Drama at the State Capitol.
.
From MplsStarTribune:
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.
DISCRIMINATION. In philosophy, the power of the mind clearly to distinguish between objects, whether real or conceptual, and between right and wrong in moral matters. Consequently, it is also the distinction between things that the mind recognizes, whether and how they differ. In popular usage, discrimination has come to mean acting toward someone or something with bias or prejudice. (Etym. Latin discriminare, to set apart as different, distinguish.)
ReplyDeleteModern Catholic Dictionary
I say Christians set themselves apart and distinguish themselves by choosing what is good and right.
I read about the "prayer" the local pastor made at the beginning of the session and the outrage of everyone present. Well - waaaaaaaaa! While his closing sentence was a bit tacky, for me it was nothing more than an eye-roll moment.
ReplyDeleteHere's a good article that will back up what you've been saying all along:
http://americansfortruth.com/news/homosexuality-in-the-heartland-nothing-to-be-proud-of-%E2%80%93-says-labarbera-regarding-springfield-illinois-first-ever-gay-pride-festival.html
Follow the link in the article to read about the Christian family that is being targeted for not hosting homosexual "marriages" at their bed and breakfast.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat will the anti-gay marriage crowd do if the amendment fails on the 2012 ballot?
ReplyDeleteRick, all polling shows that it almost certainly will fail. I, too, am very interested.
ReplyDeleteRick, If the amendment fails I expect people will simply continue to oppose legal recognition of same sex unions through whatever legal means available. If laws are past giving legal recognition to same sex unions, the opposition will necessarily work to see that such an unjust law is repealed, in much the same way people labor to stop legalized abortion.
ReplyDeleteWho knows how the cards will fall.
Hi, Terry!
ReplyDeleteI'm curious: why is granting legal recognition to same-sex unions unjust?
How do you justify placing the loving relationship of two consenting adults on the same level as abortion?
Peace,
Michael
Michael - when a civil law is not in sync with moral law the law is unjust.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't equating abortion and ss marriage - I don't know where you got that idea.
Prayers,
Terry
Hi, Terry,
ReplyDeleteAren't you equating them by labeling them both as examples of "unjust laws." And why "unjust" and not "immoral"? The later seems the more appropriate word given your appeal to the "moral law."
Also, as you well know, not all religious folks share your view that loving, committed relationships are immoral and/or unjust. We see loving intent and actions determining the moral good of relationships, not the specific combinations of body parts of those involved.
Also, mixed marriages were once considered by many as "not in sync with the moral law" -- owing to the specific combination of skin colors of those involved. Crazy, wasn't it!? Thankfully, that's not how the majority of people think today. I believe we're witnessing the same type of evolution in our thinking and understanding of same-sex marriage.
Peace,
Michael
Michael, I'll discuss it in another post.
ReplyDeletePrayers,
Terry