The concept of “same-sex marriage” is similar to the concept of a “square circle” — both are physical impossibilities. Two people of the same gender have every right to enter into a relationship, involving promises to each other, a formal ceremony, and even with certain legal rights. And the state could grant certain rights and privileges to such a relationship. But to call that relationship a marriage is inaccurate. That is fact, not just an opinion. The unalterable law of life — plant, animal or human — (with few exceptions) is that the union of male and female is required to reproduce life. That is the reality on which marriage is based by the Creator of all life.
Two women or two men currently have the right to enter into a special relationship, with legal protection and possibly some special rights, if they so choose. There is no basis, legal or moral, for them to require that society recognize that relationship as a marriage. To decline to recognize that relationship as a marriage is neither wrong nor discriminatory.
Another reality sheds some significant light on this controversial issue. In states, such as Massachusetts, or countries, such as Sweden, where same-sex “marriage” has been legalized, the number of people availing themselves of that law is worth considering. At first there was a great rush to “get married.” Then two things happened: The numbers getting “married” rapidly declined, and the unions were often of short duration. I am aware of the divorce rate in this country, but that is the fault of the marriage partners, (and to some extent, society itself) not the design of the relationship.
I continue to applaud Senators Gazelka and Limmer for their helpful legislation.
Dwight Johnson
Nisswa
Comments (5)
Add commentWhat about some shellfish
What about some shellfish that change from male to female to male to female during their lives? Did God mess up?
Marriage isn't ONLY for reproductive purposes.
That Gay couples seek to marry is not an attack on marriage. If anything it is an ENDORSEMENT of marriage, an acknowledgment that it far better to encourage couples toward monogamy and commitment, rather than just saying to them, "Sorry, you'll just have to be lonely and miserable for the rest of your life."
Ask any Straight couple why they choose to marry. Their answer will not be, "We want to get married so that we can have sex and make babies!" That would be absurd, since couples do not need to marry to make babies, nor is the ability or even desire to make babies a prerequisite for obtaining a marriage license.
No, the reason couples choose to marry is to make a solemn declaration before friends and family members that they wish to make a commitment to one another's happiness, health, and well-being, to the exclusion of all others. Those friends and family members will subsequently act as a force of encouragement for that couple to hold fast to their vows.
THAT'S what makes marriage a good thing. Gay couples recognize that and support that. And I suspect that those who want to prohibit Gay couples from marrying do so only because they don't want to allow Gay couples the opportunity to PROVE that they are up to the task.
For those who suggest that the issue of marriage is best left up to the states, it's important to remember that the federal government has a vested interest in married couples for the purposes of income taxes and Social Security benefits. From the fed's point of view, it wouldn't do for a couple to be considered married in one state, then magically "UN-married" once they decide to move somewhere else.
The fact remains that the term "marriage" does not occur in the Constitution of the United States. There is technically no "right" for any couple, Gay or Straight, to get married, at least from the federal government’s standpoint. And that is why, ultimately, the Supreme Court will have to address the issue of what constitutes a marriage, much as I'm sure they would prefer NOT to.
Gazelka
How about some helpful Budget legislation from Gazelka? Three days left until they force a special session. And they are wasting time with social issues. The House debated for hours on the Definition of Marriage Amendment while the budget deadline looms. What is with these people? Stay on task, get it done. Special sessions are expensive. I say, if you don't comlete your work on deadline, no per diems. I remember the school district getting a huge fine because they didn't settle their contracts. Maybe we should fine these legislators.
i would like an answer to my question
this goes out to all of you that do not support gay marriage, and please REALLY think about this before answering...
Who exactly is going to get hurt if a homosexual couple get married? Are you going to be pesonally hurt? How about your kids or parents? Your neighbors?
When 2 gays that I do not know get married, it will change me about as much as when Billy Bob and Charlene Otis, whom I do not know, got married in the southern baptist church in flooded Mississippi last weekend.
Agreeing with I_disagree_with_dems is something I do not like
Rather than change the state’s constitution to limit the number of marriages why not remove the marriage language from the constitution completely. PolishBear wrote about monogamy, I_disagree_with_dems wants to know who is going to get hurt, others have written that it is none of our business who sleeps with whom. If there is going to be a separation of church and state, remove it completely. Why should any of us care who sleeps with whom or how many husbands or wives one person has? Why must there be monogamy? If we look at the animal kingdom we see that almost all of the animals procreate with more than one. Why does society look down on the person who is married and has a boyfriend or girlfriend, is it any of our business? Why do people in chatter even bring up the divorce rate, who cares, is it anyone person’s business other than the 2 that entered into that contract? Do we really need “marriage” at all? Why can we not live with who we want, or sleep with who we want? Can we not procreate with who we want or be intimate with who ever we want? Whose business is it if 2 cousins want to have kids, or brother and sister, or mother and son… why should society care?