|
|
Location: Blogs Dan's Blog |
 |
| Posted by: Dan McGrath |
3/19/2009 |
 Senator John Marty (DFL – Roseville) has introduced a bill to make Minnesota’s marriage laws gender-neutral, replacing the words “man and woman” with “two people” in all marriage references in Minnesota law. The bill is ironically named the “Marriage and Family Protection Act ( SF 3880).
On the other side of the debate, Representative Dan Severson (R – Sauk Rapids) along with other members of his caucus in the House are planning to introduce a constitutional amendment that would actually protect the traditional definition of marriage. In a national environment marked by activist courts with a history of throwing out traditional marriage definitions, against the will of the people, many believe that the only path to defending the institution of marriage is to codify the definition of it in the constitution. Making the definition so explicit in the highest law of the state would remove any justification courts might use to overturn traditional marriage laws and prevent the legislature from enacting laws like the “Marriage and Family Protection Act.”
Gay activists have long attempted to make the case that they are not receiving equal treatment under the law and that a narrow, traditional definition of marriage is discriminatory. A simple analysis of that logic breaks it apart, however. No one is denied the right to marry. Marriage has a specific meaning we all understand and have understood for thousands of years. People who identify themselves as gay have the same right to marriage – to a member of the opposite gender – as anyone else. It is equal treatment. The supporters of gay marriage actually seek to create a new right to enter into a new kind of institution. Just because a person chooses not to engage in the institution of marriage as it now exists does not mean their rights have been violated, nor does that non-participation entitle them to an alternative more to their liking. Marriage is what it is and people either choose to partake in its ups and downs, or they choose not to. The people of Minnesota are under no obligation to create a new special set of privileges for people who have decided that marriage isn’t for them.
|
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (18)
Add Comment
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By a VERY concerned married (to a man) woman on
3/25/2009 |
| What possible harm could come from allowing same sex marriage? Are we not all committed to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" No one is asking you to interfere in their relationships, so why are you trying to dictate of what that relationship consists? You may argue that it's against God's laws, but friends, that is between God and the people involved. Where in any of God's teachings does it say that we, as humans, are allowed to judge another's choices? Same sex marriage is not addressed in the Commandments. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" comes the closest,but that doesn't specify gender or orientation. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Barb on
3/26/2009 |
It is wrong for people to want to be so selfish to change the meaning of a word to fit theirr personal lifestyle. And dangerous that the meaning could lose all religious aspects due to appeasement regarding personal sexual behavior.
Marriage in this country is a christian term of a sacrament. Gay people have imposed their will to be married in christian churches where homosexuality is not accepted. It states the immoral acts of mankind in the bible this being one of them. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Chris Walden on
3/26/2009 |
The harm comes from the possibility of a church being sued for discrimination, and from the idea that civil rights can be established based on lifestyle choices.
rocketsredglareonline.com |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Mark on
3/31/2009 |
The harm in allowing same sex marriage is that it is an abomination according to our beliefs as Christians.
If we are going to respect ones religions, or lack there of, then you must respect the Christian religion and faith as well.
We can no longer cherry pick here people. Is anyone else here tired of two faced people?
That said, what is so wrong with just calling the so called homosexual "marriage" simply a civil union?
Homosexuality is an abomination defined by the same Bible that defined marriage. So you cannot have a homosexual marriage. By definition it is an oxymoron.
God created marriage as that between a man and a woman.
Sin (which is of the devil and is evil) is what created homosexuality. As well as all other sins.
As Christians we are to admonish sin in our lives and work to rid ourselves of sin in our lives. If you are a Christian and a homosexual you would know that you must cease this behavior as an Alcoholic or any other sinner does likewise. I myself have demons too. I am working AND I will say ridding them with the help of our loving Lord Jesus Christ. LOL Rome was not built in a day.
So it boils down to this. If homosexuals want to live together and simply want it to be legal, then that is between them and the state. All that needs to be said is that they need not use the language of "marriage" anywhere or in any contract they might draw up.
If say insurance companies, probate, hospitals, etc do not wish to honor that said contract well, could it be that maybe they need to re-think their lifestyle choice?
Has it occurred to the homosexual that maybe the rest of us simply do not wish to accept their choices. By the way, that is our RIGHT to do so. Let us not forget that.
Further, is it so much to ask that if we do not wish to accept this behavior from others that we do not have it rammed down our throats as well?
Food for thought.
Thanks for reading this.
As I have re thought mine from time to time.
|
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By gammi on
3/31/2009 |
there are, unfortunately, more hypocrits in church than anywhere else. one would think that the church would be tolerant and accepting of an alternative lifestyle.
if a church is discriminating against gays and lesbians, they might expect to be sued.
being gay or lesbian is not a lifestyle choice.
and speaking of the sanctity of marriage. look at the many atrocities that have been commited in that union. some want to look to the ideal, for the word "marriage" to fit our illusion and fantasy of what it should be.
it is too much work to place judgement on gay people who want to be married or on other "controversial" life style issues. as long as no one is being physically or emotionally hurt and the idea of a loving family unit exists, we have no business trying to interfere with the personal wish of another couple to be married, gay or straight.
if there is judgement to be made, i am not judge and jury, neither are you. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
3/31/2009 |
| There is no interference with anyone's wish to be married. Marriage is what it is, and anyoone can partake in the union. Some people simply choose not to and that's fine - we don't need to reinvent the institution of marriage because some people prefer something else. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Barb on
4/3/2009 |
gammi,
There are hypocrits of many kinds. That doesn't make it right. Why should the church make exception to something against the Will of God? An act against their beliefs and teachings? Especially for hypocrites (gays that call themselves Christians) themselves. It isn't the churches job to appease man's will or desires. It is to function in accordance and to teach and fulfill God's Will.
