Really?
Don't Limit Freedom to Marry?
By: Katherine Kersten
Star Tribune, September 23, 2012
Really? Don't limit freedom to
marry? We already do-for a reason-so those orange lawn signs are
misleading.
On November 6, Minnesota voters
will decide whether marriage will be protected in our State
Constitution as the union of one man and one woman. Opponents'
reason for fundamentally redefining our bedrock social institution
appears on yard signs that dot the metro area: "Don't limit the
freedom to marry."
Now, Minnesotans are nice folks,
and we don't like to think of ourselves as needlessly limiting
another's freedom. The truth is, however, we "limit" marriage in a
variety of ways. You can't marry your sister or your father. You can't
marry a 12-year-old, or two people, or someone who's already married to
someone else.
Why do we "limit" the freedom to
marry this way? Is it because we harbor a dislike for sisters or
12-year olds, or for folks who wish to express their love and
commitment in groups of three?
Of course not. All social
institutions have boundaries, or defining characteristics, that are
integrally related to the FUNCTION they perform. The vital role of
marriage--in all times and places--has been to link men to women and TO
the children produced by their sexual union, in order to create the
optimal environment for rearing the next generation.
It's misleading, then, to frame the debate over one-man/one-woman
marriage in terms of "limiting" the "freedom" to marry of
people in configurations that aren't
consistent with the institution's mission. It's like claiming
that the color blue is somehow "limited" because it's not the color
purple.
The human race's two sexes-male and female-have much in common, but
they also differ in fundamental ways.
In
the bearing and rearing of children, men and women complement one
another physically, socially and emotionally. Women give birth to
babies, and men beget them. Mothers tend to nurture, while fathers tend
to encourage risk-taking. Boys and girls need -- and deserve -- both a
father and a mother to model how to love.
Same-sex-marriage supporters
deny the bedrock biological truth of human sexuality: complementarity.
Society should be wholly indifferent as to whether a child has a mother
and a father, they say.
Any
two (or three?) people will do.
The idea that men and women are
interchangeable--fungible--is the unspoken axiom on which the argument
for same-sex marriage is based. This idea has profound
implications for the way we view the world, the family and human
relationships. If sarne-sex marriage makes its way into law--
the strong arm of the state will be
required to impose this counterintuitive vision on society.
We've already seen glimpses of
what our "brave new world" may hold:
When the president of Chick-fil-A spoke out against same-sex marriage,
the mayor of Boston publicly declared that there's "no place" for the
company in his town. The mayors of San Francisco and Washington D.C.
echoed his sentiments.
Our public schools face growing pressure to promote unisex
ideology--often under the guise of "anti-bullying" education. In
Massachusetts, Illinois, and Washington, D.C., Catholic Charities'
public adoption and/or foster care programs have been compelled to
close, because of claims of discrimination.
Scholars are discovering that
questioning the new orthodoxy may end their careers. At corporations
like Target and General Mills, employees who believe children need a
mother AND father increasingly fear that making their views clear could
threaten job advancement.
Meanwhile, in California,
Governor Jerry Brown is poised to sign a law saying a child can have
three legal parents.
Same-sex marriage advocates assure us that they
oppose "limiting" the freedom of
others. Really? It's time for them to look in the mirror.
The Minnesota marriage amendment
ensures
that the PEOPLE of our state
will
retain the power to define marriage. Without it, politicians and
judges will
SEIZE that power.
Currently, a lawsuit claiming
that one-man/one-woman marriage is unconstitutionally discriminatory is
winding its way through our state court system. Governor Mark Dayton is
a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, and in recent years some
legislative leaders have given high priority to pushing bills that
would redefine marriage. Depending on the outcome of the
upcoming legislative elections, we could have a change in the law as
soon as January 2013.
If that happens, and you believe
that children need both a mother and father, be prepared to be declared
"persona non grata" in civilized society. Be prepared to live
with a target on your back, proclaiming in bold letters:
"BIGOT."
[Emphasis added].
*
*
*
* *
Gay
actor:
'I Can't Think of Anything
Worse Than Being Brought up by Two Gay Dads'
LifeSiteNews, Tue Sep
18, 2012
Carolyn Moynihan
British actor Rupert Everett says he "can't think of anything worse"
than two gay men bringing up a child together-an opinion that is
probably held by vast numbers of people who would not dare to say so in
public. But, thanks to the magic shield of celebrity, actors can get
away with speech "crimes" that the rest of us would (metaphorically)
hang for.
Being gay himself also deflects criticism-Everett came out as a
homosexual 20 years ago and has said that this damaged his acting
career. His comments on gay parenting were made in an interview with
the [London] Sunday Times Magazine
last weekend (alas, The Times
is only accessible to paid subscribers so we rely on The Telegraph here).
Everett, probably best known for his role as a gay man in the 1997 film
My Best Friend's Wedding, says his mother, Sara, who was also
interviewed for the article, "still wishes I had a wife and kids. She
thinks children need a father and a mother, and I agree with her. I
can't think of anything worse than being brought up by two gay
dads."...
*
*
*
* *