It's Not Hate to Say a Triangle Has Only 3 Sides

But I expect to be told that anyway. The reactionary response to what is in actuality a very balanced editorial by the St. Paul Pioneer Press over the weekend is just the latest example as to why. Not to mention I've been told worse. Much worse.

I first wrote about the definition of marriage six years ago and very little has changed since then. I stand with the Church. In one sense, we shouldn't need an amendment. That there is one is a reaction to judicial and legislative attempts to cease to recognize marriage from the pre-political social institution for normalizing sexual behavior and child rearing it is to redefine it as a civil contract based on the pleasure and preference of adults with a bundle of automatic legal provisions (benefits and responsibilities). Even a self-styled "progressive" can see that and ought to be able to recognize the citizenry is playing with fire.

Today Won't End the Issue

Regardless what the commercials and the yard signs say, this is not about the freedom and fairness. Same-sex couples already have many of the same civil benefits that married couple enjoy. As for the balance, there is a case that given the dynamics and mobility of today's society, there is a compelling need to provide arbitrary social partnerships, which could include same-sex couples, along with, for example, single parent-child relationships, extended family members, or even just good friends. That so many opponents of the amendment reject any sort of "civil union" construct makes it clear that this primarily is about sanction and promotion of a "lifestyle choice" and, as a result, will not go away if the amendment passes.

If the amendment fails and, as expected, there is a successful judicial or legislative challenge, then, among other consequences, religious institutions, groups, and individuals will have their religious liberty attacked in much the same way that it is occurring in other states and is happening via the HHS mandate.

No gang, we're not done after today. So how about ratcheting it down a bit?

Additional Information

See the Marriage Protection Amendment page

BTW, The Stupidest Reason to Vote "No"

While I disagree with those who are opposing the marriage protection amendment today, I understand the perspective of many, if not most, and can even sympathize with them to a certain extent. However, there is one assertion I will not truck that some opponents insist is a point of brilliant political philosophy:

The government should get out of the business of regulating marriage and leave it to adults to decide marriage for themselves.

Privatizing marriage is not going to happen as a result of voting "No." Moreover, the vast majority of those who hold this position with whom I have discussed it base it on the "libertarian" notion that government can only screw it up because it screws everything up and therefore shouldn't be involved. If that is your position, then you ought to be voting "Yes" to leave alone the definition that has been understood for millennia and insulate it from judicial fiat and legislative whim. Otherwise you're just kidding yourself. Just sayin'.