An Open Letter to My State Senator and Representative

Dear State Senator Geoff Michel and Representative Pat Mazorol,

Your party’s move to put to a statewide vote a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and a woman is unnecessary (we already have a state law on the books that defines marriage as such).  It is also a political ploy, attempting to fire up the conservative base, bringing them to the polls in hopes of defeating Barack Obama.  I hope it backfires on you (and, if today’s poll is correct, it will).

What this amendment campaign will do is flood our state with outside money from groups that thrive on an embittered and polarized electorate.

But, most tragically, it will send a message to my friends (and your constituents) like Rachel, that she is not a valued citizen of our state.  I’d like you to take a moment to read Rachel’s post and reconsider your support of this amendment; Rachel writes,

In more than 515 ways (and more than twice that federally) our marriage is inferior to that of my opposite gender counterparts.I am not asking anyone to bless what Karen and I have. God has, and will continue to do that. What I am asking is for our marriage to not be constitutionally banned. I am asking that the state in which I live and love and have my being to not put my right to ever be married to Karen to a vote.

The proposed amendment protects absolutely no one. It does not create jobs or attract visitors and would be Minnesotans to our state. It does hurt, a lot, being vulnerable, unprotected. I can’t lie and say “please just leave us alone and let us live life as we have it now” because that is not what I want either. I wish it were enough.

It isn’t. I don’t have a gay agenda, I have a love agenda. I have a are-you-kidding-me-I-am-not-a-threat-to-your-marriage-agenda. I believe that by allowing Karen and I equal protection under the law, we can be more beneficial, more productive, more honest members of our community, our society and our world. May it be so.

Read her whole post and answer me this: How is Rachel’s marriage a threat to yours, or to our state?

Sincerely,

Tony Jones

  • Alex

    I keep hearing it said that we don’t need a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as between a man and women (and I agree with this) but after that statement I hear 2 things that completely confuse me:
    1. Because we already have a state law defining marriage as such
    2. Because this writes discrimination into the constitution

    Why is it ok that we have a law defining marriage this way but not an amendment? Isn’t the law discriminatory as well? Why do we say it’s ok to have this law on the books? This reasoning makes no sense to me. Am I missing something?

  • http://tonyj.net Tony Jones

    Yes, Alex, the law is discriminatory.

  • Ivy

    Great letter. Hope people listen. Didn’t know Pat Mazorol was now an elected official, long time Wooddaler.

  • http://emergentpillage.blogspot.com/ audie

    –I am not asking anyone to bless what Karen and I have. God has, and will continue to do that.

    Umm…no, God has not bless this ‘marriage’.

    –I hope it backfires on you

    I hope it succeeds resoundingly.

    –I’d like you to take a moment to read Rachel’s post and reconsider your support of this amendment

    I’d like you to take a moment and read God’s Word, and support this amendment.

  • Charles

    Amending our state constitution to erase firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are a sub-class. To deny them the right to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice is to require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. Equality should not and cannot be applied selectively. Shame on the legislators who authored this fundamentally wrong-headed effort.

    Oh, and to audie:
    My Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, and our Creator blesses same-sex marriages. I don’t know your god.

  • Jim

    Charles, the key phrase in your post is “otherwise qualified.” See, you do believe in certain qualifications for a potential couple. I can’t marry my sister, or that nice girl who happens already to be married. What you are asking is for one of those qualifications (opposite genders), previously agreed upon by the entire history of Christianity, to be dropped. That’s what this debate is about. Not rights or discrimination. It’s about what the qualifications are for marriage. You want to change them, and others (myself included) want to keep them as they have been.

  • Charles

    Jim, of course there are qualifications to marriage, I don’t have any issues with them except for one – gender shouldn’t be one of them! It is discriminatory! You said: “What you are asking is for one of those qualifications (opposite genders), previously agreed upon by the entire history of Christianity, to be dropped.” Are you really sure about the “previously agreed upon by the entire history of Christianity” statement? Really!?!

