Why we must defend the moral order
By Tom Rasmussen - Your turn - 07/10/08
This is written in response to a recent front page IR article about two women from Montana who were to be married in California following that state’s Supreme Court decision striking down a law banning same-sex marriage.
Some would support this action and argue that two people who love each other should be able to make their union legal and that the concept of freedom and justice for all should prevail.
However, the issue is immeasurably deeper than that. If this court verdict stands and then spreads to other states, it will destroy a moral order that has stood throughout recorded history. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system since antiquity has ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
The institution of marriage is the basic building block of society, and is the means by which we produce children that will be the next generation. The future of the human race depends on this relationship. Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage.
If marriage crumbled, the practical implications to society would be enormous, and in ways we could not even foresee at present. If “love”, “commitment” and “fairness” became the only criteria, it would become impossible to exclude any “marriage” between two or more partners of either sex. There would be nothing stopping polygamy, three men, one man and two women, etc., etc., getting married.
Further outcomes would in all probability be that textbooks would not be allowed to describe marriage in male/female ways alone. Little girls would be asked if they want one day to marry a man or a woman. The sexual confusion that would be created among young people is not fully measurable and is scary even to consider. Our language would change. Ordinary words like “husband” and “wife” would disappear, to be replaced by “partner” and “spouse”. Marriage preparation and sex education classes in the public schools would have to include instruction on homosexual sex. Parents who complained would be branded as homophobes and their children would suffer.
Any advocacy of man/woman marriage would be regarded morally as hate speech and shortly thereafter it would be deemed so in law. Traditional Christianity, which has provided the underpinnings of our nation’s value system and government, and indeed that of Western civilization, would be marginalized.
In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that Christianity along with all major religions, clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. This is not something that is just open to interpretation. One reference in the New Testament. I Corinthians 6:9-10, groups homosexual behavior with idolatry, thievery, drunkenness and adultery, among other weaknesses. This is not to say that homosexual people themselves are evil, but the actual behavior is evil in God’s eyes.
Trying to explain this away in the name of tolerance, human dignity, or the fact that a tiny segment of the church community has chosen to ignore this part of Christian teaching, does not change what the Bible says.
That being said, the fact is that we are all sinners. The central message of the Gospel is that God loves us so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins. Through this, we are given the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life. What a wonderful gift this is.
However, Jesus’ message was very clear, that we must repent and turn away from our sins and accept this free gift. If we continue in our previous behavior pattern of drunkenness, adultery, etc., it means we have made the choice to not accept God’s gift.
Concerning homosexuality, thousands of people have made the decision to step away from it, and this most often happens through the experience of accepting Christ as Savior. This obviously undercuts the arguments that homosexuality is inborn and genetic.
Certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding. They should not be discriminated against or have to experience bigoted behavior against them. They have every right in our culture to continue in their behavior if they choose to.
We must not, however, let a false sense of “fairness”, “tolerance”, or “non-discrimination” undercut a foundational part of the fabric of our culture. The price to society and succeeding generations would be too great.
Tom Rasmussen of Helena is a former member of both the Montana House of Representatives and the Senate.
Some would support this action and argue that two people who love each other should be able to make their union legal and that the concept of freedom and justice for all should prevail.
However, the issue is immeasurably deeper than that. If this court verdict stands and then spreads to other states, it will destroy a moral order that has stood throughout recorded history. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system since antiquity has ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.
The institution of marriage is the basic building block of society, and is the means by which we produce children that will be the next generation. The future of the human race depends on this relationship. Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage.
If marriage crumbled, the practical implications to society would be enormous, and in ways we could not even foresee at present. If “love”, “commitment” and “fairness” became the only criteria, it would become impossible to exclude any “marriage” between two or more partners of either sex. There would be nothing stopping polygamy, three men, one man and two women, etc., etc., getting married.
Further outcomes would in all probability be that textbooks would not be allowed to describe marriage in male/female ways alone. Little girls would be asked if they want one day to marry a man or a woman. The sexual confusion that would be created among young people is not fully measurable and is scary even to consider. Our language would change. Ordinary words like “husband” and “wife” would disappear, to be replaced by “partner” and “spouse”. Marriage preparation and sex education classes in the public schools would have to include instruction on homosexual sex. Parents who complained would be branded as homophobes and their children would suffer.
