The Associated Press does an excellent job of interviewing some of the people behind the pro-marriage movement -- good people whose views are based not only on conviction but on real life experience that marriage really is the union of husband and wife and that when we abandon or deny this reality, children and society suffer:
"...opponents [of same-sex marriage] cite their own specific, personal experiences -- as a missionary working with teens from single-mother households or a nurse treating a suicidal gay man -- to explain their belief that the only way forward is for marriage to be limited to between one man and one woman.
Many say that although their opposition to gay marriage begins with a reading of the Bible, it is confirmed by the challenges and observations of everyday life in a country whose values they see as crumbling. The politics of recent days, they say, will not change that.
That view is echoed in interviews with opponents from around the country, with some of the strongest conviction in states where gay marriage has been a hot issue.
In Minnesota, where a vote is set for this fall on an amendment similar to North Carolina's, missionary John Tolo said he had long admired Obama for rising to become the nation's first black president. But he lamented Obama's stand on gay marriage as an unprincipled pursuit of campaign cash.
The president's stand contradicts the lessons of his own experience, said Tolo, recalling his own drug use and multiple sexual relationships after his parents divorced and, more recently, his work in a poor part of St. Paul.
In the Frogtown neighborhood, where Tolo's group has bought and is renovating an abandoned house that he says is a gathering point for teens, too many children grow up in households where there's "this fundamental breakdown of having a healthy father role model and a healthy mother role model," he said. "There's this major identity issue where men are just missing."
Tolo said that, while he supports the idea of some kind of legal recognition for same-sex couples, marriage is a sacred template for raising and caring for children as God intended. Broadening marriage risks undermining that, while infringing on the rights of Christians to define their own institutions.
The entire article is well worth reading.
12 Comments
Reading the article, some SSMers may consider the expressed concerns too week to oppose the redefinition of marriage. But we must consider that the arguments in favor of redefining marriage are weaker, and make no sense whatsoever.
Of all interviewees, the words of April Brown are most salient. She said that one thing that struck a chord with her was when a gay man sued E-Harmony to force them to provide matching services for homosexuals. That led her to eventually start questioning, "what do they really want?"
I believe the aggressive, hostile, entitlement mind-set of many in the LGBT lobby will continue to have these types of negative, public perception effects--especially when situations spring up involving the suing of small businesses, and employment-related retaliation against those who oppose ssm.
Read the entire article and from the comments below I see that we will have our work cut out for us.
Those who support marriage redefinition do so out of ignorance. They know nothing about it's far-reaching negative effects. They support it because of friendships with gays and lesbians. Or in the case of politicians they support it for money. Those are not good reasons.
This may come as a shock to some of my fellow frequent commenters at this site, but a few years ago I actually supported marriage definition. But I've seen so much in the past few years. Acquisition of knowledge and personal experience literally forced me to change my mind.
If someone had told me back then I'd become a supporter of true marriage I wouldn't have believed them. Now I can't believe I ever supported fake marriage. Time and experience are powerful, sometimes cruel, teachers.
*REdefinition*...sorry
@Barb Chamberlan
You're not alone in that. For years, I supported gay marriage too. I was very openminded about these things.
Like you say, experience is a teacher.
Barb and Lefty. Out of curiosity, what made you change your attitudes?
Barb: I understand your dilema. Although I did not support marriage corruption I was open to government recognition of other relationships. I was open to taking the non creative benefits of marriage and extending them to those not married.
In other words I was open to allowing others to have visitation and inheritance rights who were not married. But no more as like you, I have seen the greed of the other side.
Barb and Lefty, thanks for sharing your stories. You prove that people can move to the pro-marriage side no matter how strong their convictions (Barb), or how long they've held them (Lefty).
Very encouraging
Thanks for the kind words Ash! I am so grateful to Adam Geller for this great article, and being so fair in his reporting!
Outlawing same sex marriage will fix none of the problems cited in this article as "reasons" for opposing it. They are completely unrelated. Marriage equality will only strengthen society.
What does John Tolo have to say to children of same sex couple's who lives he wants to make harder? Tolo is a hypocrite.
@10
=Marriage equality will only strengthen society. ==
Those who claim to be homo already have marriage equality -- they may marry now the way all the rest of us marry. There is no requirement that they -- the man and the woman -- be heterosexual.
Marriage is a Christian institution? Someone should tell the pre-Christian Greeks, and the Eastern cultures that celebrated marriage before they had any contact with the Judeo-Christian traditions. They must have been rather...prescient.
Sorry folks, but religious belief -- even when backed by confirmation bias -- is not a sufficient basis for law.
Also, anyone who considers marriage to be a privilege rather than a right (as one woman was quoted as saying in the article) should take the time to study a bit of marriage law: the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that marriage is a fundamental right at least 14 times since the 1800s. Though NOM may not think that the fundamental right to marry extends to gay and lesbian couples, marriage's legal status as a fundamental right is a fact; to call it a privilege is to demonstrate an ignorance of the legal reality.