  • Jim

    Charles, thanks for your reply. Why do you call gender qualifications discriminatory but not consanguinity qualifications, or current marital-status qualifications? Aren’t age qualifications discriminatory? What I’m getting at is that when you start saying who can marry and who can’t, you’re already discriminating between people and situations. The recent push has been to drop a firmly established criteria for marriage.

    And I freely admit to not being a church historian, so I could be wrong about the history of Christianity. When has gender not been an issue in marriage?

  • carla jo

    Alex: one of the issues for those of us in MN who disagree with this bill is that, because there is already a law about same-sex marriage here, this bill seems to be little more than a power grab by the GOP who are using their temporary majority to create a permanent solution to something they believe is a huge social issue. The law can be changed, an amendment will institutionalize this discrimination.
    James: This feels like discrimination because the issue of gender has been singled out as a reason for not allowing a legal marriage. If the GOP wants to take the high moral ground on marriage, perhaps they should start with not allowing divorce, or forbidding an abuser to marry his victim, or not letting anyone with a rape or molestation conviction get married. Gender seems to me to be the least problematic issue in a marriage.

    But the real issue here is that the government in MN is trying to impose a particular religious view on the state. If it happens to be your religious view, then you probably aren’t all that concerned about it. But imagine if those same legislators were all atheists or satanists or radical Muslims and decided they wanted to add constitutional amendments that banned organized religion or forbid the celebration of religious holidays or required women to wear full burquas. Those groups would have all kinds of moral reasons to promote those views. But our system of government is very clear that the law cannot and should not be based on the religious views of the majority, especially when those views limit the freedoms of the minority.

  • Charles

    Jim,

    Most of the following comes from John Eastburn Boswell (American Council of Learned Societies); Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, Random House, June 1994; Prof. John Boswell, was the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department.

    Contrary to myth, Christianity’s concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual.

    Boswell discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the “Office of Same-Sex Union” (10th and 11th century), and the “Order for Uniting Two Men” (11th and 12th century).

    These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiated in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

    Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th centuries, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

    Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, “Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union”, invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to “vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints”. The ceremony concludes: “And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded”.

    Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic “Office of the Same Sex Union”, uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

    Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.

    The Dominican missionary and Prior, Jacques Goar (1601-1653), includes such ceremonies in a printed collection of Greek Orthodox prayer books, “Euchologion Sive Rituale Graecorum Complectens Ritus Et Ordines Divinae Liturgiae” (Paris, 1667).

    And kudos to carla jo for the insightful post.

  • Jim

    carlo jo: But it isn’t the conservatives at all who have singled gender out! That’s what I’m trying to say. Conservatives didn’t wake up one morning and say, “Hey, let’s ban same-sex marriage!” SSM wasn’t an issue, wasn’t a thing, until raised by the liberals. Conservatives are preserving a former qualification, one overwhelmingly accepted until recently. This isn’t a qualification we’re suddenly introducing, but one about as firmly established as they come.

    Charles: I’ve never heard of Boswell before, so your material was illuminating. You’ll forgive me if I’ve unconvinced. I say this for three reasons. First, persons of authority in the church seem to preach the precise opposite. You wouldn’t catch Augustine, Crysostom, Aquinas, Luther, etc. performing such a ceremony. Their authority strikes me as outweighing a few miscellaneous documents.

    Second, I’ve read pretty widely in medieval texts, and never encountered a description of anything remotely resembling what Boswell describes. No same-sex couples among the Canterbury pilgrims, or in Langland’s field of folk. The only descriptions of medieval homosexuality that come to mind are those in Dante’s hell (I’m writing from memory here). Again, the medievals seem to be fairly “of one mind” about this.

    Last and least important, an (admittedly quick) survey of responses to Boswell’s work show his scholarship is not unquestioned. This is surely to be expected on such a controversial issue, much of his argument seems dependent upon his own personal and questionable translations of the documents. I’d need to read them and his interpretations to make sure, naturally. But his (criticized) word alone is insufficient to outweigh the two concerns I’ve raised above.

