Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Is homosexual marriage coming to Minnesota? If Senator John Marty gets his way, it will.

In a commentary posted on www.MinnPost.com Senator John Marty from Roseville calls for legalizing homosexual marriage in Minnesota.

In an article entitled, "It's time to move forward with gay-marriage legislation", Senator Marty says:

Last session, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced legislation to legalize same-sex marriages in Minnesota. Now we are asking for a hearing on the legislation in the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 2009 legislative session.

Minnesota's law prohibits gays and lesbians from marrying the person they love. Our legislation would repeal that prohibition and extend equal marriage rights to all people regardless of sexual orientation.

This effort is made with no illusion about the difficulty of passing the legislation. In the November election, several states passed voter initiatives banning same-sex marriages. California's initiative actually took away the existing right for gay couples to marry.

His comments contain the usual homosexual marriage canards about homosexuals not having "equal marriage rights." Homosexuals can already marry it just must be to a person of the opposite sex; they're seeking to redefine the institution.

And then he emphasizes the emotional side, having homosexual couples "briefly tell their story. Have them talk about their love, the challenges they face as parents, the problems they encounter because they are not allowed to marry. Opponents would have equal time to voice their concerns. "

Yet then he turns around and seems to be suggesting the exact opposite: "the Judiciary Committee could break past the heated rhetoric on the issue with a candid discussion, conducted in a civil tone. Discussions help to inform and educate people. With all of the divisiveness over gay marriage, a civil discussion might bring people closer together."

I've thought the tone of past committee hearings was rather civil given the strong emotion surrounding the issue.

He says that opponents are just worried that homosexual marriage "will hurt their own marriages, I'd like to ask them to tell us how. I'd really like to know whether they feel my marriage — Connie and I just celebrated our 28th anniversary — would hurt their marriage too."

I personally have never been concerned about nor have I argued that homosexual marriage would affect my marriage. What it does do is redefine the institution of marriage, as it has existed from time immemorial, out of existence. It would no longer exist. One effect is it would now mean that children, legally speaking, would no longer be understand to need both a mother and a father. One or the other would be superfluous in a homosexual marriage. This situation has already been devastating to society and would only worsen by sanctioning same sex marriage.

Senator Marty goes on to say that as a Christian his faith leads him to promote homosexual marriage.
If opponents say they believe gay marriage is sinful or morally wrong, I'd like to tell them why I, as a Christian, believe we should not just allow, but actually encourage gay couples to marry. It is because of my faith, not in spite of it, that I think we should promote marriage and work to strengthen families of gay couples as well as heterosexual couples.
To say the Christian faith supports same sex marriage is ludicrous.

The Scriptures are unambiguous about homosexual behavior being morally wrong and sinful and the nature of marriage being between a man and a woman. The testimony of Christians and the Christian church throughout history only affirms this view of homosexual behavior and marriage. The view by a few that homosexual marriage is not inconsistent with Christian teaching is simply heretical.

Next Senator Marty tries the usual secular argument that pro-traditional marriage supporters are simply trying to impose their religious views on the rest of society.
I would like to ask my colleagues who oppose this legislation why they consider it acceptable for Minnesota's government to endorse their religious beliefs about gay marriage and enforce them over the religious beliefs that thousands of other Minnesotans have. Every member of the Senate took an oath of office to support the Constitution of the United States, and each of us understands that government should treat all people in a fair, non-discriminatory manner.
There's a degree of hypocrisy in Senator Marty's comments. He has just argued his view of Christianity promotes same sex marriage and via his bill he wants to impose his position on society.

The fact is traditional marriage isn't being artificially imposed on society. It was reaffirmed through the passage of the 1996 state DOMA bill through both bodies of the legislature and signed into law by then Governor Arne Carlson.

Marty seeks to provide reassurance that churches won't be required to perform same sex marriages. Their religious liberties will be protected. And he draws the fallacious analogy of same sex marriage to inter-racial marriage.
Opponents worry that their churches would be required to perform gay marriages. But we can reassure them that the freedom of religion that would allow gay marriages is the same freedom of religion that allows them to perform marriages only for couples they choose to marry. We could point to the U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down laws prohibiting interracial marriage – a decision that was strongly opposed by many Christians at the time — and remind them that the churches objecting to those marriages have never been forced to solemnize them.
First, homosexual marriage advocates often argue that opposing homosexual marriage is tantamount to opposing inter-racial marriage. If they truly believe that then it's very reasonable to assume that if homosexual marriage is the law of the land then churches which oppose homosexual marriage will be stripped of their nonprofit tax status and be subject to anti-discrimination laws. In the 1980s, Bob Jones University which at that time didn't allow interracial dating was stripped of their tax status. (They recently apologized for their policy.) These actions would certainly be infringements on religious liberties.

