Comments on: Victory: Marriage amendment going to the ballot in Minnesota

By: Bruce

Bruce — Tue, 24 May 2011 14:14:22 +0000

The state does not define marriage anymore than it can define an orange or an apple tree. Marriage is what it is because of what it is, not because the state says so. It is an institution that predates the United States, western civilization, and Christianity. It can be defined and defended on the basis of natural law and reason alone, and to attempt to redefine it another way will have disastrous consequences. For more information, please refer to Dr. George’s (Princeton) article on marriage: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

By: DavidB

DavidB — Tue, 24 May 2011 04:56:39 +0000

Would it be sufficient for you if the government had no hand in “marriage”. The government/laws simply spoke only of “civil unions”? Then you’d be free to call/not call things marriages as you see fit (& others would be free to do the same).

Why do you believe the government has to take a role in defining marriage for other people?

In what way are homosexuals bullying you or anyone else? You don’t have to consider homosexual couples married if you don’t want to, really. (yes, the law’s all use the word “marriage”, but really once we started providing governmental rights to marriages, it became more than an issue of how you perceive marriage. Just as laws have adjusted (well, are adjusting) to handle gender identity, etc.)

By: Davide

Davide — Mon, 23 May 2011 11:43:18 +0000

Thank you for this post. It is true never a time in America–>scratch that. Never on earth has same-sex ever been approved by the voters. But we should not gloat to much. In the last year or so much has changed in gay advocacy..such as now claiming same-sex marriages are “marriage equality” and the constant push claim same-sex “marriages” is a basic human right. Even though courts have disagreed most noticeably the courts in Europe (shocker I know). Anyways gay advocacy groups will dumps hundred of thousands of dollars or millions (just like what is happening right now in NY) and those of us who support TRUE marriage and families will not even come close to raising this kind of money. Even though gay advocacy is moving at a snails pace, much slower than anyone ever imagine. Us Christians and other people must recognize it is coming and with this gay advocacy and special rights given to couple of the same-sex with come christian persecution. Look at Holland, Canada, Spain and Mexico it is happening and most of the Christian world remains silent. My friends the homosexual bully pulpit does not scare me in the least-i am not afraid to be called a “self-loathing queer” a “homo-homo-homophobe”. You should not be afraid either-always defend TRUTH and democracy.

By: Michael B

Michael B — Sun, 22 May 2011 21:26:20 +0000

As a Minnesota myself I am very happy about this amendment passing the Minnesota Legislature and look forward to voting in favor of it in about 18 months.

By: Bruce

Bruce — Sun, 22 May 2011 18:44:00 +0000

The state has an obvious interest in the common good of children and families, for it is from there where society springs. By protecting and fostering the union of males and females, the state looks out for the best interest of children who have a right to a mother and a father and a stable home. It also looks out for the stability and security of men and women as well. This is good for society, and society benefits from couples uniting for life and raising children. The Church understands the role that the state has in a teaching manner (by setting up an ideal for which its citizens should reach for). This has been gone over time and time again, and if you want the definitive answer, please refer to Dr. George’s (Princeton) article defining marriage. He answers your concerns clearly and concisely. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155

By: tz1

tz1 — Sun, 22 May 2011 14:41:52 +0000

So baptized christians after their 3rd or 4th divorce won’t need an annulment anymore – their marriage will be perfectly valid?

I only support things like this weakly, as the lesser evil – it concedes the authority and competency to define “marriage” to the state and AWAY FROM THE CHURCH. We worry about priests refusing to marry gays, but what happens when someone sues over a non-annulled spouse?

Was Henry VIII’s only mistake not to put it up to a plebiscite to put it into the constitution?

What did Thomas More lose his head over again?

The state should stay out of the sacraments. Entirely.