Skip to comments.Why I'll Vote FOR The Marriage Amendment
Posted on 05/01/2012 5:41:30 AM PDT by pgyanke
Background: A "friend" posted this article to their wall on Facebook. In response, I wrote the article below. This is the second time I've been "unfriended" on Facebook... and both by leftists who really don't want to talk about it.
I will be voting for the Marriage Amendment.
1. The Marriage Amendment is pro-freedom.
The government didn't define the institution of marriage. Marriage has been here since the dawn of time. The family is the building block of all societies and the foundations of our civilization. When a man and a woman come together, they beget children. This is a family. When families come together, they make a tribe. When tribes come together, they form a nation. The nation formed by these interactions is subservient to the will of the sovereign people at its root because it was formed by them to perform functions for them. Some governments are now overturning the order of society by regulating and altering the natural relationships between parents and children and our society isnt better for it.
Whats happening in this Amendment is the opposite of the State creating or regulating the institution of Marriage the Amendment is an exercise of the people to ensure the State remembers its place in the social order. Essentially, the State will be required to recognize what is biologically and historically obvious. Why is it necessary? It is necessary simply because there has been a move in this country to restrict the personal and religious freedom of conservative people by undermining the sacred institutions necessary to the natural order of society. Since some states have pushed for gay marriage and used these unions to pressure other states, we now have 35 states in the country with strong Marriage Amendments as inoculation against the trend. A majority would like NC to join their company.
Some say that NC already has strong legal language against gay marriage and this Amendment is unnecessary. That was also true in other states. Until just a few years ago, no state recognized marriage between any union other than one man with one woman. Now, there are eight states recognizing same sex unions as marriage. To those who think it couldnt happen here, I offer the example of Iowa no one thought it would happen there, either.
Some say that this Amendment is discriminatory and hurtful to homosexuals in our society. This argument is contradictory to the first argument. How can our just laws currently outlawing same sex unions be sufficient if they are already considered discriminatory? The opposition is simply outlining the need for the Amendmentto protect the laws already in place against those who would alter them.
People are free to live with whomever they choose before and after this Amendment is passed. They are free to enter into relationships and file contractual documents of all sorts. They can establish their trusts, powers of attorney and estate plans to have anyone of their choosing manage their affairs, inherit their assets or become guardians for their children. What they wont be able to do is have the State recognize any union besides one man and one woman as a Marriage nor consider inviolable the relationships the State itself has established.
What is different about Marriage and other contractual arrangements? Marriage is a natural union of a family as a basic unit of society. It is a universally recognized joining of man and woman in begetting children. The married partners have a natural right to all jointly owned assets and the children issued from their union have a natural right of inheritance. Relationships created by the State are subject to the administrations of the State. In short, marriage is natural while contractual relationships are made and administered by government authority.
Why should we care? We should care because the State really has three main functions when you boil it all down. The State should be concerned with continuity, stability and justice. Same-sex unions do not benefit the State in continuity. Taken to the extreme, a society of all same-sex unions would die out in a generation. Sure, you can have same-sex couples adopt children but those children will still have to have come from the traditional, biological union. Long established statistics have shown that strong, traditional families promote societal stability. As the family has degraded, the societal fabric has frayed. Finally, it does not suit justice to have the State redefine an institution over which it has no authority.
2. The Marriage Amendment is Decidedly Christian.
Read your Bible. You will find Marital language from beginning to end from Genesis to Revelation from Adam and Eve to Christ and His Church. In fact, the Church tells us that the Holy Trinity is the height and summit of all truth because it is the mystery of God in Himself. The Trinity is the mystery of Who He is... and we were created in His image and likeness. Male and female He created us. When male and female come together in the marital embrace, their love takes on flesh of its own in their children. The family is the reflection of our creation in the image of the Holy Trinity in two people whose love becomes tangible in a third. Pope John Paul II told us that God, in His deepest mystery, isnt a solitude but a family because He has within Himself Fatherhood, Sonship and the essence of the Family which is Love. A Christian who would undermine these sacred truths by redefining Marriage doesnt understand his faith at all.
