In 1943, when my parents got married, my mother, who was Lutheran, had to become Catholic and promise to raise her children as Catholic before the priest would agree to marry her and my father.
Then, as now, a church could refuse to marry any couple for whatever reason they saw fit. But when my parents went to the courthouse to get their marriage license, the clerk behind the counter, a representative of the government, could not refuse to grant them a license because he didn’t think they were the right kind of couple to marry.
If my parents had asked a judge to marry them, he would not have been allowed to judge them based on whether he felt they should be able to marry. This is the difference between civil and religious marriage.
This November Minnesotans will vote on an amendment that would limit the freedom to marry. No church can ever be required to marry people they don’t choose to marry, but if the anti-marriage amendment passes, churches that want to marry same sex couples would not be allowed to. This hurtful amendment would impose the beliefs of some as the law for all. If my parents had gotten married by a judge, the church would not have recognized it as a valid marriage, but the government would still have accepted and respected their marriage. The civil aspect of marriage and the religious aspect of marriage are separate, and they should remain separate. Vote no on this hurtful amendment. Vote no and leave our constitution the way it is.
Barb McColgan
Brainerd
Comments (13)
Add commentwould impose the beliefs of some as the law for all
Barb, what if your dad had married one of his old army buddies. Would you feel the same today? Who nose?
Love to all -Steve
Democrat Platform for 2012
Let me see here...the fed announced another batch of crisp dollar bills is being pressed, our credit rating has dropped another point, yet the big issue is if two people of the same sex can be joined as one under the definition of marriage and to vote for an elected official the voter must be able to present an I.D. that they are eligible to vote.
Let's just hope that the same attention will be paid to the current senior class when they need a waiver to graduate from high school because more than half of the graduating class failed to pass national math standards.
Barb, Barb, Barb ...
... your logic isn't.
First, read the proposed amendment:
"Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?"
Second, read one of the last lines in your letter:
"The civil aspect of marriage and the religious aspect of marriage are separate, and they should remain separate."
If the amendment passes churches may still conduct ceremonies wherein same sex couples commit to each other; those unions simply won't be recognized by the state as legal marriages.
Simply put, we welcome people committing their lives to each other; what we do not support is the redefinition of an age old institution.
@ scary
So you consider being married as "slavery"?
Thank you Barb!!!
Your post is the best.
Religion is great, in moderation.
The founding fathers, wisely, chose a
path of dialogue, discussion, and
law.
Paul Gazelka, who is a co-author of the
amendment to limit rights to Minnesota
citizens is a decent and honorable person
I believe.
We are born in the same month (October)
and in the same year (1959), however
I believe we will disagree on this topic.
I believe in equal rights for all citizens,
and not limit rights for citizens.
This amendment as you said, is a limitation.
A document, which is the Minnesota Constitution,
applies to all, and not a restriction to some...
we are now using the MN Constitution to take away rights
MN has hit a sad new low.
Vote NO NO in NOvember and send the country a message.
Taking away rights?
The liberal has finally come full circle...in the beginning marriage was only a "piece of paper." Now that "piece of paper" has a value, those who might disagree are labeled and millions of dollars are raised to seek that "piece of paper." To top it all off, we need waiver for math standards so that the majority of last spring graduation class could earn a high school diploma on time. Go figure...?
Matrimony vs. Marriage
Maybe we need to look at the difference between these words. Is it possible to let marriage be the union of anyone that needs to be together for whatever purpose in the civil sense??
Matrimony by defintion is the act of, the ceremony of, or sacrament of marriage between a man, a woman, and God. Let matrimony stand for what God intended a man and woman to do in His eyes.
"danegan" sez:
"Matrimony by defintion is the act of, the ceremony of, or sacrament of marriage between a man, a woman, and God"
Earth to "danegan": What planet are you on?
There's not a single state in the Union that requires proof of a "belief in God" in order to get a marriage license.
And not all marriages are performed by ministers, rabbis, priests or other men and women of the cloth.
And despite the nearly universal vows to
" love you and honor you all the days of my life."
or
"I take you to be my lawfully wedded(husband/wife), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.
And -- despite the admonition of the priest or minister that "You have declared your consent before the Church. May the Lord in his goodness strengthen your consent and fill you both with his blessings. That God has joined, men must not divide." -- nearly 40 percent of those marriages will end in divorce.