    Sorry for the length of my reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to dialogue with me. (By the way, I don’t really approve of Minnesota’s amendment. But I do believe we should frame this discussion accurately. It’s about qualifications, not rights.)

  • carla jo

    Jim, maybe you can help me understand why the existing law is insufficient? I mean that as an actual question by the way.

  • carla jo

    Also, I see what you’re getting at with your point about this not being an issue until same-sex couples made it one. I’m not sure I agree with you completely, but I get what you’re saying.

    I wonder, though, if it’s less that it hasn’t been an issue or that it’s that no one has dared to talk about it publicly until recently. I mean, slavery wasn’t an issue anyone really thought much about for most of recorded history–certainly the Bible accepts it as the norm–but it became an issue once slaves started to ask for basic freedoms and they gathered enough “allies” with the social and economic power to help them overcome the majority that had a vested interest in holding to the status quo. No one thought much about the educational rights of black children until black parents started demanding that their children be allowed a free public education on par with the education received by white children. It seems to me–and I am no cultural historian–that most social change comes about after a situation has reached a boiling point. I suppose we can say that something isn’t a problem until someone makes it a problem, but that’s really saying that something wasn’t a problem for me until someone who had been living with that problem for a very long time decided it was time it became my problem, too.

  • Jim

    Ah, carlo jo, I’m glad you posted. I see I was pretty unclear. My idea isn’t “you guys started it, so we must be right,” though I suppose that’s more or less what I ended up saying. What I mean is more along these lines:

    I, and conservatives like me, have a specific idea of what marriage is. Part of this idea is that the participants must be a man and a woman. We didn’t suddenly make this up, we’ve inherited this notion from twenty-centuries of the Christian church (Boswell aside). In fact, the almost universal testimony of human history agrees with us (not on all things, of course. But on heterosexual marriages, pretty much wholesale). Marriage and the family, as it is, has been one of the pillars of civilization.

    Now, many people want to change the historic conception of what marriage is. That’s fine for them, I say. But, as Rachel says in this post, it isn’t enough for them simply to be left alone. Many demand a state (that is, the republic, the “public thing”) to authorize and recognize this change. Those of us who find this sort of change unprecedented, backward, and wholly misunderstanding of marriage and families, naturally resist.

    So here comes the important part. Tony asks “How is this marriage a threat to yours?” Shouldn’t the answer be obvious? Tony and Rachel want to change how the “public thing” defines marriage. I’m part of that republic, and so that includes my marriage (I’m not yet married, but you get the idea). My marriage is changed, in the public eye, from one thing to something wholly different.

    That’s why I’m taking pains to try and get an accurate understanding of how this argument is being framed. Rachel wants us to understand it as “equal protection under the law,” but it isn’t. Her view of marriage and mine are wholly irreconcilable. As Charles said, “I don’t know your god.” The question is whose idea will be authorized by the “public thing.” Rachel’s or mine. There’s no equal protection to be had here, no neutrality.

    That said, I think this amendment is misguided. The answer to misunderstood marriage is the gospel, nor more laws.

  • Charles

    Jim, you said, “I think this amendment is misguided. The answer to misunderstood marriage is the gospel, nor more laws.” (I assume ‘not’ more laws)

    Now we’re getting somewhere. As a reminder, the US Constitution, 14th Amendment states: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ” It’s at this point that we begin the discussion of who gets to decide… Jim, with his gospel-based rationale; or the law of the land. I’m happy that the Constitution also states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ….” and “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Thus separation of church and state.

    So, it isn’t a religious discussion per se, although it always seems to end up there, it’s a fairness issue.

    Jim, as an aside, the God I worship is much, much bigger than any human can imagine or describe. I truly don’t understand the narrow, legalistic god that conservative Christians seem to embrace.

  • carla jo

    Jim, you say,

    “I, and conservatives like me, have a specific idea of what marriage is. Part of this idea is that the participants must be a man and a woman. We didn’t suddenly make this up, we’ve inherited this notion from twenty-centuries of the Christian church (Boswell aside). In fact, the almost universal testimony of human history agrees with us (not on all things, of course. But on heterosexual marriages, pretty much wholesale). Marriage and the family, as it is, has been one of the pillars of civilization.”