Any advocacy of man/woman marriage would be regarded morally as hate speech and shortly thereafter it would be deemed so in law. Traditional Christianity, which has provided the underpinnings of our nation’s value system and government, and indeed that of Western civilization, would be marginalized.
In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that Christianity along with all major religions, clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. This is not something that is just open to interpretation. One reference in the New Testament. I Corinthians 6:9-10, groups homosexual behavior with idolatry, thievery, drunkenness and adultery, among other weaknesses. This is not to say that homosexual people themselves are evil, but the actual behavior is evil in God’s eyes.
Trying to explain this away in the name of tolerance, human dignity, or the fact that a tiny segment of the church community has chosen to ignore this part of Christian teaching, does not change what the Bible says.
That being said, the fact is that we are all sinners. The central message of the Gospel is that God loves us so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins. Through this, we are given the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life. What a wonderful gift this is.
However, Jesus’ message was very clear, that we must repent and turn away from our sins and accept this free gift. If we continue in our previous behavior pattern of drunkenness, adultery, etc., it means we have made the choice to not accept God’s gift.
Concerning homosexuality, thousands of people have made the decision to step away from it, and this most often happens through the experience of accepting Christ as Savior. This obviously undercuts the arguments that homosexuality is inborn and genetic.
Certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding. They should not be discriminated against or have to experience bigoted behavior against them. They have every right in our culture to continue in their behavior if they choose to.
We must not, however, let a false sense of “fairness”, “tolerance”, or “non-discrimination” undercut a foundational part of the fabric of our culture. The price to society and succeeding generations would be too great.
Tom Rasmussen of Helena is a former member of both the Montana House of Representatives and the Senate.
Current rating: 3.1 with 158 ratings.
Click here to register
Reader Comments:
SouthPaw wrote on Jul 21, 2008 7:14 PM:
" I realize I am weighing in a little late on this topic. I know that I am not going to change anyone's mind on this subject but I am so tired of hearing how the "in-your-face" gays must be stopped. I am gay. I live in Helena with my partner. I don't have an agenda nor do I go door to door handing out pamphlets on the benefits of my "immoral" lifestyle. I have to believe that most Helenans are not like MTRich, Purple, mark 1228 or barest. My experience living in Helena has been very positive. My neighbors and co-workers don't seem to think I am destroying the moral order by working my job, paying my taxes and being a responsible citizen. Just because most serial killers, murderers, and wife beaters are straight does not lead me to believe that this fringe element is representative of the population as a whole. Yet, every time the gay issue is brought up, you would think that the entire gay community consists of degenerates who parade through the streets in leather or flannel demanding special rights and seeking out converts. How is it that living in a committed relationship with one person is a greater sin (according to the righteous MtRich, Purple and barest) than some straight murderous pedophile? If even one sin separates one from God, then you cannot rate my "sin" as more egregious than a white lie you tell to your husband or wife. I am certain that the gay haters would be quite happy to see me struggle through life alone for the glory of God. I refuse to have morality dictated to me by a few narrow minded bigots who more than likely will never live up to the standards they demand from everyone else. I know that the few above mentioned commentators do not represent the general population of Helena or Montana. Thanks to OneAngryAnt, Adam, gun, clancyroot, mykids, diazo, al and the rest of you for your stand on such a complex and divisive issue. It certainly gives me hope for the future. Maybe someday soon I will be able to share in the benefits (and misery, as some of you have stated) of marriage as everyone else. "
OneAngryAnt wrote on Jul 14, 2008 3:23 PM:
" I know for a fact that the Armed Services uses the term spouse, bigger companies do too, never knew it was a bad term to call your wife/husband. I guess the thing that bugs me about all this is, don't you people have enouph problems in your own bedrooms, without conserning yourselves with what goes on in others? "
Adam Laceky wrote on Jul 11, 2008 12:18 AM:
" gun--
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've been trying to use logic against the right-wing for some years now, and I have concluded that assimilation is futile. ;-)
The best we can do is to expose neo-cons as the un-American fanatics they are, so that less seasoned readers will take a second look, and, we hope, a second thought.
Neo-cons are a lost cause. Just fight the good fight, and hope our words will prevent others from falling for their lies.
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one of them."
--Friedrich Nietzsche "
Thanks for the words of encouragement. I've been trying to use logic against the right-wing for some years now, and I have concluded that assimilation is futile. ;-)
The best we can do is to expose neo-cons as the un-American fanatics they are, so that less seasoned readers will take a second look, and, we hope, a second thought.