It would mean the indoctrination of all public school children into the notion that marriage no longer a man and a woman and to think otherwise is wrong and bigoted. It would undermine parental rights and religious liberties as we already see happening in other state's which sanction homosexual marriage or, I should say, were forced by their courts to sanction it.

Second, homosexual marriage and inter-racial marriage bans are analogous only in that they are both anti-marriage -- homosexual marriage by negating the presence of a man or woman in the relationship and interracial marriage bans by seeking to keep particular men and women from marrying because of their skin color. This is of course the exact opposite of what pro-homosexual marriage advocates would like you to believe or understand about inter-racial marriage bans which were truly anti-marriage.

Senator Marty says, "A Senate hearing that confronts these issues with a civil discussion will not end all opposition to gay marriage, but it will help break down the misunderstandings that exist."

I'm all for a civil discussion to give all the facts out on the table. I more this issue is debated and discussed the better.

He concludes by saying,
I'm confident that most Minnesotans, even those uncomfortable talking about homosexuality, will recognize the fundamental fairness of allowing every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner.
Here Senator Marty, I'm sure unintentionally, points out where this effort to redefine marriage will eventually lead. To allow "every adult to choose his or her own marriage partner." Why limit it to unrelated folks? Why not family members? Siblings? Father and daughter? Mother and son? And of course, why one person? Weren't polygamous relationships sanctioned in cultures throughout history and even in some societies today. If all these folks love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry one another?

This shows the chaos of the position advocated by homosexual marriage advocates like Senator Marty.


brakke (belfast) said...

You first say: "What [gay marriage] does do is redefine the institution of marriage, as it has existed from time immemorial, out of existence."

You then say: "Weren't polygamous relationships sanctioned in cultures throughout history and even in some societies today[?]"

Since your post is devoted to exposing purported logical fallacies in Sen. Marty's article, I cannot help but point out your own.

Please clarify if you intend to base the justification for your own idea of marriage - as an institution between one man and one woman - on its definition from "time immemorial." If so, your second, more accurate point contradicts your first. Alternatively, it implies that polygamy, based on your reasoning, should be sanctioned because it has historical precedent - including in the Judeo-Christian scriptures you so vehemently defend.

If neither of those logical conclusions accord with your own views, then you should rely exclusively on reason rather than on theology and a selective reading of history in defending your position.

Troy said...

This has been making its way around the internet the last few days, and I think there are some valid points.
Let's save marriage from the gays AND from the adulterers and divorcers. God hates that as much as gay sex.

A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)

B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)

C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)

D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)

E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)

F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)

G. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36)

Troy said...

Mr. Pritchard.
In your post above there was an error (at least I am assuming you did not rewrite the verse in Genesis)...

You wrote "There you'll find that the original plan in Genesis 1 and reiterated by Jesus was marriage being between one man and one man"

I am quite certain you meant "Woman".

I would hate for you to be quoted out of context. LOL

Tom Prichard said...

The existence of something in history doesn't mean that the practice is justified. But it's practice or presence and embrace by societies through the centuries should give one pause before seeing to change. It can be a sign that it's worked well and should be continued.

Though polygamy has been practiced by many generations, other evidence suggests it shouldn't be continued, e.g. exploitation of women and diminution of the status of women, is just one reason why it should be discontinued.

I allude to polygamy and it's presence in current and past societies not to affirm it but point out the implications of where this effort to redefine of marriage will ultimately lead us.

You reference the Judeo-Christian scriptures. There you'll find that the original plan in Genesis 1 and reiterated by Jesus was marriage being between one man and one woman. Subsequent to the fall, polygamous relationships entered the picture. Polygamous were a deviation from the norm and interestingly most homosexual activists do not endorse these arrangements or at least they distance themselves from the concept.

Yet even with polygamous relationships the central relationship is a man and a woman or one should say multiple women. Homosexual relationships eliminate one of the sexes and thus is a fundamental redefinition of marriage as an institution. It's not simply a broadening of the concept.

My reference to the Bible was in part a response to Senator Marty's statement that he points to the Christian faith as the basis for his support of same sex marriage. The Bible, which is the foundation of the Christian faith,in no way affirms homosexual behavior.