated, women wouldn’t be able to vote…hell we’d probably be able to have slaves in some states. Anyone that agrees with the logic of allowing the majority to institute rules/laws/amendments such as that ought to be slapped…repeatedly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
6
Hugh J
You say “This is why they are so vocal in their opposition to the amendment, because it removes any hope of establishing gay marriage in the state of Minnesota short of a US constitutional challenge. And the US constitution plainly leaves the regulation of marriage up to the respective states.”
Actually, it’d be fairly easy to overturn this without a US Constitutional challenge. If you can change the MN Constitution once, you can change it again. So say the opponents of marriage equality win this round. The trend line on gay marriage is strongly in favor of it among younger voters. Polls show that 53% of Americans believe that same-sex marriage should be legal. Of course, a strict majority is not the same as a voting majority and any vote on the issue is likely to be close. Relatively recent (May 2012) polls show that 69% of Americans under the age of 30 support same-sex marriage. Even if we lose this year, Minnesotans could vote to repeal this Amendment in the relatively near future. Actually, they could vote to enshrine gay marriage in the Minnesota Constitution within the next few years. Nothing you do now can stop that, and the demographic trend is strongly in favor of gay marriage. Any victory you achieve will only be temporary at best.
Oh, and just so you know, while the US Constitution largely leaves marriage to the states, it can step in when states try to discriminate. Read Loving v. Virginia, where the Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional.
Like or Dislike:
8 
3
Of ALL the issues in today’s world, This is by far the biggest waste of time and energy. It’s not in my top 20 issues. We can’t handle major issues within the majority, but yet we pursue this??? WOW. I really think Minnesotans need to reconfigure their priorities.
Like or Dislike:
16 
11
CTC. This issue has been pushed to the forefront in Minnesota in the form of an amendment in order to energize those who are apathetic voters on the right. This was done because Republicans know they need a lot of help in defeating individuals such as Amy Klobuchar.
This is coming DIRECTLY from the individual who was responsible for pushing the idea forward.
What’s said is that is another continuation of the party’s slide into bigger government control over citizen’s lives. Control which is supposedly stands against.
Hot debate. What do you think?
24 
11
The ability to share the same rights may not be a priority for someone who has them, but for someone who may have them constituationally banned – it is a big issue.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
7 
25
If you’re saying that homosexual couples are only wanting to step up to the government feeding trough, then heterosexual couples should be more than willing to give up those 1500 “rights” that are afforded by their special institution of marriage. Otherwise they’re just sucking off the government teet….why else would they need a marriage license? They could just have a ceremony in their ever loved church of choice and move on with their life. They don’t need the license…only reason they need the license is because they want to get those 1500 benefits (many of which have $$ associated with them). Furthermore, those that get divorced should be paying back any of the breaks they got financially from the benefits of state sanctioned marriage. Face it folks, there’s no danger of the population of humans disappearing from the face of the Earth due to lack of procreation…just the opposite. Keep breeding like bunny rabbits and we’ll continue to overpopulate…..
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
13 
25
If you support this amendment, you do not support equal rights. This amendment says that marriage benefits are for heterosexuals only.
Everybody knows what marriage is. Nobody is confused when a woman from Iowa says “this is my wife.”
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
24 
8
Who defined Marriage as a union between a man and a women? The Christians?
You do realize that Marriage was around well before the advent of modern religions, right?
Also, why does the government need to get involved with something that should be a religious choice? If a particular church wants to marry homosexuals, they should be allowed to.
Why is the government even involved in the situation?
Like or Dislike:
13 
3
@devilschild
I can’t imagine you really want to appeal to a historic view of marriage, as it is clearly an ever evolving notion and I would guess you would not like the concept as it was practiced through much of the history of marriage. As has been mentioned previously marriage appears to predate the records of our religions (it is simply an assumed part of biblical teachings). For most of recorded history marriage was not an event requiring a ceremony, and in most cases it did not in any way involve the notion of marriage for love (that is a very recent invention). Marriages in most cases were contractual and made by mutual consent (not related to any religious notion). Note that the mutual consent was often of the parents of the individuals to be married or between a man and the family he was selecting his bride from (either with a payment, or because he received a payment). And these contracts were focused largely on property rights, inheritance and legitimacy of children.
