Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Minnesota homosexual marriage advocates want whole enchilada now. Is it inevitable? I don't think so.


Homosexual marriage advocates are giving up their incremental strategy of civil unions as a stepping stone to redefining marriage to include homosexual partners. According to a Star Tribune news story, " Big push for same-sex marriage coming in '09", OutFront Minnesota and Senator John Marty plan to introduce and hold hearings on a homosexual marriage legalization bill.

To date, lots of homosexual groups, figured they should push for a recognition of homosexual marriage by the incremental approach. That's what they did via special legal protections under discrimination laws and domestic partner benefits proposals. The logical next step would be civil unions. Well, the new head of OutFront Minnesota told a reporter that civil unions are unacceptable. They're a separate but unequal counterpart to marriage and they don't want it. They want traditional marriage to be eliminated and replaced with a fundamentally different definition recognizing homosexual couples. They think it will take them not too many years to achieve.

Frankly, I welcome more public discussion and debate on the issue. The more there is the better off we are on the marriage side. Why? Because homosexual marriage is build on a lie that somehow homosexual unions can constitute and fulfill the purposes of marriage as established by God and rooted in nature. In other words, the truth is not on their side.

It's like the legislature seeking to define a cat as a dog by passing a law saying it's so. We may want to believe it's so and even act on that belief but it doesn't change the reality of the way things actually are.

I think homosexual marriage advocates say time is on their side. It's inevitable we'll have homosexual marriage in our nation, they say. In the long run, time isn't on their side. In the short run, they may have some successes but in the long run it won't work out. An analogy is the failed experiment of the Soviet Union. They thought they could create the workers paradise through socialist, government ownership economic system. It looked like they might succeed with the growing power of the Soviet empire. But alas, it collapsed after 70 years, because the system was based on lie. The system was rotten at its core.

The same will be true with homosexual marriage whether in Canada, Europe or other parts of the world. Marriage is foundational to the health of society and the well-being of people, particularly children. Homosexual partners can't replace a mom and a dad. The notion is built upon a lie; it will fail. The question is when.

Even in the short term, I don't believe homosexual marriage is inevitable in Minnesota or our nation. The reality of homosexual marriage as revealed in other states will only become more evident as time progresses. The problems children experience. The fragility of the homosexual relationships and health implications will only gain broader societal awareness.

And I think this will only become more apparent to young people. In today's culture, it's cool to be for homosexual marriage. But when one looks a little closer at the true nature and purpose of marriage, the picture changes.

I think that's what has happened with the abortion issue. Young people are becoming pro-life. They see the pictures and hear the horror stories of post-abortion effects. They see it isn't the answer to personal difficulties or circumstances.

The same will happen with homosexual marriage. When they capture a vision of benefits of marriage, the nature of the man and woman relationship, and the impact of homosexual marriage in undermining the marriage vision, they'll go the other direction.

Again, there's power in the truth which none of us can change whether we'd like to or not. That goes for marriage as much as anything else. If we're smart as individuals and a society, we'll find out what the truth is and line our lives up with it.



1 comment:

OutFront Minnesota Blog said...

OutFront Minnesota would like to respond to this post.

Mr. Prichard states, "They want traditional marriage to be eliminated and replaced with a fundamentally different definition recognizing homosexual couples."

This is simply untrue. Marriage as a civil legal institution would remain the same. The institution would simply be open to committed same-sex couples, becoming available to people who are currently excluded. Voting was not "redefined" when women gained the vote. The law simply enfolded a new group of people into an existing institution. No one would argue that the institution of voting has been compromised in any way, nor that men have "lost" their vote because women gained theirs.

Marriage equality denies no rights or privileges to anyone who is currently married nor denies any heterosexual couple the continued right to marry and enjoy all the protections and security afforded by marriage.

Same-sex couples want to marry for the same reasons as heterosexual couples. They wish to express their love and commitment under the auspices of the state so that they may enjoy the protections and security afforded by marriage.

Many same-sex couples are raising children. Their families should have the opportunity to be protected by marriage. A newly-released study by the Williams Institute (a research center on sexual orientation law and public policy at the UCLA School of Law) found that after studying families headed by lesbian couples for 22 years (yes, over two decades), the children from these families were as healthy and well adjusted as children raised in households headed by heterosexual couples.

If we really believe in the importance of families, then we should provide all families (not just some)the protections and security of our common civil laws. This is common sense, humane, and simply the right thing to do.

Jo Marsicano
Communications Director
OutFront Minnesota