    Thank you for clarifying and I really do understand your point. But I don’t know that this necessarily refutes my earlier point. Social progress is, by definition, progressive. It moves us from where we were to someplace new. The examples I gave above about slavery and segregation still bump into what you’re saying here. Just because human beings have done something for all of history doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

    All of that aside, however, I agree with your assessment of this bill and hope that more political conservatives can see the misguided effort behind it and contact their representatives.

  • Jim

    Charles: What I’m saying is that privileges are only being denied here after a redefinition of the term marriage. An analogy may help. Suppose I punch my friend in the face, and he presses charges. My defense is, “But if you convict me, you’ll be denying my right to free speech. Punching is a form of speech.” The court would throw such an argument out, because when people say speech, they don’t mean punching. Speech has never meant punching. It is in no way part of the definition of the word.

    Likewise in this marriage deal. Rights are only being denied if long-term, same-sex relationships count as marriage. But I’m saying that marriage has never meant such a thing. Same sex unions are no more marriage than punching is speech. No one has ever considered punching speech, and no one has ever considered same sex unions marriage. It just isn’t what’s meant by the word. In order for it to become a matter of equal protection, the definition must first be changed. That’s what the fight is about. It’s about the nature and definition of marriage, not whether said definition will be equally applied.

    carla jo – I’m glad we understand one another, and I’m glad we agree about the law. I think where we would disagree is about social progress. Though I agree there are serious ills in our society that must be remedied, civilization is very fragile, and we need to be careful how we go. Wholesale changes to what I’ve called “pillars of civilization” must be done with extreme caution, unquestionable grounds, and overwhelming consent. This radical change to marriage has none of those, but is being forced upon a generally reluctant (though changing) populace through the judicial system. Can you blame conservatives for panicking and taking extreme measures?

    I don’t mean to say nothing can ever change. But a wrong step here could cause untold misery When we’re tampering with something so close to the root of our existence as marriage, we need, as a nation, to be absolutely sure of what we are doing. There is no such national certainty. How can imposing such a change upon our civilization without, as I said before, extreme caution, unquestionable grounds, and overwhelming consent possibly be justified?

    (Again, sorry for the length, and thanks again for be willing to talk with me. It’s fun, and I’m learning things from you guys. You’re both smart and courteous. Thanks!)

  • Charles

    Jim,
    “Same sex unions are no more marriage than punching is speech. No one has ever considered punching speech, and no one has ever considered same sex unions marriage.”
    Five states, plus DC, recognize same-sex unions as marriage; Massachusetts (2004), Connecticut (2008), Iowa (2009), Vermont (2009), New Hampshire (2010), Washington, D.C. (2010) (not a state). Thus, your statement is not correct.
    It seems fear of change is controlling your thinking here, maybe not, but it seems that way to me. As a progressive, both politically, socially, and religiously, I fully embrace change with confidence and faith in my fellow human beings.
    Here’s a link that some may find interesting; it’s filed under politics but has broad appeal, I think. Some may see it as off-topic.
    http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/denial-science-chris-mooney?page=1

  • carla jo

    Thanks Jim–I’m learning from you as well. I’m intrigued by your statement that “civilization is very fragile, and we need to be careful how we go. Wholesale changes to what I’ve called “pillars of civilization” must be done with extreme caution, unquestionable grounds, and overwhelming consent.” I think it might account for some of the differences in our perspective on this issue.

    I think of civilization as robust and agile, not fragile. I get what you’re saying and I can see how that makes sense. I guess I just look at the ways in which humanity and the systems we have created throughout the ages seem to rise and fall and rise again with a certain degree of regularity. In spite of wars and dictatorships and genocide and power grabs and evil intent, we tend to find our way back to goodness and try to do better than what came before. And for the most part, we seem to do just that.

    Also, to me, the idea that marriage is a pillar of a civilized society seems a fair argument for allowing those who wish to enter that state the right to do so.

