Wednesday, October 3, 2012

IT IS NOT BIGGOTRY TO SUPPORT MARRIAGE BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN AND FOR A LIFETIME

This is Baltimore Ravens center Matt Birk. He has written, "The union of a man and a woman is privileged and recognized by society as "marriage" for a reason, and it's not because the government has a vested interest in celebrating the love between two people. With good reason, government recognizes marriages and gives them certain legal benefits so they can provide a stable, nurturing environment for the next generation of citizens: our kids...Marriage is in trouble right now -- admittedly, for many reasons that have little to do with same-sex unions. In the last few years, political forces and a culture of relativism have replaced "I am my brother's keeper" and "love your neighbor as yourself" with "live and let live" and "if it feels good, go ahead and do it."

The effects of no-fault divorce, adultery, and the nonchalant attitude toward marriage by some have done great harm to this sacred institution. How much longer do we put the desires of adults before the needs of kids? Why are we not doing more to lift up and strengthen the institution of marriage?

Same-sex unions may not affect my marriage specifically, but it will affect my children -- the next generation. Ideas have consequences, and laws shape culture. Marriage redefinition will affect the broader well-being of children and the welfare of society. As a Christian and a citizen, I am compelled to care about both.

I am speaking out on this issue because it is far too important to remain silent. People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as "bigots" and "homophobic." Aren't we past that as a society?

Don't we all have family members and friends whom we love who have same-sex attraction? Attempting to silence those who may disagree with you is always un-American, but especially when it is through name-calling, it has no place in respectful conversation.

A defense of marriage is not meant as an offense to any person or group. All people should be afforded their inalienable American freedoms. There is no opposition between providing basic human rights to everyone and preserving marriage as the sacred union of one man and one woman.

I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate. I encourage all Americans to stand up to preserve and promote a healthy, authentic promarriage culture in this upcoming election."


4 comments:

Robert Kumpel said...

All of us have a responsibility to defend marriage or we are going to face a society with marriage re-defined and, ultimately, meaningless.

If you watched the Democratic convention, every speaker made sure that their speech included something about "people should be able to love whoever they want." That may sound nice, but it was obviously code for something else: READ "People should be able to marry whomever they want." Big difference.

If Catholics don't stand up to the deceptive rhetoric of "marriage equality", leftists will end up re-defining the word "equality" just as surely as they re-defined the word "choice" to mean abortion.

The people who control the language control the debate. There is no "equivalence" and hence no "equality" when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. We need more priests to speak out so that Catholics aren't swallowed up in this debate and end up drinking the Kool Aid of Gay Marriage.

Gay Marriage today, when followed to its logical conclusion, will mean polygamy and bestiality tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Very articualtely well said!!!

~SL

Anonymous 2 said...

The author writes: “People who are simply acknowledging the basic reality of marriage between one man and one woman are being labeled as ‘bigots’ and ‘homophobic.’ Aren't we past that as a society?” Well, no, clearly we are not past that as a society. One is constantly bombarded with labels, from both the Left and the Right, that serve as a shortcut or substitute for thought on this and other issues (for example, “bigot” and “homophobic” from the Left, “socialist” and “anti-American” from the Right). How refreshing, then, to see that the author also writes: “I hope that in voicing my beliefs I encourage people on both sides to use reason and charity as they enter this debate.” Bravo!

rcg said...

Robert, what they meant was that people should be able to have sex with anything they want and call it love. It isn't marriage under attack, it is love.