Perhaps you might argue that marriage did go through changes, but has become stable. Not really though. Mechanisms for formally dissolving marriages (divorce) caused major shifts in religion over the last 500 years (and this is ongoing). Thats too long ago? Well, divorce continues to evolve (no-fault divorce is notion that was created very recently).
Another recent shift is that marriage for love is a relatively recent concept (within the last couple of hundred years) and oddly enough, is probably the basis for the re-emergence of the notion of same-sex marriage (which occurred in limited ways in early Chinese, Greek and Roman cultures). As marriage has stopped being about legal things, people have wanted to participate who don’t fit the “standard” definitions.
One very recent revision of marriage in the US is the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws (laws against inter-racial marriage and sexual relationships). Most states had them until just after WWII and the last state law to disappear was Alabama’s in 2001.
And thats just within the US, the rest of the world has other ideas that we find odd or even distasteful. Arranged marriage. Second-cousin or closer marriage (estimated to be 10% of marriages worldwide).
Marriage is not some monolithic concept defined in only one way. It just isn’t. Arguments based on tradition just aren’t valid.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Well…that is a lot to think about. I wasn’t aware of all the facts you listed. I appreciate your response and that of Vune and Dorkus. You opened my mind on this issue.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Reading these comments has been very enlightening. I honestly had no idea how the majority of Minnesotans supporting this amendment were rationalizing it to themselves. I guess I had just assumed it was purely the desire to press personal religious beliefs on others, but it appears that there are a variety approaches that are being taken to justify the backward intolerance that this amendment represents.
Trust me, as a moderately wealthy, college-educated, straight, white, Christian male: Majority rule works great if you are in the majority!
The “gay parents are bad”/”need for both gender role models” argument fails when the subject of “evidence” for this phenomenon comes up.
Definitions of words change all of the time as human society progresses. We don’t have a proposed amendment to define “friend” as someone you actually know on a deep personal level and have frequent face to face interaction with. Shouldn’t we also protect this sacred institution from Facebook and others who are threatening to change the traditional definition of “friendship” that we value so dearly?
The procreation issue has no merit, since we are far from a population in decline.
Different couples have different motivations for desiring marriage. Very often, children are not part of it. We still classify a childless married couple as a family and award certain legal protections and benefits to the spouses. We all place different value on marriage. Divorce rates, even among the religious, reflect poorly on the idea of marriage as a sacred institution.
While I’m happy that no one seems to be overtly arguing for the amendment based on personal feelings that the idea of a homosexual couple being together is “icky,” I can’t help but wonder about the real underlying motivation behind some of these arguments.
I am so embarrassed for my home state that I love so much. This feels so much like we are fighting against the desegregation of public schools all over again. Someday my kids will look back on this period of time and hopefully we will come across as more enlightened than previous generations. Although, officially declaring that a segment of our population does not have the same rights as the rest of us probably won’t help. It’s 2012 folks.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
30 
6
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
6 
23
Dictionaries are for telling us what the definition of a word is.
We don’t need the government to do that.
Like or Dislike:
15 
6
That’s idiotic. Always the argument about marrying the dog. Ya know, the radical Muslims wiping out the entire Catholic church isn’t such a bad idea after all.
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
You’re giving Hugh exactly what he wants.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Mmm…a lot of folks claiming that the definition of marriage is strictly between a man and woman and citing that definition as the official definition for support of their argument. So I looked it up in a Websters Dictionary…
Definition of MARRIAGE
1a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law
2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
So the definition of marriage according to Websters includes in definition same sex marriages as marriages…so guess that ends that one….so guess all those folks that claim it’s just about the official diction definition of marriage will of course be voting down the ammendment…~rolls eyes~
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” Anne Lamott
Like or Dislike:
11 
6
Now with all the BS aside let’s get back to “We the People”.
Amendments to the Constitution are to give the choice to the People verses the politicians.
MN law now allows political change of law not representing the People. Now you People have the opportunity to vote. Right or wrong it is your choice now. Vote Yes or No your choice don’t let others decide your vote.