As the act of sex is a choice, being gay or lesbian is a lifestyle choice.
Gay people should build their own facility and not interfere with the facility beliefs of others.
|
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By mercedes on
4/10/2009 |
| what's wrong with tolerance and acceptance? No one is asking the churches to accept same sex marriage. Just the state. It is only man's interpretation of the gospels and scriptures that "forbid" it. I say we mere mortals leave it alone and let vengeance be the Lord's. They're not hurting anyone. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/10/2009 |
| Actually, there will be reprecussions and harm to churches. In Canada, ministers are being charged with hate speech for simply reading aloud passages from the bible that condemn homosexuality. In the US, discrimination suits could be brought against churches for simply practicing their religious convictions and refusing to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Beyond that, words have meaning. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Any other kind of relationship, no matter whether it's good and valid and fulfilling or not simply isn't marriage. Chainging the definition of words by court decree or legislative action sets us down a very dangerous path. Personally, Im perfectly tolerant and accepting of homosexual relationships. That falls squarely under the category of "none of my business." Where I have a problem is when homosexual activists think they can shape the world to their liking and force people to not simply tolerate their lifestyle but embrace, approve and sanction it. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Gerald on
4/21/2009 |
| I do not understand why gays are not satisfied with a civil union and I don't understand how religion is threated by gay marriages. It's been stated that churches could be sued. How? If the gay did not believe in the church doctrine (e.g. being gay is a sin) the churchs are not obligated to accept them. Many churches will not allow you to take communion with them unless you are a member. Can I sue them for that? The Lutheran Church refused to bury my Grandfather because he was a heathen even though he was officially a member. Either way I don't really care, I just don't understand what all the fuss is about. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/17/2009 |
| Gerald, I have already explained the answers to your questions above. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Steve Hansmann on
4/21/2009 |
| Christians have always been behind the curve. I heard this same nonsense growing up in East St. Paul in the 1950's, mixed-marriages, (Catholic and Protestant), would be the end of society and was a mortal and fatal sin, (those of you in your fifties and older know I'm not making this up). I heard the same thing from churches about mixed race marriages, and in fact still do from very conservative christian churches. I wish you guys would find something real to worry about, like the abundance of pedophiles in churches, and not just the Catholic church either. As a former deptuty sheriff, the single greates profession producing sex offenders of children was the ministry, usually youth ministers. There is something real you can worry about, and work to eliminate. Time to grow up folks. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Sick of Hate Mongers on
4/21/2009 |
| If marriage in this country is a specific term related to a Christian sacrament, then keep it that way and don't accept any government benefits that come along with that term...specifically, tax breaks. If the government provides a benefit based on marital status and a segment of the population is not allowed access to that status, then there is a HUGE equal rights issue involved. Let's be honest and admit that homophobia is the root of this debate, not a desire to keep the institution of marriage sacred. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/21/2009 |
| Marriage isn't strictly a Christian institution. It exists in all religions around the world in the manner we are all familliar with. The reason the government incents marriage (and I would go along with arguments that government need not and perhaps should not do this), is because marriage is a vessel that creates new life and stable upbringing for that new life. The survival of our society and our species depends on procreation. Same-sex couples do not procreate. What is the state's interest in encouraging that union? Finally, no one is excluded from taking part in marriage. People who identify themselves as gay aren't discriminated against. They are free to partake in Marriage just as everyone else does - to a member of the opposite sex. If that's not to their liking, so be it. Don't do it. Many people choose not to marry for a myriad of reasons. Should we adapt our definition of marriage to encourage all those single people to "marry" as well? I have a bachelor friend or two who might want to marry their remote controls. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Sick of Hate Mongers on
4/22/2009 |
| Dan, I would like to know in precise terms what your definition of marriage is and what the origins of that definition are? Is it tied to religion and if so, what of civil unions between heterosexuals...are they legitimate marriages? As far as your argument that no one is excluded from taking part in marriage, that's analagous to saying no one is excluded from becoming a priest...of course 50% of the population is. What about women who want to become priests. According to your logic they are free to become priests as long as they are willing to undergo a sex change operation...no one is stopping them. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/22/2009 |
| Your priest argument doesn't hold up. It isn't analogous. Besides the fact that you are talking about membership in a private organization and its internal rules, any man or woman can get married under current law without any surgery. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. If marriage isn't for you, so be it. Do something else. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By Sick of Hate Mongers on
4/22/2009 |
| Aren't you talking about membership in an organization/institution that has certain rules...one of which, you claim, is the rule that you must marry someone of the opposite sex? You still haven't cited any authority for your definition as the union of a man and a woman. Gay people who are in committed relationships do want to marry in order to affirm and validate that commitment, so by repeating the phrase "if marriage isn't for you...do something else" you're completely missing the point. Thankfully, you're in the minority...most Minnesotans are tolerant of gay marriage, if not approving. |
|
|
Re: Same-Sex Marriage Debate Returns to St. Paul |
By dan.mcgrath on
4/22/2009 |
| "Gay marriage" isn't marriage. Marriage is a bond, a natural fit. In tooling, engineering, manufacturing, machining, construction, etc, marriage has a specific meaning - parts designed to fit together, once so fastened are married. Male and female join together in marriage. It's simply nature. Two parts that aren't opposite and compatible can hang around in the same drawer, but they won't ever wind up married. |
|
|
|
|
|