Letter: Same-sex marriage attempts to ‘redefine what constitutes acceptable behavior’Same-sex marriage is another step in the deconstruction of the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of family, which has made America the greatest nation on earth. However: all cultures, not only Judeo-Christian cultures, have defined marriage as between a man and woman.
To the editor,
Same-sex marriage is another step in the deconstruction of the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of family, which has made America the greatest nation on earth. However: all cultures, not only Judeo-Christian cultures, have defined marriage as between a man and woman.
No-fault divorce deconstructed the legal meaning of marriage. Today, marriage is the only state-sponsored legal contract that can be broken by either party at will with no need to prove just cause. Now the meaning of marriage will be further deconstructed by allowing people of any gender to marry.
A primary purpose of marriage has been to provide a setting for procreation, which will provide parental role models for children of either sex. This important function will not be available in the case of same- sex partners. In cases of divorce it is generally recognized that it is advantageous for children to have regular access to both their mother and father. It is also widely recognized that children raised in single parent households are often disadvantaged, not only financially but also because of a lack of parental guidance.
Today we see many attempts to redefine what constitutes desirable or acceptable behavior in civilized society. The skyrocketing rate of out-of-wedlock births, which often constitute a burden on society as well as on the children involved, is a prime example. Same sex marriage is another such attempt to redefine what constitutes acceptable behavior, a change which is likely to impact not only ourselves but our children and generations to come. Carefully consider this: have all societies since the beginning of time been wrong to define marriage as between a man and woman? Or is it possible that the advantages of such an arrangement were self-evident to all concerned?
Editor’s note: The amendment before Minnesota voters this fall needs some clarification.
Voters are going to be asked to either vote for or against a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
If the amendment passes, that definition of marriage would be spelled out in the state’s constitution.
If the amendment is defeated, the constitution would not be amended.
Currently, same-sex couples are not allowed by Minnesota law to get married. Even if this amendment is defeated, that would not change.