Redefining Marriage in Minnesota

I find little solace in labeling Representative FitzSimmons a “hero” in the activities leading up to the redefinition of marriage. See this article

1- In the short term, it may have looked to be a prudent action for him in an effort to provide some protection for religious entities.

2- It provides no protection for private individuals or companies who oppose the homosexual agenda of acceptance and affirmation of their new lifestyle.

3- It serves to promote diverging understandings of “civil” and “religious” definitions of marriage as well as concedes the argument that marriage can in fact be redefined.

4- The homosexual long term agenda is driven to stamp out all opposition, so it is only a matter of time before intimidation, bigot labeling, lawsuits, and legislative reliefs are started.

I would have a little more sympathy toward the Professor’s viewpoint if Rep. FitzSimmons would have ultimately voted NO after doing all in his power to provide as many protections to marriage as possible, making the bill as obnoxious as possible to the liberal Democrats, and effectively moving some additional votes to the NO column.

In closing, and from a another angle, I find this article especially interesting, as it comes from the viewpoint of an apparently honest atheist.

5 comments

  1. Timshel says:

    That final article is compelling stuff. I wonder if this is not exactly the issue my past pastors had in mind when they advised it was important for me to be a known orthodox Catholic presence in liberal organizations? It’s one thing to call an adversary a bigot. It’s another thing to work alongside someone, to get to know him and his family, to come to understand that he is Catholic, then recognize the implications of that and ask yourself, “Is he a bigot? He doesn’t seem like one?”

    Maybe, in this case, the best “:debate” is one of example — building healthy Catholic marriages and families that others see and say, “Wow — how do they do it?”

    • Didymus says:

      Caricatures of other subsets of people only work if we segregate ourselves from them, either physically or emotionally. Much harder to do when you actually work with them. And incidentally, caricatures are a grave mistake which we pious Catholics need to guard against ourselves. We are all “damaged masterpieces.”

  2. Fr. Nathaniel Meyers says:

    Of the issues listed with this action, I think they key problem is that Rep. FitzSimmons and Prof. Painter don’t understand there is no difference between “religious” and “civil” marriages in terms of what constitutes a marriage. In order for a relationship between two individuals to be a marriage, whether it is a marriage sanctioned by the state or by a religion, it must contain three properties:

    1.) Permanence
    2.) Fidelity
    3.) Fruitfulness

    Theoretically, homosexual relationships can be permanent (as in, life-long) and faithful (as in, monogamous)–though the statistics show that very few meet these criteria–, but they absolutely can never be fruitful (as in, open to procreation). Every culture throughout human history has understand that all three properties must be present in order for a relationship to be a marriage, which is why none of them ever toyed with the idea of recognizing homosexual relationships as marital. Sadly, our culture has looked at fruitfulness as optional (thanks to contraception) and now we are no longer able to fend off the onslaught of homosexual marriage.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.