Neo-cons are a lost cause. Just fight the good fight, and hope our words will prevent others from falling for their lies.
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one of them."
--Friedrich Nietzsche "
gun961960 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:14 PM:
" So mark1228 are you suggesting that I go out and stone my son to death, he can be a hand full? You are disturbing!! "
mark1228 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:11 PM:
" Gee gun, I had you all wrong! You do have a Bible. You should get it out and read it more often. There just may be hope for you yet! "
gun wrote on Jul 10, 2008 5:21 PM:
" Adam...I am with ya...I had no idea where to start, have had some time to mull it over and wanted to add a few more comments :) Can't help myself LOL
rambler - Who is we? I thought religion was voluntary... you know... a choice one makes for themselves. You sound like "we" means all of America.
mark1228 - I knew you would jump right on this bandwagon...this is right up your alley, in fact you probably wrote this garbage. I do feel sick about this article but obviously not for the reasons you think!!
Your right Adam....the Bible is full of crazy statements For example, in Exodus 35:2 God lays down this commandment:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Ummm that is a lot of people that would have to die!! Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
Wow...so this isn't craziness??
And one more that pertains to this article: Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
What about this:
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
It took me two seconds to google and find this stuff. And you wonder why "rambler" we customize Jesus' so called teachings....becuase if you believe like mark1228 does that you believe everything in the Bible or nothing at all, we would have to build a lot more prisons as it appears that some of his teachings are now illegal. Sorry!!
Also Mr. Rasmussen were you aware of the half a million or so children in this country who are in foster care who desperately need loving homes to live in? Have you heard of modern science where female reproduction is making medical miracles everyday....ie...you no longer really need the man himself to conceive, just his sperm. A lot of heterosexual couples utilize this science as well. So I don't think the future of the human race would be in quite as much trouble as you would like us to be brainwashed to believe. And FYI sir...the heterosexuals aren't quite doing a bang up job of protecting the "santity" of marriage...I believe the divorce rate is well above 50%. I'll tell ya I have a 6 yr old boy and a 5 yr old daughter who know lesbian friends of mine and they dont seem to be too bothered by it...and I would have no problem asking them if they want to marry a boy or a girl. "
rambler - Who is we? I thought religion was voluntary... you know... a choice one makes for themselves. You sound like "we" means all of America.
mark1228 - I knew you would jump right on this bandwagon...this is right up your alley, in fact you probably wrote this garbage. I do feel sick about this article but obviously not for the reasons you think!!
Your right Adam....the Bible is full of crazy statements For example, in Exodus 35:2 God lays down this commandment:
For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Ummm that is a lot of people that would have to die!! Then look at Deut 21:18-21. It says:
If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. They shall say to the elders of his town, This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.
Wow...so this isn't craziness??
And one more that pertains to this article: Leviticus 20:13:
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.
What about this:
If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.
It took me two seconds to google and find this stuff. And you wonder why "rambler" we customize Jesus' so called teachings....becuase if you believe like mark1228 does that you believe everything in the Bible or nothing at all, we would have to build a lot more prisons as it appears that some of his teachings are now illegal. Sorry!!
Also Mr. Rasmussen were you aware of the half a million or so children in this country who are in foster care who desperately need loving homes to live in? Have you heard of modern science where female reproduction is making medical miracles everyday....ie...you no longer really need the man himself to conceive, just his sperm. A lot of heterosexual couples utilize this science as well. So I don't think the future of the human race would be in quite as much trouble as you would like us to be brainwashed to believe. And FYI sir...the heterosexuals aren't quite doing a bang up job of protecting the "santity" of marriage...I believe the divorce rate is well above 50%. I'll tell ya I have a 6 yr old boy and a 5 yr old daughter who know lesbian friends of mine and they dont seem to be too bothered by it...and I would have no problem asking them if they want to marry a boy or a girl. "
Adam Laceky wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:08 PM:
" Correction to my last post: Advocacy of same-race marriage has never been regarded as hate speech. "
Adam Laceky wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:01 PM:
" Good Lord, where to begin?
Mr. Rasmussen seems to have failed to grasp what is meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Or maybe he just dislikes the 1st Amendment.
This one cracked me up: "Any advocacy of man/woman marriage would be regarded morally as hate speech and shortly thereafter it would be deemed so in law."
