So “progressiveness” has finally leaped ahead of common sense and public policy in San Francisco. The “forward-thinking” mayor has declared the value of marriage null and void. Of course, proponents of gay marriage find it easy to support their side as a “civil right”. They argue that they should be granted the sames rights as heterosexual couples. Guess what…. YOU ARE. You’re granted the right to marry anyone you choose, provided it doesn’t go against laws of public policy. But they argue that they’re not free to choose if a state won’t recognize their same-sex marriage. Just one slight flaw - PUBLIC POLICY. You see, there are reasons SOME marriage unions are not recognized - like marriage between close relatives, marriages between adults and children and marriage to multiple partners. While these “other” marriage types are condoned in other various other societies, they’re not accepted in civilized societies. Then they wish to drag up the idea of “culturalism” and the “understanding of other, more accepting cultures”. Fantastic - should we then “understand” and “tolerate” cultures that stone women to death for showing their face in public? How about the nifty “culture” of child mutilation found in the tribes of Africa? I mean, if we’re going to “tolerate” other cultures, should it be wholesale, or a pick and choose scenario? If it’s pick and choose, who gets to decide? Liberals? Conservatives? Atheists? Christians? Buddhists? Muslims?
Despite the bogus claims of some on the Left, the United States was founded on Godly principles. True, the Founders didn’t want a government run by a particular religion, but it wanted a nation whose Lord is God. Check the facades of the buildings in D.C. Check the currency. Check the founding document!
The concept of marriage being a union of “one man, one woman” is found in the bible. The public policy behind laws benefitting husbands and wives is to endorse a family unit, the family unit being a man and woman who procreate children. Sure, opponents of traditional marriage will argue that there are heterosexual couples who can’t procreate for one reason or another, but don’t define the rule by the exceptions. Show me a pair of men or a pair of women who can procreate with each other and I’ll reconsider. Until then, the proper assumption is that procreation occurs between a man and woman with some exceptions, but will NEVER occur between two people of the same sex. Then there’s the notion that a gay or lesbian couple lovingly raising a child is better than a child in a broken or abusive home. This is simply an inflammatory appeal at one’s sense of compassion. You see, to argue in the contrary paints one as a condoner of child abuse or divorce. Obviously that’s not the intention of supporters of traditional marriage. In fact, for those who value Christian principles, the idea of divorce or child abuse is an abomination in and of itself. Nice try, though, you’re almost able to shift the focus of the conversation (like you do when referring to “pro-choice” instead of just calling it “pro-abortion”, which is what the “choice” is really all about).
So, here we go again. We’ve got a clueless mayor attempting to “un-define” marriage (not “redefine” as the proponents claim) in San Francisco, the bastion of liberalism. Religious values codified for the benefit of public policy….like those wacky laws about not killing others, not stealing, etc, etc, etc. To oppose it, they claim, means you’re close-minded. Well, if supporting traditional morals and values is close-minded, so be it. To me the real close-minded are those who refuse to believe in a God worshipped throughout history simply because they can’t see Him. Faith is never a close-minded process, for to have it, you must believe in that which you cannot see…. you know, by opening your mind.
