Minnesota To Vote On The Future Of Marriage

Marriage is not an individual right. Otherwise, why limit marriage to unions of two people instead of three of four or five? Why limit it to adult humans, if some want to be united with others of various ages, sexes, and species. Marriage is a social contract because the issues involved go beyond the particular individuals. Unions of a man and woman produce the future generations on whom the fate of the whole society depends. Society has something to say about that.--Thomas Sowell

According to the Forest Lake Times, it looks like Minnesotans may get a chance to exercise their right to vote for or against a gay marriage ban next year. Naturally, many Democrats are not at all happy with this upcoming expression of democracy. Matt Entenza, Karen Clark, and Michael Paymar were all quoted by an article authored by T.W. Budig in opposition to the amendment.

How can their opposition be viewed as anything less than opposition to the very tenets of self-government? Are we to believe that they would feel the same way if they were confident the amendment would be rejected?

I have read many arguments on the subject and remain unconvinced that gay marriage rises to the level of a civil rights issue. I would refer readers to the Thomas Sowell quote that opened this post as one of the most succinct on the issue. Also, the effects of gay marriage on Scandanavia are well documented and leave little doubt of a negative impact.

Perhaps though, the greatest impact on my decision will have been the behavior of secularists who advocate for gay marriage. No single group of people has been more influential in my decision. Samuel Silver puts it best:

Secularists truly believe religious people are ignorant, intolerant, homophobic, racist, and generally dangerous; so they believe it is only “social justice” to destroy any public acceptance of the religious worldview, even by undemocratic means. The leaders of the secular movement are strident atheists who cannot tolerate religious people; a constant reminder of everything they reject. Instead of being religious fundamentalists, they became secular fundamentalists. Through propaganda and ridicule, these fundamentalists have also convinced a minority of Americans, who believe in God, to fear religion more than secularism, in complete disregard to the barbaric reality of the 20th century.

Gay marriage advocates have shown no respect for the will of the people of this nation. Rather than show patience and a willingness to embrace the views of those who disagree, with an eye towards reaching some equitable compromise, they have instead demonstrated nothing but contempt. Anyone who dares hold a different view is ridiculed as the homophobes, oppressors, etc...

Of course, in order for gay marriage to flourish in our country, the same people who have been held up to ridicule by secularists are expected to somehow see through that hateful rhetoric and "do what's right." Ironically, the gay lobby never considered holding itself to that same standard, as they have stomped all over the will of citizens of this nation, demonizing anyone who dares hold a differing opinion.

I have spent a great deal of time in the political trenches, debating this issue with supporters of gay marriage. My support for gay adoption and civil unions, coupled with my opposition to the National Defense of Marriage Act has not usually been enough to escape the "right-wing fascist homophobe tag." It is truly all or nothing with these people.

And that is the essence of my views towards gay marriage. Proponents essentially propose an ultimatum. You are either a supporter of gay marriage, or you are a fascist religious caveman. Despite the fact that I describe myself as an athiest, I would much rather live with the fascist religious caveman tag than be bullied into supporting something as ambiguous to society as gay marriage.

Bottom line? The people who should have spent the last four years explaining their position in a reasonable manner have instead chosen to vilify opposition, bully their position, and shame America into supporting gay marriage.

When the chance arrives next year for Minnesotans to cast a vote on the issue, mine will reflect my opinion on the left's tactics to a degree as much as, or greater than, it will reflect my actual attitude towards gay marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I probably would have voted to protect traditional marriage anyway, as civil unions seem a perfectly reasonable compromise on this issue. It's just that now I will vote with pleasure. I don't like to be bullied and demonized. I would wager that the majority of voters in Minnesota feel the same way, which is why Democrats are opposed to this vote taking place at all.