St Paul reminded us that our Earthly battle isnt against flesh and blood but rather against the rulers and dark powers which have been aligned against God from the beginning. In attacking our understanding of marriage, the dark powers are attacking our understanding of Gods Covenant and our purpose as His sons and daughters. Our Lord reminded us in His last days among us in the flesh that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. Satan, in attacking marriage, is waging the latest battlefront of his long war against God in attacking His image and likeness in the family.
3. The Marriage Amendment is all about family.
At a time when the family is under attack from the forces of divorce and neglect and our society is watching the very fabric of our civilization crumble, it seems strange that anyone could consider a further attack on the meaning of family to be helpful. Its accepted as common wisdom that strong families beget strong societies. Rather than redefining what it means to be a family, we should be working hard to regain the truth that weve neglected society will fail without the traditional family as its foundation.
Those working against the Marriage Amendment have endeavored to dehumanize it. No one would take people seriously who argued that the Marriage Amendment would hurt families. Yet, that is what they are doing by calling it Amendment One. When you can take the true subject matter out of the law, you can ascribe all sorts of evils to it. If we could have this debate honestly, the conversation would do a great deal to educate and support our families as we explain what is beautiful and sacred in the institution. Instead, we have to engage the battle in simply stating what the Amendment is truly about and fighting to overcome the campaign of lies.
If marriage can simply be redefined by the State, then marriage itself has no fundamental meaning
contemplate that for a few minutes and see the threat to our way of life!
Absolutely. Everybody knows that the Pilgrims fled to America so that men could have the freedom to marry each other.
However marriage is and should be an institution between one man and one woman only. Polygamy, polyandry, and other arrangements are not a part of Western Civilization, and Western Civilization is by far the greatest accumulation of wisdom and civilization ever devised.
If people want other arrangements, they can make them through contracts.
Homosexuality is not normal, and it is not a variation of normality. It is a disorder of the reproductive system.
Very good point, TC. I’ll have to remember that in my next conversation on the subject. I like the way you put that.
Mostly dead on.
“Whats happening in this Amendment is the opposite of the State creating or regulating the institution of Marriage ”
It is? Seems to me with state involved, the definition it uses is going to be whatever judges, pols or the majority thinks it is at any one time, that’s what this amendment is about. It has worked fine up until recently. The homosexualists love the involvement now, because there would be no way to punish those who don’t buy into “gay marriage” otherwise. That’s what this is all about. They also dig that many have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, and so are willing to accept whatever impossibility the state deems is a marriage.
Thank you. It’s not really a complex issue, but addressing it effectively in our current climate takes considerable thought and a variety of approaches.
Read the amendment again. It speaks of “recognizing” what marriage is, not creating it by governmental fiat. You are wrong about the gay marriage crowd liking this amendment. They are livid. It is written clearly and narrowly. There isn’t any room for litigation. They can challenge whether marriage itself is discriminatory but they they will have a hard time twisting such plain language (not that they won’t try).
Look across the country and you can see that this is a necessary evil. I would rather not have the state “recognize” or in any way get involved in marriage... but it is what it is. The other side is getting involved in changing the definition of marriage. This is our push back.
No, of course the homosexualists don’t like this amendment. My point was that this isn’t the opposite of the state regulating or “creating” marriage. It is about the state recognizing the true definition of the marriage, as it usually has, for the nonce. It can easily change if enough folks (or judges) think it should, because that is how the state’s definition is determined. I voted for the amendment in my state and it passed, but only by 57% if I recall, in 2006. The homosexualists do love that the state is involved in the institution because there would be no other way to punish those who don’t buy into ‘gay marriage’ otherwise.
I would hazard that folks only think they can vote on changing the definition of marriage because they have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, instead of their faith. Pope Leo XIII saw this coming 130 years ago.