Ron Scott wrote:

> I understand that opponents of gay marriage are turning the
> battle for a proposed Constitutional Amendment into a referendum
> on sexual practices. This is precisely why I think the initiative
> will fail and probably fail convincingly.  The problem is that
> long ago statutes prohibiting various sexual acts were repealed.

I don't know for myself that opponents are taking exclusively
that approach, although I have no doubt that a sizeable number
might.  Similarly, I would imagine that many others have 
taken a purely religious approach, in the context of SSM being 
against the laws of God.    

But to me it all comes back to a point I made a while back,
and if I sound like a broken record, I apologize.  To me, 
we're not talking about merely a legal or a social 
privilege, or whether a given relationship is compatible 
with nature, although undoubtedly there will continue to be 
those discussions.  Rather, we're talking about a core value 
that was supposed to transcend individual, religious, 
and ethnic views, and gets to the root of our identity as
a nation and a society.  So when a locale such as San 
Francisco goes out and says, "We believe this basic 
definition of marriage ought to change, and everyone else 
ought to abide by the same," it wouldn't be much different 
if they went and said, "Well, we don't believe that life or 
liberty are fundamental values compared to prosperity or 
wealth, so we'll officially put the former on the back 
burner, regardless of what the laws or the Constition might
say."  In both cases, the result is the same, because we 
are dealing with something that is basic, fundamental, and
sacred--and I stress again, not from a narrow religious
point of view, but in terms of it being a foundation of
our society.  

Stated from as secular of a point of view as I can muster:
When a society seeks to tinker with basic foundational values
without seeking even a minimum of consensus within that 
society, let alone any soul searching to know if what it 
is doing is right, it is playing with fire.  And as the 
saying goes, you can't play with fire and not get burned.

> In many states, same sex couples have been allowed to adopt
> children and, of course, by way of artificial insemination or
> with the aid of a willing male SSA women have been able to bear
> natural children.

But again, to me, whether SSM marriages can have children,
or whether traditional marriages do not is besides the 
point.  In fact, the way I think of it is this:  If children
are born to an SSM or domestic partner relationship, and an
increasing minority or plurality ratify the move as legitimate,
we are chipping away at a basic value.  When children are born
outside of marriage, and it is similarly ratified as being
legitimate, we are chipping away at a basic value.  When
children are born to a plural marriage that has been prohibited
by the laws of the land, we are arguable chipping away at a 
different value, that being the rule of law.  When the same
relationships exist absent any children, we have a similar
result.  When we seek to terminate the lives of unborn 
children _without cause_ save it were the convenience of the
biological participants (I dare not use the term mother and 
father in that instance), we chip away at yet another core 
value.  And when we seek to relegate religion and its 
associated institutions to the fringes of society, holding 
the same to be irrelevant at best, and perhaps even a 
hinderance, I would submit we are chipping away at a value 
as fundamental as that of other words, our liberty.  

Now off of my soap box,

Thank you for listening.  :)

>From the ZION List intake mailbox at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rabinowitz Family -- Spring Hill, Tenn., U.S.A.

///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///      ///
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:

Reply via email to