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
The people for this amendment are of the same cloth that wanted to keep Black children out of White schools. You folks are an embarassment to the State of Minnesota.
Like or Dislike:
17 
5
I’ll take your “embarassment to Minnesota” and raise ya’ to an enemy of the United States and what it stands for.
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution folks~
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
States can’t make laws or ammendments to state constitutions that go against the US Constitution. Even if passes, it won’t stand. New York is leading the way and just shot down the Repubs efforts and their Defend the Marriage Act lobby group in Federal appeals court. You can’t deny equal rights to others because you don’t like it, because your religion is against it, or because it makes you uncomfortable and if you feel gays being granted equal legal rights threatens your marriage, it probably ain’t worth saving anyway.
The ugliness of those so willing to be so adament to crusade their hate and bigotry as a cause against a group they aren’t part of on this issue reminds me of all the ugliness on display the day the Little Rock 9 tried to attend school.
Like or Dislike:
6 
6
Twist and turn all your thoughts and words but I am sure you have never brought your case to the Supreme Court so it is irrelevant to the discussion. Using your analogy we should be allowed to marry 10 wives/husbands, but the Court decided near 150 years ago this should not be allowed.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
The author of this editorial states that he’s been a judge and a spiritual director of his Lutheran Church. Citing both experiences, he believes that there’s neither a Constitutional nor a spiritual basis for denying government recognition of same-sex marriage.
He’s completely wrong on both counts. I’ll begin with the Constitutional argument in this post and end with the religious one in the second.
14th Amendment – U.S. Constitution
“Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
In saying that same-sex couples should have the same rights and privileges as heterosexual ones, proponents of same-sex marriage (SSM), cite the 14th Amendment as justification. I agree that the 14th Amendment is applicable to this argument but not as justification for SSM. Rather, the 14th Amendment is a powerful argument against bestowing homosexual couples such rights and privileges.
The reason has to do with the phrases, “…without due process of law…” and the “…equal protection of the laws.” The whole purpose of law is to govern human behavior for the benefit of the individual and society. Thus, law prohibits, limits, or encourages different behaviors, based on their merits or lack of them. Merits, in turn, are based on objective facts – not feelings without facts. For example, facts prove that some behaviors furnish positive benefits to individuals and society, and should, therefore, be encouraged with financial and legal benefits. Examples in this first category would include going to college, starting a business, buying a home, giving to charities, and entering into marriage. Other behaviors have the potential for harm but banning them would cause an undue burden on personal liberty. So, we limit these behaviors to consenting adults. Examples in this second category would be smoking, drinking, gambling, and human sexual relations outside marriage. Finally, some behaviors are so egregious that we prohibit them. Examples in this third category would be the taking of life or property.
So law isn’t based solely on what people want. It’s also based on the people or their representatives objectively reviewing facts to indicate why a law is justified or not. This is the “…due process of law…” mentioned in the 14th Amendment. In accordance with this process, the facts (science) show that homosexual behavior (not the urge for this behavior, which is the driving force for the behavior) falls within the second category of human behavior. It does so because homosexual behavior is associated with serious bodily damage, disease, instability of commitment, and infidelity (1).
For these reasons, government recognition of SSM is wrong, because it mischaracterizes same-sex behavior. SSM does so by erroneously placing same-sex behavior in the first behavioral category – one that’s beneficial to the individual and society and, therefore, one that’s deserving of encouragement through the rights and privileges mentioned above. Clearly, in accordance with the facts, society shouldn’t encourage same-sex behavior, especially since its origin is partially external (like ones peer group, family, and society). Consequently SSM will encourage those who wouldn’t otherwise engage in homosexual behavior to do so (1).
For every other external factor, like this one, we’ve recognized their ability to influence problematic behaviors and have, therefore, taken measures to limit them. For instance with smoking, which is subject to peer and societal influences, we’ve stopped advertising that might encourage it. Yet for another unhealthy behavior – same-sex behavior, which is also subject to peer and societal influences, some want to do the exact opposite and encourage it with government recognition of SSM. This view is not only contradictory but it’s also blatantly hypocritical and without merit of any kind.