America once had laws against miscegeny. Advocacy of interracial marriage has never been regarded as hate speech.
Mr. Rasmussen says: "Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage." Does that mean that sterile heterosexuals should be forbidden to marry? Mr. Rasmussen's argument appears to advocate compusary, state-mandated child-bearing.
And finally, for our pal "purple": Equating bestiality and child rape with a loving relationship between two consenting adults, is the nadir of willful stupidity. "
Mr. Rasmussen seems to have failed to grasp what is meant by "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." Or maybe he just dislikes the 1st Amendment.
This one cracked me up: "Any advocacy of man/woman marriage would be regarded morally as hate speech and shortly thereafter it would be deemed so in law."
America once had laws against miscegeny. Advocacy of interracial marriage has never been regarded as hate speech.
Mr. Rasmussen says: "Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage." Does that mean that sterile heterosexuals should be forbidden to marry? Mr. Rasmussen's argument appears to advocate compusary, state-mandated child-bearing.
And finally, for our pal "purple": Equating bestiality and child rape with a loving relationship between two consenting adults, is the nadir of willful stupidity. "
clancycoot wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:48 PM:
" Counter Points and Questions
1. 'destroy a moral order that has stood throughout recorded history'?
It was not until 1563 a sanctified marriage ceremony was required by the Catholic Church. Should we only allow Christians get married and the rest of us civil unions?
2. Destroy a moral order?
That is what was said about letting women vote or even wear pants for that matter.
3. need to be married to produce children'?
I think you meant raise children. Should we make widows remarry?
4.'There would be nothing stopping polygamy, three men, one man and two women, etc., etc., getting married?'
That is an interesting point.
5. Sex education
Should be renamed Human Reproductive Education. Leave out recreational sex.
6.'homosexuality is wrong. This is not something that is just open to interpretation'
You forgot to mention the bible also says both men should be put to death. No one disagrees what is written in the bible, but all Americans are protected by the bill of rights and by the rule of law not the 10 commandments. This is a secular nation not sectarian one like Iran.
7. 'the fact is that we are all sinners'
Please speak for yourself.
8. 'we must repent and turn away from our sins'
You should have been a preacher not a politician. You can believe anything you want; its your 1st amendment right. It almost sounds like we as a nation should repent. I thought it was a personal choice?
It seems some Americans forget that each citizen has the freedom of conscious and the right to decide for themselves how they will behave. Everyone makes bad decisions, but then they are solely responsible for those decisions. "
1. 'destroy a moral order that has stood throughout recorded history'?
It was not until 1563 a sanctified marriage ceremony was required by the Catholic Church. Should we only allow Christians get married and the rest of us civil unions?
2. Destroy a moral order?
That is what was said about letting women vote or even wear pants for that matter.
3. need to be married to produce children'?
I think you meant raise children. Should we make widows remarry?
4.'There would be nothing stopping polygamy, three men, one man and two women, etc., etc., getting married?'
That is an interesting point.
5. Sex education
Should be renamed Human Reproductive Education. Leave out recreational sex.
6.'homosexuality is wrong. This is not something that is just open to interpretation'
You forgot to mention the bible also says both men should be put to death. No one disagrees what is written in the bible, but all Americans are protected by the bill of rights and by the rule of law not the 10 commandments. This is a secular nation not sectarian one like Iran.
7. 'the fact is that we are all sinners'
Please speak for yourself.
8. 'we must repent and turn away from our sins'
You should have been a preacher not a politician. You can believe anything you want; its your 1st amendment right. It almost sounds like we as a nation should repent. I thought it was a personal choice?
It seems some Americans forget that each citizen has the freedom of conscious and the right to decide for themselves how they will behave. Everyone makes bad decisions, but then they are solely responsible for those decisions. "
mykids wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:46 PM:
" One thing, Mr. Rasmussen, is that in school, they don't teach you HOW to have sex. They EDUCATE you on how to be safe and protect yourself. They teach children, that not having sex is best, but if you do have it, to use birth control. They educate about STD's and then go into pregnancy and birth. It is supposed to educate and give a little reality to children in hopes of having them make better choices. If they chose not to, at least they have the tools to do it safely.
It isn't like they are giving them new ideas on positions or teaching them the Kuma Sutra.
