"Perhaps most importantly, shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do. It proclaims the false notion that a man can be a mother and a woman can be a father – that men and women are exactly the same in rearing children. And it undermines the marriage culture by making marriage a meaningless political gesture, rather than a child-affirming social construct."
In this world that is full of single parent household's and gay/lesbian parents, I would think we would want to encourage more marriages for the kids. I am assuming that 2 Mothers would be much better than 1 Mother and NO father. And if the Gay/Lesbian couple has kids, then don't we want them to be married (long term commitment) for the good of the children? (like the the vote YES adds say)
Unless the the Religious right will soon be working to make it illegal for gay and lesbian couples to have kids, or be the Parents of them. Seems like a natural next step based on this Arch-Bishop's views. Maybe it will give him justification for spending more of the offerings.
Star Tribune Arch-Bishop Draws Line
Minnesotans for Marriage
Freedom to Marry
Star Tribune Conservative Case for Same Sex Marriage
7 comments:
I am curious about what kind of ads the vote yes people will run. I haven't seen one yet. I think the vote no ads are very well done and persuasive.
Their ads are on the Minnesotans for Marriage site.
They focus on ensuring the "people" define Marriage, not the Politicians and Courts. And that a traditional Male/Female parent system is best for the kids.
Since I am getting few comments on this one...
Why is it so important to the same sex couples that they are "Married"?
Instead of being part of a "Civil Union" that has the same legal benefits as "Marriage"?
It seems both sides are being kind of sensitive about the word. I would be happy to see the 2 terms in use, except that it would require one huge find and replace exercise...
And for your enjoyment:
Skeptic Dave Comic
Gay Marriage Blog Comic
Cartoon Stock Comic
Comic News
WND Comic
Same Sex Marriage Overview
I may be misremembering but I recall that "marriage" has hundreds (500+?) of rights conferred by laws that are not automatically duplicated by civil union. Ideally the state should grant civil union to all couples who want to be legally bound and churches could choose which marriages they want to perform. As that is not going to happen marriage should be available to all couples.
I call BS. Passage of the Marriage Amendment will have ZERO, none, nada effect on the current legal rights or lack thereof, depending on your viewpoint, of gay "couples." All it does is prevent gay "marriage" from being imposed, on the majority that do not approve of it, by judicial fiat. I don't care where you stand on the issue of gay marriage itself, a YES vote is the only proper one, unless you WANT to overturn the popular will by judicial fiat, rather than by convincing minds and changing hearts on the issue.
J. Ewing
"majority that do not approve of it"
I guess we will find out what the majority think in a few weeks. Right now I think and hope the majority will reject it.
If this happens, will you acknowledge that the majority is okay with gay marriage or will you find an excuse to reject that clear signal?
Imagine if it fails even after all the strong arm tactics of the Catholic Church on their members. Now that will be something to celebrate.
more details about Civil Marriage v. Civil Unions
What’s the difference?
it seems my earlier number was off quite a bit:
"According to a 1997 GAO report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,138 legal protections and
responsibilities from the federal government, including the right to take leave from work to care for a family member, the right to sponsor a spouse for immigration purposes, and Social Security survivor
benefits that can make a difference between old age in poverty and old age in security. Civil unions bring
none of these critical legal protections."
The only thing I will acknowledge if the amendment fails is that powerful propaganda can sell a Big Lie. And I will start a pool on how many days later the lawsuit to overturn the current marriage laws arrives in court, if it isn't already on the docket.
Let me be clear. This vote has ZERO to do with whether you believe there should be gay marriage, or civil unions, or anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with whom you may love or what ceremonies churches may deem proper. Any statement, ad, or exhortation to the contrary is a lie.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment