Wow, your browser makes us look bad. The Record supports web standards, which means that your browser is too old to know these. Either update your browser, or upgrade to Firefox or Google Chrome

Vote “yes” to define, stabilize marriage for future generations

Dear Editor,

Regarding the statements made in the last week’s full page ad; first and foremost, please do not allow yourself to be misled. Same sex unions are not compatible with Catholic teaching. Just because “numerous theologians” think it should be otherwise does not make it so. Keep in mind that many other theologians believe quite the opposite. The church quite clearly and consistently teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Laws permitting same sex marriage can, and already are, jeopardizing the first amendment rights of freedom of religion and speech. Often not on the front page, examples abound in the U.S., Canada and around the world. Increasingly, the rights of churches to preach, teach and conduct ministries, and the rights of individual citizens to run their businesses, or speak their minds, or teach their children in a manner consistent with their faith are being challenged and denied (think Catholic Charities, or Chick-Fil-A). Furthermore, if the recent HHS contraceptive mandate is any indication, we should not expect anything approaching adequate conscience protection if the current administration remains in office. Should same sex marriage become the law of the land, the direct conflict between church and state law would make a more likely prediction to be that religious freedom, as we know it today, will cease to exist.

Finally, the analogy between the interracial and same sex marriage discrimination has no basis, simply because race has no bearing on marriage. Surely one cannot argue that gender has no bearing on marriage. Yet, this is precisely the claim implicit to the whole movement! Think for a moment about this, and think of the logical conclusions to which such a radical notion leads. Practically any conceivable arrangement of men, women or multiples would logically have to be allowed as well. Once marriage can mean about everything, it will cease to mean anything. How can such a radically altered system possibly have no effect on children?

The Marriage Amendment attacks no one. Its purpose is to define and stabilize that which is the foundation upon which the future of society rests. Marriage is far greater than the desires of two people to be together. In its very nature, it is the union of difference which carries the possibility of new life, and provides a framework to nurture such new life. The family is a cornerstone of a healthy society, and freedom of religion and speech are cornerstones of a free society. Laws legalizing same sex marriage serve to undermine each of these foundational elements. I urge you to vote YES on the marriage amendment.

One Response

  1. Lenore Felix says:

    Good for you, Jim Gramke! I have a letter waiting at the St. Cloud Times expressing thoughts similar to yours. It was so gratifying to see your letter published to contradict this new thinking at CSB/SJU. It seems they have become a magnet for both faculty and students in the GLBT movement!

Leave a Reply