For the Sake of the Children

For the sake of the children I urge all Minnesotans on November 6th, 2012, to vote “yes,” for the “Marriage Protection Amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution,” when it appears on the State ballot.

It is a widespread moral instinct found through ten thousand years of recorded human history that children are best served by a mother and a father who are male and female. This widespread moral instinct always wins at the ballot box but has at times been overturned by an elite minority of judges or legislatures who undermine the democratic process. In the ballot box I encourage you to vote your moral instinct that marriage be between one man and one woman.

The benefits to children raised in a traditional marriage far surpass those offered by any other institution: higher education and economic levels are achieved and they are emotionally and physically healthier. Raised in traditional families they are less likely to be physically abused, commit crimes, be abusive themselves, be addicted to illegal substances, pregnant out of wedlock, members of gangs, and the societal benefits continue. I encourage all Minnesotans to vote “yes,” on the Amendment to promote the social benefits both for children as well as society. This explains why societies have ordered themselves in this manner for it is a social good that benefits all.

It is no secret that married men and women live longer compared to singles and some studies have shown that alternate lifestyles shorten life-spans tragically by upwards of twenty years. Among heterosexual marriages surveys have found ninety percent of the women to be faithful and seventy- five percent of husbands. Certainly one wishes these numbers were higher. However, where the marriage is not heterosexual monogamy rates are significantly lower. Surely these figures have bearing for the stability and future of any society and civilization.

There is legal precedent in our nation’s history for what the Minnesota State Legislature is attempting to do in codifying the “Marriage Protection Amendment” in the State Constitution through the ballot box. From 1845-1895 there was the Mormon Polygamy Controversy. For the sake of the children the United States Federal Government did not grant Utah Statehood for forty years until they changed their State Constitution from espousing polygamy to codifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, as it is written now. The state of Arizona was admitted to the Union in 1912 when they too stated in their State Constitution that marriage would be as it has traditionally affirmed through ten thousand years of human history. This was necessitated by the preponderance of Mormons in Arizona as well.

Women with lesbian tendencies and men with homosexual leanings have equal rights just like anyone else. Should a woman with lesbian tendencies desire to marry a man she is free to do so and should a man with homosexual leanings chose to marry a woman he is free to do so. Equal rights exist for all people. But as a recipient of ten thousand years of recorded human civilization I resist any effort that seeks to change the “definition” of marriage or reconstruct it from what always has been between: “two” people of the “opposite” sex. In ancient Greece and Rome homosexuality was widespread. Though widespread these cultures never redefined the definition of marriage or restructured marriage from what it always has been.

In writing this article and expressing my views I have no desire whatsoever of imposing my religious views on anyone in society. Marriage is no more a religious issue any more than laws against drunkenness, theft, or murder are religious issues. These laws are derived from and promoted by people based on a widespread moral instinct as they seek to develop a society which is best for all. Marriage and its definition is a function of the State and not the church. That is why clergy need to obtain a marriage license not from their church body, but from the State, i.e., the county courthouse.

When you vote on November 6th you need to be aware of one thing. Should you pass over, or chose to not vote on the “Marriage Amendment” Minnesota is one of the few states that records this as a “no” vote. This makes it that much harder to arrive at the necessary fifty percent to pass the Amendment.

The “Marriage Protection Amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution,” does not seek to outlaw or promote homosexual conduct. It simply seeks to affirm the historically accepted definition of marriage. What you legalize you promote. To date all 31 states that have voted on issues of marriage have voted to affirm traditional marriage. It is my hope that on November 6, Minnesota will become the 32 state to affirm traditional marriage; for the sake of the children.

Rev. Karl A. Weber
St. John’s Lutheran Church, Ottertail MN
St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Richville MN

 

See also: Minnesota Lutherans Divided Over Proposed Marriage Amendment

About Pastor Karl Weber

Karl has been serving St. Paul’s Richville LC and St. John’s, Ottertail, MN since Labor Day, 2004. He was raised in the Roman Church receiving his BA from Fordham University. Before going to seminary he was a computer programmer in Minneapolis. He served as a short term missionary in Guatemala and Kenya, East Africa. He spent time as a member of the ELCA and studied two years at Luther Seminary, St. Paul, MN pursing his M. Div. before transferring to the LCMS for theological reasons and continuing his studies at Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne. He was ordained in 1991 and earned his D. Min. in May 2002 from the same institution. He has contributed study notes to The Lutheran Study Bible. He enjoys deer hunting, going to the gym, swimming, and reading. He is married to Mary and has five wonderful children.

Comments

For the Sake of the Children — 4 Comments

  1. “Marriage is no more a religious issue any more than laws against drunkenness, theft, or murder are religious issues. These laws are derived from and promoted by people based on a widespread moral instinct as they seek to develop a society which is best for all. Marriage and its definition is a function of the State and not the church.”

    Is this statement true, especially in light of AC.XXIII and Ap.XXIII (XI)? If marriage were not really a religious issue and the definition of marriage were only a function of the state (like the color of socks worn to church or the legal requirement for having smoke detectors), then the church should have no objections to marrying two people of the same sex.

    In fact, just as with drunkeness, theft, and murder, marriage and its definition is a religious issue, while at the same time marriage also has some legal relevance to the state.

  2. For Maryland readers: “Same-sex marriage” is also on the ballot in our state, but here it is an amendment to *allow* for it.

    So take the arguments above and understand/use them as reason to vote *against*, i.e. Vote “No” on, Question 6 on November 6.

  3. Awesome article Pastor Weber. I especially enjoyed the amendment not being a rights issue because everyone has the same rights. It is a definition issue that affects more than a few words, but affects our children. May we all repent of our failures as parents and live according to God’s Word. Blessings in Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.