Might I suggest, sir, that you take such a course, in the hopes that you don't pass on your heterosexual bigotry unto another generation of open-minded Montanans. "
It isn't like they are giving them new ideas on positions or teaching them the Kuma Sutra.
Might I suggest, sir, that you take such a course, in the hopes that you don't pass on your heterosexual bigotry unto another generation of open-minded Montanans. "
MtMadeMan wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:27 PM:
" Well done Tom.
Now how long before Churches are required to give holy matrimonial ceremonies to homosexuals or face a lawsuit.
After all many Catholic supported hospitals were abandoned by the Church when they were forced to give abortions. "
Now how long before Churches are required to give holy matrimonial ceremonies to homosexuals or face a lawsuit.
After all many Catholic supported hospitals were abandoned by the Church when they were forced to give abortions. "
mark1228 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:19 PM:
" Well done Mr. Rasmussen! Well written.
gun- I can understand you feeling sick, sad and angry... sometimes the truth hurts "
gun- I can understand you feeling sick, sad and angry... sometimes the truth hurts "
rambler wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:25 AM:
" Well put, Mr. Rasmussen. As Christians are taught to love (not tolerate) and love can be tough at times. We have customized Jesus' teachings and choose what we see as sin. Lifestyle choices of all sorts are a part of that. Thank you for stating the situation so succinctly. "
gun961960 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:33 AM:
" I feel sick....I feel sad....I feel anger....I cannot imagine how any member of the gay/lesbian community feels reading this. Mr. Rasmussen has every right to feel this way as a free American, but when I read that he is a FORMER member of both the Montana House and Senate the only thing that brought me comfort was the word FORMER. This ideaology is exactly why I turn away from organized religion. How presumptious and arrogant this man is to presume to speak on behalf of God, his God that is. I really don't know what to say....I am a Health Educator and we DO NOT INSTRUCT ANY OF OUR STUDENTS ON HOW TO HAVE ANY KIND OF SEX.....SICKO! There it is for everyone to read....Toms Bible quoting, comparing homosexuality to drunkeness, thievery, and adultrey...and "certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding"...Oh this brought a little tear to my eye. I feel that people who believe they speak for God and who fill themselves full of this BS need love, support, and some serious THERAPY!! This entire article made my skin crawl!! "
bhallinan wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:57 AM:
" "Destroy the moral order", "The institution of marriage", "If marriage crumbles" "Text book changes", "Language changes", "People who believe they are homosexual" and the implication that Christianity is under assault, but also that Christ provides the answers. The first half of the argument focuses on the notion of institution, and the fear of possible, but unlikely outcomes. The second half of the argument has a religious bent, promoting dogma above false notions of fairness, tolerance, and non-discrimination. The religious argument is based on the purported words of one character from a 2,000+ year-old narrative written by unknown author(s) on behalf of a God who might be more imaginary than real (www.godisimaginary.com). Ironically, that character's life, Paul's, was saved by his appeal to Roman citizenship when religious leaders wanted to kill him. Citizenship has its privileges.
One of the first principles of morality is to "do no harm." A civil marriage contract defines the limits and scope of paired relationship. A contract is not an institution. It is the institution, State Government, that protects the contract. If anothers contractual relationship has no effect on mine, no harm is done. My marriage is not going to suffer because someone else got married despite the sex paring. If however, I deny access to the same benefits and responsibilities of this civil contract only because of my religious views, then I cause harm and violate a moral principle. The harm is in the denial of economic benefits, violation of church-state separation, limits placed on anothers freedom and liberty.
The following repeats what I have said before. Distinguishing between "God" language and the language of "liberty and justice" is important for America and Montana. Often, the same passion for liberty and justice becomes confused with religious passion. In civil law marriage is a contract, not an institution. One responsibility of Montanas civil marriage contract is to protect children from death (Rubella) and deformity (inbreeding of recessive genes). The law, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 40-1-401 Section 1, also prohibits same-sex marriage. One must ask, "How is liberty and justice served by legally implying that a same-sex marriage is as bad as killing or physically deforming children?" Evidence suggests that same-sex parenting is at least as safe and successful as mixed-sex parenting or single parenting. To make matters worse, under Montana law no social contracts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. can include same sex couples (MCA 40-1-401 (4)). This may be the only legal sex-text applied in Montana law. As a mater of liberty and justice, not of "God", the law must change. Same sex couples, as contributing citizens in a civil society, merit equal treatment under the law. Obviously, same-sex couples can fulfill the responsibilities of the marriage contract and raise children with as much success as other couples. No amount of "God" language should be allowed as evidence against actual observation of fact. Outside of civil proceedings, of course, churches are free to sanctify marriages according to their congregational convictions.
