FAQ Number 4. What’s the harm from SSM? “How can Adam and Steve hurt your marriage?”
A: “Who gets harmed? The people of this state who lose our right to define marriage as the union of husband and wife, that’s who. That is just not right.”
A: “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists.”
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”
“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”
====================================================================
I wonder…who gave YOU the RIGHT to define marriage? Marriage has been defined and redefined by various religions and societies throughout history. Since you have abrogated to yourself this right in the present day, maybe you’d like to redefine for Protestants that marriage is a sacrament. Maybe you’d like to tell atheists that since they don’t believe in God, and God instituted marriage, they can no longer be married. Maybe you’d like to make marriage an irrevocable act (no divorce). Gee, being the definer of marriage is a lot of fun.
Unfortunately for you, no one has given you the right to define marriage. What you really want is to force your preferred definition on the rest of us. The history of the evolution of marriage shows that how it is defined in any specific time and place depends on how the people involved
in life together determined it to be. So acceptable forms of marriage have included monogamous, polygamous, and polyandrous structures among others. Polygamy, one man with many wives, is the standard Old Testament vehicle. Even the New Testament is not clear on monogamy, as one qualification to be an elder is to be “the husband of one wife.” Apparently having more than one wife was an option for others. The biblical men most revered, Abraham, Isaac, Solomon, David, were all polygamists. Jesus and the apostle Paul, on the other hand, advised against Christians marrying if at all possible. My point: the form marriage took over the years evolved, changed. The notion that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman is simply false. So we now find ourselves as a society engaged in a broad conversation over how marriage should be defined. Should your preferred definition lose, you cannot consider yourself harmed any more than others who lose arguments.
The logic of your notion that “If courts rule that same-sex marriage is a civil right, then, people like you and me who believe children need moms and dads will be treated like bigots and racists,” eludes me. It certainly does not necessarily follow unless you continue to treat those who enter into same-sex marriage, or who advocate for it on behalf of others as worthy of contempt. Certainly there were bigots who continued to abjure those of different races who married after it became legal. But even those who preferred to marry within their own races, yet were able to treat those in mixed marriages with magnanimity, could not be called racists. I guess whether or not people can remain civil and avoid the appellation of bigot is a choice each person has to make.
Now for a couple of “red herrings.”
“Religious groups like Catholic Charities or the Salvation Army may lose their tax exemptions, or be denied the use of parks and other public facilities, unless they endorse gay marriage."
Both the US Constitution and the constitution of the State of California protect religious institutions and the consciences of individuals from any such act. As the California Supreme Court explained: “Affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”
There is absolutely no legal basis for the claim that churches may lose their tax exemption. This is a red herring and is as calculated to spread fear among fair-minded people as any of Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s infamous, albeit, erroneous charges.
“One thing is for sure: The people of this state will lose our right to keep marriage as the union of a husband and wife. That’s not right.”
Those who wish to practice marriage as only between one man and one woman will be free to do so. No one is interested in taking that right away. The great majority of us who advocate for same-sex marriage are heterosexuals who are so pleased with our marriages to those of the opposite sex that we want to extend the blessing of marriage to all who find their life partners in those of the same sex. To keep this blessing only to ourselves, well, THAT’S not right.
Now for some true observations.
“Public schools will teach young children that two men being intimate are just the same as a husband and wife, even when it comes to raising kids.”
Yes they will, just as they began teaching that parents of two different races can have the same love and care for each other as same-race couples, and even raise their children as well (or not).
I must comment again on another tip-off to the possibility of homophobia with your inference that same-sex intimacy is not the same as opposite sex intimacy. You seem to be, if not disgusted with the idea of same-sex love making, at least inclined to believe it isn’t equivalent/comparable to opposite sex love making. All one has to do is read the love letters and love poetry of the gay community to know this isn’t true. But, of course, one needs to actually want to read them.
“When the idea that children need moms and dads get legally stigmatized as bigotry, the job of parents and faith communities trying to transmit a marriage culture to their kids is going to get a lot harder.”
It’s not the idea that children need moms and dads that creates bigots, it’s the idea that there can be no other good ways to create families that creates bigots. But you are right that you will have a harder time instilling that mindset in their children. Bad ideas generally lose out in the long run. Has the prevailing attitude in the West over the last millennium that marriage is only for one man with one woman kept the Gen Xers and the Millennium Generation from adopting the view that same-sex marriage is okay with them? No. Thankfully, our teachers will make it even harder.
Tomorrow’s FAQ
Number 5. Why do you want to interfere with love?
A: “Love is a great thing. But marriage isn’t just any kind of love; it’s the special love of husband and wife for each other and their children.”