  • Jim

    Charles and carla jo- I do think we’ve gotten down to the essential difference. I am not afraid of change but I’m suspicious of it, and think any healthy-minded person ought to be. I do think civilization fragile. Perhaps its my training as a medievalist. Did you know there was a period after the fall of Rome when the west forgot how to make books? They completely lost the art, and literacy dropped below one percent. It took generations of painstaking work to recover the craft. carla jo might take this as an example of how robust civilization is, bouncing right back. But several generations suffered on account of one forgetting the important arts of the past. Cultural preservation is an enormously important task.

    History takes my side in this. Radical change of institutions near the heart of the civilized West leads, pretty much without exception, to bloodshed and tyranny. I call upon the French revolution as witness, and the Russian revolution. Should I gesture at China as well? I’m not against change, but it must come slowly, almost unanimously, and grounded on old, trustworthy, principles to avoid the sort of horrible mistakes of the past.

    So yes, Charles, though I am not afraid of change as such (change is, in fact, necessary), I am afraid of the sort of change you advocate. I know where it leads. History gives no grounds for your confidence.

    (By the way, I read the article you recommended. Very interesting, but they could have saved some time by reading Aristotle and learning that in persuasion, pathos and ethos are as important as logos)

  • Charles

    Jim, I’m stunned to hear you say acceptance of gay marriage would lead to “bloodshed and tyranny!” I’m missing something here.

    (“…change of institutions near the heart of the civilized West leads, pretty much without exception, to bloodshed and tyranny.” “I am afraid of the sort of change you advocate.”)

  • Caohmin

    I hope nobody minds my jumping in here – the conversation is interesting and civil.

    Jim, reading your comments has made me curious, I have a few questions – perhaps you might be willing to answer them.
    You seem to be arguing that there is no difference between civil and religious marriage – only religious marriage is legally relevant. I guess that falls under my first question, but I’ll leave it stand.
    The US stands apart from most European countries in that there is no legal concept for “civil union”, a device which arose out of the endless religious wars in Europe. This instrument permitted the Catholic church to maintain her position on who was and who was expressly not married in her eyes. At the same time, legal and social aspects of marriage were preserved.
    I take it that you reject this, completely?
    Do you grant any authority to those Christians (and their churches) which have come to different conclusions than you (and, I induce) your Church has?
    It strikes me that you are arguing for a single, state religion in the US. Is that right?

    I lack your knowledge of the medieval periods. I have, however, read in various sources that anything resembling today’s concept of church marriage in that period was a ceremony which was strictly reserved to nobility, landed gentry and those lower orders who had enough money for the Church to see clear grounds to marry them.

    Everyone else had to make do with a common law marriage.

    Perhaps that was more than a few questions!

  • Jim

    Charles – I’m not trying to say anything so crude as “Today, gay marriage, tomorrow tyranny, bloodshed, and the end of the world!” But decisions have consequences, often multigenerational consequences. Decisions that radically and quickly change hugely significant (I want to say foundational) cultural institutions tend to have very negative consequences. For many generations. And the fact is that these consequences are, for the most part, unforeseen. Removing the French king? How could that cause tyranny? Yet it did, and worse than what came before. I don’t know what the consequences of gay marriage will be, and neither do you. That’s the idea.

    My point is that changes like this need to be undertaken with great circumspection and trepidation, with a profound respect and understanding for the institutions of the past, and with near universal consent. The consequences are just too great for anything else.

    Caohmin – Hi! Great questions, and too great for me, I’m afraid. My mind on many of these matters is not made up. I certainly do not want any sort of state church, that would be about the worst idea I can imagine. But state governments are in the awkward position of endorsing one of two incompatible views of marriage. There’s no neutral position for them to take. I think ideally, for me, they ought to gracefully back out of marriage altogether. Wash their hands of the whole thing. But that’s wishful thinking (and possibly a pretty wretched option in its own right).

