There Are Hundreds Of Reasons To Support The MN Marriage Amendment

By: Curtis Ophoven 0 Comments   6/29/2012

In November, MN voters will get a chance to vote on a constitutional marriage amendment to protect marriage from being redefined by activist judges like what has happen in several other states.

The MN Marriage Amendments is not an attack on those that want to redefine marriage, but it is a response to their attacks on the current MN marriage law. 

In the last few years there have been several legal cases filed against the current MN marriage laws, which define marriage as its natural definition. 

These cases are the reason why the MN marriage amendment is so important. If just one of them is ruled on by an activist judge, they could rule against the current MN marriage laws and redefine marriage for everyone without anyone's opinion.

The ramifications may not appear to change anything initially, but as time goes on they would be devastating and have far reaching consequences for all aspects of society just as other nations like Canada who redefined marriage in 2005 have begun to realize. (Churches forced to marriage same-sex couples, 300+ lawsuits against organizations and individuals, loss of many freedoms like speech, parential rights, education rights, etc.)

A few weeks ago, the opinion page editor of the St Cloud Times Randy Krebs wrote an article about his opposition to the MN marriage amendment.  They are likely trying to capture the conversation about this hot topic as we head towards the Nov. election. 

Randy's article is the perfect example of how the media uses its gift of communication to mislead and misdirect people away from the truth about marriage. 

Opening Remarks

To begin with, Randy tried to re-frame marriage as something that it is not while making it sound reasonable at first glance.

“I see marriage arising because two consenting adults want to show their love and commitment for each other”

There are a lot of false assumptions in this sentence. 

First of all marriage isn’t something that is just “arising” like a new idea that was recently discovered.  The idea of marriage has been around from the beginning of humanity, as the natural union of the sexes.  The government didn’t create marriage by giving a marriage license.  The government simply acknowledges marriage as the natural union of the sexes. 

The second thing wrong with this opening statement is that “two consenting adults” does not make a marriage.  The union of one male and one female is the definition of marriage by nature.  No animal in the world forms same-sex unions, it is against nature.  If marriage was something other then the union of two of the opposite sexes, than why would it be limited to two of the same-sex?  Once you redefine marriage to something other than its natural definition, there are no reasonable arguments to say that marriage should be limited by the number or sex of those being united. 

And if marriage is not limited by anything, then there is nothing special about it and therefore no use getting married. This is what several nations have already observed, a drastic decline in marriage, which results in a further breakdown of the family and the economy.

The third part of this statement that is wrong suggests that marriage is simply to “show their love and commitment to each other”.  Marriage is much more than that, because by natural definition it has the potential to produce children.  By which marriage becomes more than the love and commitment of two people, but that love and commitment is extended to the children that are produced.  Children are our only future and so it is always our best interest to provide the most idea union with their biological parents.  Trying to down play or completely discard this vital component of marriage shows complete irresponsibility for our future, our neighbors, our families, our communities, our cities and our nation.

It is amazing that all of these false ideas are contained in just the opening statement.  

The article went on to list the four phases of those that support the MN marriage amendment and tried to show that they were ridiculous.  The point of the article was to say that pro-marriage supporters use the same strategy again and again, and therefore their arguments that show redefining marriage would be bad for society are somehow not true.

I won’t discuss the four phases, perhaps another time, other than to say that four is not enough.  There are hundreds of sound arguments that pro-marriage supporters have to stand on.

Closing Remarks

Randy closed the article with this statement;

“So now you know what to look for in the next four months as marriage amendment proponents make their case. Will they offer up independent thinking and Minnesota common sense? Or will they follow a script written to be applied in any state and ultimately designed to forever ingrain discrimination in Minnesota’s most important public document?”

First of all, the independent thinking and MN common sense is the reason we have the amendment in the first place.  This statement is clearly trying to say that the reasonable and responsible arguments for marriage are somehow not intellectual and that those opposing the MN marriage amendment are the intellectual thinkers of the day. 

This is outrageous. Randy is saying that those that believe in the marriage of their parents and grandparents are fools, while those that are against natural marriage are the ‘intellects’. Name calling is not an intellectual argument. There are no arguments that are greater then the thousands of benefits that natural marriage has on society.

