Drama at the State Capitol.
After a long, passionate and solemn debate that lasted deep into the night, the Minnesota House passed a proposed constitutional amendment on Saturday to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Voters will decide the question in November 2012. The final vote was 70-62. Four Republicans voted no. Two Democrats voted yes.
"I do not believe it is up to judges or even this body, but it should be up to Minnesotans," said Rep. Steve Gottwalt, R-St. Cloud, sponsor of the bill. But he said his beliefs are not paramount: "It is not about what I think. It is about what we think as Minnesotans." - Source
And yet gay activists have fought against giving fellow citizens the right to vote on such an amendment. Isn't that discriminatory?
The discriminating voter.
People are so screwed up. I watched some of the debate on Public Television, as well as the news. Local news showed the protesters outside the chamber. Such drama. A woman weeping that she and her same-sex partner are denied a wedding ceremony. Homosexual activists claiming discrimination because they want to redefine the institution of marriage and family, while insisting the efforts of their opponents is anti-family. Added to the drama, lots of Orwellian double speak going on.
Now that the matter will be left up to voters, gay activists are ready for a long, expensive marketing campaign from today until the 2012 vote - politicking on the grounds all sorts of human rights violations and discrimination militates against their emotional cause. Almost by necessity, activists make a god out of equal rights while dismissing the possibility that some discrimination is good - some is bad. Unfortunately, neither side seems ready to admit that there exists that 'good discrimination' which is necessary for the common good. And it is the common good which needs safeguarding.
I read somewhere that to discriminate is to make a decision. Not all discrimination is equal and some discrimination is necessary and good - the alternative is anarchy which leads to the overthrow and destruction of culture. Indeed, we are almost there. So - don't even wince when you are accused of being discriminatory - it's okay - your opponent is too.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it. - CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
Photo credit: Strib.