I Couldn't Say It Any Better
This article, by former Governor Lee Dreyfus, is very much representative of my views on the proposed constitutional ammendment banning civil unions.
http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/dreyfus.asp
Dreyfus writes:
For example, I personally do not approve of same-sex marriage unless a church says it is acceptable. The state, in my opinion, has no say in this matter whatsoever; and I certainly would not approve the use of the constitution to limit the freedom of churches to practice their religion, as they see it. Make no mistake; that’s what this amendment would do.
And later:
I would warn church leaders to be very resistant to inviting the government into your tents. If you let the camel’s nose in, the hump will surely follow.
That to me is one of the bigger issues of this whole thing that I don't think proponents of this measure take into consideration.
The proposed ban on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions, supported by many religious groups and by people who cite religious conviction as their reason for supporting it, is an open invitation to government regulation of religion. Church leaders who support this are basically telling the government, "Come on in and tell us how to worship. We don't want freedom of religion. We want government sanctioned religion.
As for the civil union aspect:
Now let me move on to the term "civil union." Actually, all of us who are married before an altar of God signed on to a civil union as well. Do you remember that after the wedding you both probably went into the cleric’s office and signed some papers? That was the civil contract aspect of marriage, and the state has granted the power to execute such a contract to both clerics and judges. You may call that your marriage license, but it is actually a union recognized under civil law.
Why do we do this? Because it is in the best interests of society and of the common welfare to do so. It is beneficial to give tax advantages, property rights and tax deductions for children so that men and women are encouraged to live together, be responsible for each other and produce the next generation of citizens. That civil contract is quite binding and requires an involved legal procedure to undo it.
Now what about those couples who do not wish to or cannot physically produce children? The state covers them in a civil contract as well. The church also gives them the sacrament of marriage if they are a male and female.
Makes sense to me.
On November 7th, I will vote against this proposed ammendment.
Because I do not want my government in my church.
I do not want my church in my government.
And for those who would claim that it "defends marriage," I would offer this.
We already have a law in Wisconsin that says gays cannot get married, and yet we have a divorce rate of 50%.
Take a look at the social pages in the paper. Take a black marker and cross out every other engagement announcement. Because the law of averages says that's how many will make it.
Is that the status quo you are trying to defend?
If we want to preserve marriage, let's work on the issues that threaten it. Low income, lack of health care, drug and alcohol abuse, husbands and wives that work too many hours or too many jobs. Those are the things that can create a divided house. Ed and Fred or Thelma and Louise wanting to live together and share things has nothing to do with it.
http://www.gmtoday.com/milwaukeetoday/editorials/dreyfus.asp
Dreyfus writes:
For example, I personally do not approve of same-sex marriage unless a church says it is acceptable. The state, in my opinion, has no say in this matter whatsoever; and I certainly would not approve the use of the constitution to limit the freedom of churches to practice their religion, as they see it. Make no mistake; that’s what this amendment would do.
And later:
I would warn church leaders to be very resistant to inviting the government into your tents. If you let the camel’s nose in, the hump will surely follow.
That to me is one of the bigger issues of this whole thing that I don't think proponents of this measure take into consideration.
The proposed ban on Gay Marriage/Civil Unions, supported by many religious groups and by people who cite religious conviction as their reason for supporting it, is an open invitation to government regulation of religion. Church leaders who support this are basically telling the government, "Come on in and tell us how to worship. We don't want freedom of religion. We want government sanctioned religion.
As for the civil union aspect:
Now let me move on to the term "civil union." Actually, all of us who are married before an altar of God signed on to a civil union as well. Do you remember that after the wedding you both probably went into the cleric’s office and signed some papers? That was the civil contract aspect of marriage, and the state has granted the power to execute such a contract to both clerics and judges. You may call that your marriage license, but it is actually a union recognized under civil law.
Why do we do this? Because it is in the best interests of society and of the common welfare to do so. It is beneficial to give tax advantages, property rights and tax deductions for children so that men and women are encouraged to live together, be responsible for each other and produce the next generation of citizens. That civil contract is quite binding and requires an involved legal procedure to undo it.
Now what about those couples who do not wish to or cannot physically produce children? The state covers them in a civil contract as well. The church also gives them the sacrament of marriage if they are a male and female.
Makes sense to me.
On November 7th, I will vote against this proposed ammendment.
Because I do not want my government in my church.
I do not want my church in my government.
And for those who would claim that it "defends marriage," I would offer this.
We already have a law in Wisconsin that says gays cannot get married, and yet we have a divorce rate of 50%.
Take a look at the social pages in the paper. Take a black marker and cross out every other engagement announcement. Because the law of averages says that's how many will make it.
Is that the status quo you are trying to defend?
If we want to preserve marriage, let's work on the issues that threaten it. Low income, lack of health care, drug and alcohol abuse, husbands and wives that work too many hours or too many jobs. Those are the things that can create a divided house. Ed and Fred or Thelma and Louise wanting to live together and share things has nothing to do with it.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home