Perhaps the words "independent thinking" was used to attract people from the large number of Minnesotans that prefer to be called "independent".  But it’s not going to work, because true independent thinkers see through this pitch to think like the group.

The third sentence begins with, “or will they follow a script written to be applied in any state”.  The definition of marriage is not only the same in every state but in every nation in the world.  It is not something that changes with the wind or the culture. Therefore the arguments in defense of marriage are likely to remain constant around the world.  This is not an argument against marriage, but an argument for the intrinsic and unchangeable definition of marriage. 

On the other hand, if you look at the arguments against marriage, they are constantly changing from state to state as they desperately look for a way to twist the meaning of words and phrases that best draw people away from the truth.  The constant changing of strategies and statements is evidence that they do not have sound arguments.

And lastly, the statement “designed to forever ingrain discrimination in Minnesota’s most important public document” is clearly designed to scare people into thinking that if they support marriage they are discriminating against other people.   

Scaring people into thinking they are discriminating against other people is perhaps one of the most successful means the opposition has used, which is why it is one of the few statements they use over and over in each state.

But if you think about it, laws do not discriminated against people but against what they do.  If natural marriage was discrimination, then nature is the true discriminator and no laws will change nature.  All laws discriminate against something, but supporting a law does not make you a 'discriminator’.  Why fall for this scare tactic?  A marriage license is not a fishing license.  Why be afraid to defend marriage, the foundation of society from the beginning of time? 

Marriage is precious and worth protecting.

Praying For MN

I truly feel sorry for Randy and the Times for getting so confused about the importance of marriage.  It is a slippery slope that all starts when you start to doubt something that you know is true and then start believing in something that is not.  The way they re-word things sounds so good, how could you be against it? 

You don’t want to be called names, like a bigot or a discriminator, so you begin to believe the twisted statements and redefined words that they use to re-frame the argument and before you know it you are campaigning with the devil himself. 

The Central MN Christian community will be praying for Randy and the Times for they don’t realize that they are standing in quicksand.

DelightMedia.com


Current Catalog

Reader Comments

Be the first to leave a comment!
Write a Comment

Please keep comments civil and on-topic. Abusive or inappropriate comments will be removed without warning.

 Name (required)   
 Email Address (required)   
 Website URL 
Comment  
The Meaning of Marriage: Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God

The meaning of marriage is misunderstood in todays modern culture. This coupled with insightful commentary from his wife of thirty-six years, Kathy, Timothy Keller shows that God created marriage to bring us closer to him and to bring us more joy in our lives. It is a glorious relationship that is also the most misunderstood and mysterious. With a clear-eyed understanding of the Bible, and meaningful instruction on how to have a successful marriage, The Meaning of Marriage is essential reading for anyone who wants to know God and love more deeply in this life.

The Ring Makes All the Difference: The Hidden Consequences of Cohabitation and the Strong Benefits of Marriage

How can young couples determine if moving in together is a wise move? With more than half of American young adults cohabitating sometime in their adult lives, pastors and counselors need to be prepared to advise young adults with factual and scriptural truth. With credible data and compassion, Stanton explores the reasons why the cohabitation trend is growing; outlines its negative outcomes for men, women and children; and makes a case for why marriage is still the best arrangement for the flourishing of couples and society.

Marriage Under Fire

For the past forty years, the radical homosexual activist movement has sought to implement a master plan to utterly destroy the family. Dr. Dobson addresses the dire ramifications of judicial activism and presents compelling arguments against the legalization of homosexual unions. This book tells the hidden truths about the damage our nation will suffer if the family unit is further deteriorated.

The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially

Marriage is a public health issue: being single can take almost 10 years off a man's life. The authors combat every negative myth regarding marriage--that it imprisons women or provides the context for abuse--with statistics showing its benefits: married people live longer, are healthier, have greater wealth and happiness, have sex more often, and provide a healthier, happier environment in which to raise children. The authors debunk many myths about marriage and explain the how and why for these results by translating social science theories into layman’s terms. The conclusion is that it is in our best interest to strengthen and uphold marriage and uphold the laws that work to strengthen it.