What is the obligation of government to protect the religious sanctity of marriage? None, zero, zip, zilch. You have the right to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Thank God we still have the free-will to do so. But do you believe you have the power to impose the will of God on others? Father Bryan Massingale, an associate professor of moral theology at Marquette University wrote an essay on the subject and concluded that voting “no” on the Wisconsin marriage amendment is the best way to respect Catholic beliefs and values. He said, ”But how do you uphold that value without compromising the human dignity of any of God’s people.” In essence, his main argument is that gays and lesbians are Gods children too, and they must not be denied the same worldly needs and benefits his other children receive.
In rebuttal, Dr. Cynthia Jones-Nosacek of Milwaukee wrote a letter stating that marriage is “a privilege and not a right” and concluded a “yes” vote is the only way to protect marriage and the traditional family as defined by our church. Using her logic though also drives one to vote “no” because in all actuality, government should stick to granting and protecting equal rights and not limiting them. Nor should government be in the business of granting privileges between individuals - that's between individuals. Also, why is government in the business of defining or protecting marriage rights of any church?
How the states got involved in this religious referendum in the first place deserves scrutiny. If we still want to be considered the land of the free, we must equally guarantee to all the same rights without regard to race or sex.
On a separate note - Janesville newspapers are over half-way through their endorsements and have overwhelmingly chosen Republican candidates, clearly an affirmation of the suspicions for many Rock County residents who knew all along that the newspapers are motivated and controlled by right-wing politics. The Janesville Gazette even posts a schedule of dates for their endorsement editorials but unexpectedly have left the Wisconsin Marriage amendment off their “to do” list. This is surprising because the Gazette fiercely supports and defends the Republican platform and in order to be consistent they should support the hard-line and bigoted view of marriage creating second-class citizens. Something tells me they don’t want to tempt faith or are afraid of losing subscribers.
As far as the rest of their endorsements, it’s my guess that the Gazette might endorse at least one Democrat and possibly one independent for local office and refrain from endorsing anyone for one of the county offices. Personally I hope they endorse a straight Republican ticket. It makes it easier to read off their list the names of people not to vote for.
18 comments:
I wish we could leave the government out of this. But, it seems we have activist judges who will rewrite the laws. I will be voting yes on November 7th. I hate to do it but, some judges cannot be trusted. Just look at what happened in New Jersey.
The judges that define the "law" are the reason why an amendment is neccasary.
You must mean activist judges like those that overturned racial segregation?
I'm voting NO and here's why. The easiest reason is gay marrige is already illegal in Wisconsin, something else I also don't agree with. The reason it's even on the ballot is shady. It's the attempt to get their people out to vote when they have so clearly lost the will and support of the people. My personal reasons for voting NO are, I don't like the Government imposing itself on who people can or can't love, can and can't live with. When religious ideologies are brought into the mix that makes it much worse. There is a reason the founding fathers included the clause about seperation of church and state. They were smart enough to see the intolerances, divsions, and strife caused by the differing religious ideologies. They wanted people to unite under a banner above teh cannonizing differences religion has wrought throughout history. Under one common cause and one common good called America. Where diversity is encouraged and indeed called upon for the betterment of ideas and the breeding of tolerance. What we have seen lately is what I see as a drastic step in the wrong direction with religious zealotry blaring the trumpets and leading the charge. At the current pace, how long will it be until we have a Dept. of Homeland Vice and Virtue? Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with religion when used in respects to helping it's people in all aspects of life, spiritually, morally, helping people answer questions they so desperately need answers to. Some of the greatest achievments all up and down the ladder of human existence have been inspired and done in the name of religion. It was because those people believe. I have no problem with that and indeed thank them for making the world a better place. What I do have a problem with is the imposing of their beliefs upon myself or others who do not share those beliefs. Religion has been given far too much power to do just that. Church and State need to be seperate once again. There are far graver injustices in the world and in this country that we could be focusing these energies on then whether or not the man & woman, man & man, or woman & woman living next door are married or just living together. As long as they are happy with the arrangement they have and happy with each other, what do I care? It's no business of mine. They have the right to be happy just as we all do. That's why I'm voting NO.
Well said, 11:49 anonymous. I too felt that both referendums, death penalty and the marriage amendment were right-wing creations designed to drum up their hardcore base. Plus they were carefully worded to coerce a positive vote of "yes" from those who aren't paying attention. Great rant!
The marrige amendment needs to be passed. Laws don't mean to much in the court of law. Look at O.J he got away with murder. Look at Massacusats for example it's against the law to have same sex marriage there. And what did a judge do there? He ignored the law and made same sex marriage legal. Do we really want that in the great state of Wisconsin? I don't.
Don't blame the judge or the laws for O.J. getting away with murder. He was tried by a jury of his peers. Voting "yes" will swamp the courts with lawsuits and eventually the Supreme Court will find the prejudicial amendment unconstitutional.
Let the people decide. If the majority of the people want to ban gay marrige then so be it. It shouldn't be the decission of a single liberal judge who forces his views upon the courts.
That's exactly why we must vote NO!
It looks like some people believed the commercials and have never actually read it. That's a shame that they base their vote on what other people tell them. Bigotry has no place in any states constitution.
I will be voting yes. As you look at history no empire or country has survived when homosexual marrige has been allowed. It took down the roman empire and will do the same to us. We as Americans have values and morals which this country was based on and it wasn't homosexual relationships.
You actually think it was homosexual relationships that took down the Roman Empire? WOW!
Read your history dipshit.
If your referring to me in the 3:02 post, I have read it. There are alot factors that could have contributed to the 'Fall of the Roman Empire'. Depending on the useage of barbarians for defense, economic decline, the Persian Empire, political instability, constant invasions, depopulation of Italy due to expansion and debasement of the currency, climatic change, transfer of power from central imperium to local authority, I could go on and on. To say that homosexual relationships brought it down alone is just ignorant. There are many, many factors that led to their demise.
I never said it was the only cause for the downfall of the roman empire. But, it did in fact have an effect on the downfall.
Geez I guess misunderstood your statement, "As you look at history no empire or country has survived when homosexual marrige has been allowed. It took down the roman empire and will do the same to us." Silly me.
That wasn't the only statement said and never meant that was the only reason that the Roman Empire fell. But, it did have a negative effect on the roman empire and the fall of it.
Your choice of name is all I need to know about you.
Post a Comment