    What I am certainly opposed to is the imposition (especially at the judicial level) of a novel view of marriage upon the state and its people. That would be a reckless, foolish decision, and one not likely to lead to anything good, if history is correct.

    Interesting question about medieval marriage. I really don’t know. The “middle-ages” lasted for a thousand years on a whole continent, to there’s a great deal of variation. The Wife of Bath had “Husbands at the Church-door five” and at least one of them was poor, so that’s something, I suppose. I’ve also read that many, even upper-class, marriages took place in the home, rather than at church. So it’s pretty tough to generalize over the whole period.

  • Caohmin

    Jim,
    Thank you – entering an ongoing discussion is always difficult.
    I don’t think my questions are beyond you by any means. They may be poorly worded, or not relevant but certainly not beyond someone who has already demonstrated such deep thought.

    I do agree with you that it is unrealistic to expect the government to withdraw from the legal institution of marriage. Too many solutions to economic and legal questions would be reopened.

    What puzzles me is your concept of “novel”. I hope you’ll forgive me for approaching this through further questions – if they don’t suit a common flow of dialogue this time, I’ll try to find a better means.

    First – what time period is acceptable and how do we experiment?
    Second – does it matter at all that science and medicine have clearly established that homosexuality is immutable and in no way harmful?
    Third – on what basis does a civil government – and we both reject a theocratic government – justify discrimination against a class of people when there is no medical or scientific or constitutional basis for doing so?

    Hmm, one other approach occurs to me – perhaps inadequate, but I’ll give it a try. You are deeply – and rightly so – concerned the effect of treating gays as fully equal human beings, entitled to full civil rights will result in – for lack of a better word – a moral weakening of society. We do have several countries and US states which have had some level of full civil and human rights for gays now for some time. Many have had either marriage, civil unions, partnerships – however one chooses to call them for quite some time.
    We also have studies going back three generations on children adopted and raised by gay couples.

    This is, I think, at least a base line upon which we can draw at least some conclusions. All of these countries and all five of those US states have some things in common.
    They all have lower abortion rates than the American norm – far lower if we only compare the non-US entities.
    They all have lower (enormously so if we leave the five US states out) rates of newborn and early childhood death – the mortality rate is distressingly high in the US by comparison.
    They all – including those five US states – have lower heterosexual divorce rates than those US states which do not grant gays human and civil rights.
    Those countries – and to the extent any information is available – those five US states all have considerably lower divorce rates for gay married couples than for heterosexual couples.
    Those children raised by gay couples in every study (except those conducted by anti-gay Christians) all turn out to be equally happy, equally heterosexual, equally inclined to marry heterosexually and have children as their individual culture predicts for children raised by heterosexual parents.
    These children raised by gay parents do have a slight, but clear advantage in terms of higher education and earning potential, as well as a significantly lower rate of physical and sexual abuse and homelessness.

    Are these observations relevant, at all?

    Would you apply the same limitation towards equal rights for say, black people as for gays?

    Oh, I’m back to questions again.

  • Charles

    Jim, I’m still curious as to the “this need to be undertaken with great circumspection and trepidation” portion of your position. The overwhelming evidence within countries and states that have adopted an equality position on same-sex marriage is that there is no need to worry. Nothing nefarious has happened socially, morally, or any other norm that I can find. When will you have enough evidence to accept the notion of human equality? Ever? Or, is your position really a Biblical based one? We can move the discussion to there if you wish…

    Caohmin, Great questions!

  • John Edmond

    Tony, same-sex “marriage” will hurt people. By looking at homosexual sex as normal sexual behavior, you have no basis to say any kind of consenting sex is acceptable. There is no defense against groups of people wanting “marriage” recognition.
    Acceptance of the gay position on marriage will lead to more divorce within culture. More single mothers. A larger segment of society within poverty that need not be otherwise. People not getting medical help that they would have otherwise been able to afford. An increase in social stress. Increase in social Psychological problems. A decrease in the education level predominantly among women. Weaker financial structures for individuals. Increase in abuses because of dysfunctional social orders. I can keep going, but you get the point.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X