Evangelical Lutherans in the St. Paul, Minnesota area went on record against changing the Minnesota Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and woman.
The Saint Paul Area Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America overwhelmingly passed a resolution to publicly oppose the marriage amendment at its annual meeting in Burnsville on Saturday. This is the fifth synod in Minnesota to adopt a resolution opposing the amendment, which will be on the ballot in November.
Colorado recently refused to pass legislation recognizing civil unions in the state and voters in North Carolina recently passed an amendment similar to Colorado’s defining marriage as being between a man and a woman.
Critics of marriage amendments and even some on the conservative side of the issue have said they “ban ‘gay’ marriage,” however that statement is factually inaccurate.
Thus far, all of the constitutional amendments proposed and passed by states have simply issued a declarative statement that the state recognizes that marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman. The words ban, illegal, prohibits or similar language is nowhere to be found in any of these amendments. What may shock individuals is that there is currently not a single state that actually bans “gay” marriages.
Historically, marriage has been recognized as a commitment between two individuals and in many instances recognized by the church, with ceremonies often being performed by a member of the clergy.
Under existing laws, there is nothing prohibiting any same-sex couple from getting a member of the clergy or anyone else for that matter to conduct some type of ceremony acknowledging their “marriage” or any other type of commitment they chose to have.
Homosexual advocates say these ceremonies are not recognized by the state and while that may be true, it is one thing for a state to not recognize something, and quite another to ban it entirely.
For instance, there are many private Christian universities who offer college degree programs which are not recognized by the state. Individuals transferring from these colleges into state colleges will often find their credits do not transfer over because the state does not acknowledge the credits of an unaccredited institution.
While people can argue whether these private credits should or should not be recognized, no one in their right mind would say legislators are attempting to “ban” private colleges simply because they do not recognize them.
The same principle holds true for “gay” marriage. Only in the minds of liberals does refusing to accept something automatically equate to banning it. I would challenge anyone in the homosexual community to show us legislation that specifically prohibits to “gay” people or for that matter anyone from conducting some type of ceremony honoring their commitment to each other. You will not find one, because to do so would violate the free-speech protections of the First Amendment.
While a person is free to lobby lawmakers and attempt to persuade the public to adopt their point of view, homosexuals have no more right to force a state to acknowledge their relationship then individuals attending a private unaccredited college do to force the state to recognize their degrees.