Indeed, with respect to SSM, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is clear. We cannot say that one unhealthy behavior (smoking) deserves no encouragement, while another unhealthy behavior (same-sex behavior) does. Hence, for this reason and all the others mentioned above, an intellectually-honest and clear-thinking person has only one decision to make. That decision is to oppose SSM.
To help in persuading others to make this decision, please email this post and the link (below) to as many as possible and to your legislators. Ask others to do the same. Then demand that your legislators vote against same-sex behavior, and vote them out of office, if they don’t.
(1) – “The Case for Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships,” an essay summarizing the science and the references for opposing government recognition of same-sex behavior:
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
To follow my post left at 8:47PM today, here’s the spiritual reasons that the author of the editorial is wrong:
Leviticus 18:22: “‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
“Romans 1:24-26 “Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator–who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
I suspect that the author of this editorial would disagree, claiming that such admonitions do not condemn same-sex behavior but only its use in idolatry. However, the verses, themselves, and other Biblical text leave such interpretations without merit. For example, the verses preceding Romans 1:24-26 refer to man’s rejection of God in favor of idolatry. So the idolatry occurs first, and the sexual impurity occurs second. In other words, the second is a result of the first. Next, the words “detestable, unnatural, indecent, and perversion” pertain to the sexual act and not the idolatry that proceeded it. Last, unlike heterosexual behavior, which is permitted in marriage, the Bible contains no language that permits homosexual behavior under any circumstance.
It’s well that it didn’t. For what the people of that day couldn’t know, the scientists of today do. First it’s the origin of homosexuality. It results from a complex interplay of genetic, biologic, and social factors, which do not guarantee a homosexual outcome but pre-dispose one to it, more so than others. Gay marriage and mischaracterizing same-sex behavior as normal and healthy are very powerful influences, which make those predisposed to homosexuality more likely to become so and/or engage in the behavior. Second, same-sex behavior is profoundly unhealthy. Among the maladies to which homosexuals are far more susceptible than heterosexuals are HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, certain cancers and STDs, and ailments originating from the intestinal tract. They also include bodily damage and an elevated risk of emotional and mental illness, which is consistent, even in countries, like the Netherlands, where same-sex behavior enjoys far more acceptance than here or in other countries. In committed relationships, males remain non-monogamous, and both sexes are more likely to divorce in jurisdictions that recognize gay marriage.
For these reasons, it’s important not to be misled into thinking that homosexual behavior is either Biblical or healthy. Rather, it’s far better to rely on an accurate interpretation of the Bible and peer-reviewed research performed by apolitical, mainstream, and reputable sources. A listing of these sources and a summary of them is in the essay entitled, “The Case For Government Recognition of Traditional Relationships.” It can be found at
http:\\marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
Nice disertations…you’ve really overthought this.
Several problems. The courts don’t agree with your interpetation of the constitution. I don’t see this standing up regardless as the Federal Courts will strike it down, you need to go see what Court of Appeals just ruled in NY. Twist it anyway want to make yourself feel better but it’s clearly discriminating and denying rights to one group over another based on their behavior and lifestyles and gender.
On religious view, that’s YOUR religious view and your religious beliefs which my interpetation of bible is simply that one should spend more time worrying about their own behavior instead of expending energy to judge and condemn others for theirs. I guess your Jesus said…Go for it dude, throw the first stone! ~rolls eyes~…
On health risks, so what? People are free to live their lives how they choose, sometimes those choices carry health risks, again, so what? Shall we outlaw Motorcycles, the NHL, NFL, sky diving etc? There is no security in life, none!! You won’t find security in nature because it doesn’t exist and life is a sexually transmitted disease that is 100% fatal anyway. So think of it as granting a dying persons last request then to be free to live their life how they choose because that’s all we really have…
It’s obvious that you have exerted a tremendous amount of effort to appear your support for the amendment is coming from a rational, well thought position based on facts, God and science instead of just pure homophobic bigotry, and it’s a nice enough fascade….but it’s still a FAIL.
“The biblical account of Noah’s Ark and the Flood is perhaps the most implausible story for fundamentalists to defend. Where, for example, while loading his ark, did Noah find penguins and polar bears in Palestine? “…………Judith Hayes
Like or Dislike:
2 
2