This author thinks that homosexuality the consequence of belief rather than biology. He uses a belief system to argue against a biological fact. Moreover, what difference does it make if it is biological or not? Two people decide to abide by a civil marriage contract. I was not asked to be part of that couples contract. It is none of my business.
My personal observation has been that every same-sex couple I know is in a loving, supportive, and contributing relationship. I just want to thank all those couples who continue to enrich my community through your presence, love, commitment, courage and patience. I hope due recognition and just treatment under the laws of our nation and state will soon be yours as they are mine. "
One of the first principles of morality is to "do no harm." A civil marriage contract defines the limits and scope of paired relationship. A contract is not an institution. It is the institution, State Government, that protects the contract. If anothers contractual relationship has no effect on mine, no harm is done. My marriage is not going to suffer because someone else got married despite the sex paring. If however, I deny access to the same benefits and responsibilities of this civil contract only because of my religious views, then I cause harm and violate a moral principle. The harm is in the denial of economic benefits, violation of church-state separation, limits placed on anothers freedom and liberty.
The following repeats what I have said before. Distinguishing between "God" language and the language of "liberty and justice" is important for America and Montana. Often, the same passion for liberty and justice becomes confused with religious passion. In civil law marriage is a contract, not an institution. One responsibility of Montanas civil marriage contract is to protect children from death (Rubella) and deformity (inbreeding of recessive genes). The law, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 40-1-401 Section 1, also prohibits same-sex marriage. One must ask, "How is liberty and justice served by legally implying that a same-sex marriage is as bad as killing or physically deforming children?" Evidence suggests that same-sex parenting is at least as safe and successful as mixed-sex parenting or single parenting. To make matters worse, under Montana law no social contracts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. can include same sex couples (MCA 40-1-401 (4)). This may be the only legal sex-text applied in Montana law. As a mater of liberty and justice, not of "God", the law must change. Same sex couples, as contributing citizens in a civil society, merit equal treatment under the law. Obviously, same-sex couples can fulfill the responsibilities of the marriage contract and raise children with as much success as other couples. No amount of "God" language should be allowed as evidence against actual observation of fact. Outside of civil proceedings, of course, churches are free to sanctify marriages according to their congregational convictions.
This author thinks that homosexuality the consequence of belief rather than biology. He uses a belief system to argue against a biological fact. Moreover, what difference does it make if it is biological or not? Two people decide to abide by a civil marriage contract. I was not asked to be part of that couples contract. It is none of my business.
My personal observation has been that every same-sex couple I know is in a loving, supportive, and contributing relationship. I just want to thank all those couples who continue to enrich my community through your presence, love, commitment, courage and patience. I hope due recognition and just treatment under the laws of our nation and state will soon be yours as they are mine. "
al wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:51 AM:
" As a Straight man with some experience in the realm of marriage, I must say that I find Mr. Rasmussen's praise of the "moral order" of heterosexual marriage to be laughable, considering that half of all hetero marriages end in divorce, and that cheating and abuse are rampant.
Gay marriage causes folks like Mr. Rasmussen to bristle for various reasons, but there is no danger to the traditional family from gay marriage; it does not make straight couples love their familes any less.
Mr. Rasmussen and his fellow believers seem more concerned with building an ideal society (a scary concept in itself) than he is with respecting individuals and their choices, and that is too bad.
Let's face it: Most of these anti-gay-lifestyle folks would blow a gasket if Jesus and his suspiciously all-male group of Disciples moved in next door to them. Being blinded by the light, I think they call it. "
Gay marriage causes folks like Mr. Rasmussen to bristle for various reasons, but there is no danger to the traditional family from gay marriage; it does not make straight couples love their familes any less.
Mr. Rasmussen and his fellow believers seem more concerned with building an ideal society (a scary concept in itself) than he is with respecting individuals and their choices, and that is too bad.
Let's face it: Most of these anti-gay-lifestyle folks would blow a gasket if Jesus and his suspiciously all-male group of Disciples moved in next door to them. Being blinded by the light, I think they call it. "
Share Article
gun961960 wrote on Jul 23, 2008 1:32 PM: