Dear Editor,
The Neo-Dems continued their attack on our society, our institutions, and our families today with the signing of the ludicrously named "Respect for Marriage Act". Just what is "marriage"?? Well, after today it means anything the government says it means. During the Clinton years marriage was defined by the government as the union of a man and a woman. Today's signing dissolved that bill and replaced it with - for the "purposes of federal law" - "marriage as between a man and a woman and spouse as a person of the opposite sex". So, millennia of "marriage" meaning the union of a man and a woman" changes, with the feeble stroke of President Biden's hand - with appropriate transgender and crossdressers in attendance.
We are "promised" that this new federal definition will not find its way into our churches - uh-huh - sure Joe. That said, you can just imagine lines of attorneys with their pockets itching for new revenues when small businesses that have taken a pass on serving the gay community due to their religious beliefs take a stand in the face of this new federal definition. After all - IT'S THE LAW!!!
I've always been clear on the whole concept of marriage. I was raised Lutheran, converted to the Catholic church and in both, it's defined as a Sacrament - with a Capital S. A man and a woman stand before God, their church, and their family and take a vow to love, honor and cherish each other all the days of their lives. If I tally the years of marriage between couples in our family lines there are hundreds of years of marriage . . . hundreds. My wife and I contributed 50 of those years to date. Do I believe a same-sex couple can marry?? No. Period. And the government's intrusion into the Sacramental life of religious people will not change that.
Frankly, the government has no place in defining marriage, to begin with. Throughout history, government intrusion was simply for control of the populace. To make sure people marry the "right" color, the "right" race, the "right" cast. It's always been about control and power. And since the joining of a man and woman is the cornerstone of the creation of a population - governments simply love to control this aspect of society.
Had it truly been about simply providing legal protection for same-sex couples - a simple "Civil Union" could have been defined. But that was not the intent - the elimination of marriage being the "union of a man and woman" was, and it has been replaced by a "union of man and woman and spouse". The destruction of the Marriage Sacrament will follow as surely as the sunrise.
I hear all the words about the protection of the ideals of the church, about states being able to set their own definitions - yet they must recognize out-of-state marriages of same-sex couples. Bottom line, this is an attempt to undermine the very fabric of the family.
I am confident that same-sex couples love each other. I believe they certainly deserve the legal protection of a "civil union". Heck, I'd be willing to tear up our state-issued "marriage license" and replace it with a "civil union" contract. I was not married by the state, I was married in our church, before God and family. And this is where the line should be drawn. Today, the "line" was moved and will find its way all the way to the alters of churches throughout the country.
And I must ask - can't a man love more than one woman? Or a woman love more than one man? I suspect it will not take too many years before the "marriage" of multiple people will be on the agenda as well - it's just fair, right?
The left and the Neo-Dems gained ground today against a foundational institution of our nation - marriage. It's a sad day for the family and our nation.
William Keller
Comments
Submit a CommentPlease refresh the page to leave Comment.
Still seeing this message? Press Ctrl + F5 to do a "Hard Refresh".
Couldn't one argue that by keeping the law that states only a man and a woman can be recognized as a legal marriage, be a law that is considered government control? Therefore, by changing the law to recognize more than just "man and woman," they have released some of that control don't you think?
I understand and respect your beliefs on marriage, and how this change is an afront to what you believe and have always known. My question is truthfully, how does this change personally affect you? It certainly challenges your life-long beliefs, but that doesn't make it wrong. Many people do not share your beliefs, and in fact are shunned, prejudiced against, and shamed for being who they are. These folks aren't asking you to change who you are. Only to accept them. Isn't that what everyone wants...is to be accepted?
If God loves everyone, I don't understand why this is problem. It truthfully hurts no one.
Thank you.
In the state of Iowa, a minister does not need to be present at a wedding ceremony. A Judge or Magistrate can officiate the marriage of all citizens with a marriage license. Since the Iowa Constitution specifically states that all men and women are equal, no law can be made, that limits the marriage of two equal citizens.
Let's be honest. Those of you with the opinion expressed in your letter, believe that marriage is solely about the act of having sex. Those of us within the 80% of American citizens, that approve of same-sex marriage, know that marriage is about LOVE, and spending the remainder of life with that person. What goes on behind closed doors, is no business of anyone outside of that marriage.
A civil union is not marriage, and cannot be compared to it. You say that you would give up your marriage to be in a civil union. I call BS on that! I have no doubt in my mind, that if (God forbids) your wife was dying in a hospital, hospice or any other public facility, that you would want to be able to be by her side. A civil union doesn't allow a partner that right. It's required that only a spouse or blood relative has that right. Your opinion would make a partner in a civil union, unequal to you. How could you take that right away from someone that had been in a loving, civil union, for 50+ years?
The rights you have to your religion, gives you no legal right to require any other citizen to abide by the opinions of your religion. Your Bible IS NOT a legal document, in any way. So, leave religion out of legal situations.
Today's GOP hates government control of themselves, but it darn well better do a good job of keeping everyone else in line.
What the fear-monger ignored is that this, like every other law ever written regarding LGBT+ citizens, also encodes their pseudo-Christian hatred. The sky isn't falling, Chicken Little - you can still eat your cheeseburgers in your poly-cotton suits after spewing your bile every Sunday morning.
As far as the lines being drawn all the way to the altars of the church, it always has been. If a church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they certainly aren't going to because of this latest codification by the President. Nothing is endangered because of this....to the contrary, personal choices are further PROTECTED.
Mr. Keller, my God is also your God. He is the God of ALL creation. ALL. As hard as it is for you to believe, we are ALL His children, created by Him. He knew us all before we were even born. He wants us ALL to know Him and quite frankly, when you so publicly denounce so many things that you don't understand or don't agree with, it seems to me that you are the one that needs to rethink the approach here. We are called to shepherd, not to judge.
To the critics. There is Nature's Law and God's Law. It would be good for all to read the Old Testament Book Genesis written by Moses with God's word seeking/writing through his hand. God knew Adam needed a companion - though no animal met this need, so a female was created from Adam's Rib. That female EVE the mother of us all was created. So some say God doesn't make mistakes -- well it is well documented that man makes many mistakes - and one is we can do anything we want without consequence. For believers there is "Judgement Day". There are the old testament laws - 10 in number that must be obeyed. Nothing mentioned there about the alphabet group or same sex marriage. The family is the glue that cements our society. The family is there to protect man and the women and the children born of that union. Without the family we do not have a civil society. The Protestant and Catholic religions protect that union. Government must not cause the religious to violate their faith.
Regards,
John Stiegelmeyer
The government's first responsibility is to protect it's citizens. Yet look at the southern border. Thousands of illegal immigrants flood across into our country every day. With them are hundreds of known criminals who are everything from murderers to child molesters and even drug dealers and Cartel members. This results in untold numbers of American citizens dying from fentonal overdose murder and uncountable crimes against them committed by people who should have never been allowed into this country in the first place. Yet our current governments leadership does NOTHING! Yet their priority is to become involved in the sanctity of marriage? One with an ounce of common sense should should be demanding accountability out of this clown show in Washington DC who are deciding what is best for the rest of the country! Yes folks, John would be absolutely correct when he said Man makes mistakes and that is putting it lightly. This country and the current domestic and foreign policies coming out of the Whitehouse is more jacked up than a soup sandwich! It's actually a lot worse! Its disgusting!
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Rom 1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
You obviously missed my previous comment on this letter. The 1st Amendment does not, explicitly, give you the "Right" to religion. What it does is: it tells our government that no laws can be made, that imposes regulation on your religion. To learn what specific "rights" that the Supreme Court has given to the practice of religion, you just need to look up the case laws of such. It DOES NOT say, anywhere, nor is it granted in any case law, that anyone can impose their religion upon any other citizen. This is expressed, and explained, in the Federalist Papers.
You notice he didn't mention inter-racial marriage because he is in one. He wants to control everyone else but not himself and that makes him a total hypocrite. The same goes for all the rest of you who want something for yourself but think you should have the right to tell others they can't have the same thing. We are all equal.
You both obviously missed my previous comment about another one of God's laws and that would be natural selection. Man messed that up too when we put warning labels on everything allowing fools to flourish...when stupid and ignorant decisions by some would have weeded those out of the gene pool. Now they contaminate logic and common sense.