Diversity Festival: An Educating Event

A friend and I went to the Diversity Festival held in Rapid City today by some local homosexual activists and a group called "South Dakotans Against Discrimination" who want people to think that just because most South Dakotans won't call the same two men having sex together on a regular basis "marriage" that this constitutes discrimination.

It wasn't like some of those "pride" marches and stuff you see pictures of in the bigger cities, with a bunch of guys in full drag and leathers, but it was educating, nevertheless.

As I sat down to write up my observations, I ended up with more material than is really appropriate in a blog format, so I posted it as an editorial at www.dakotavoice.com. You can go there to read the whole thing, but here's a small exerpt of some things I read today:

- “…being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong.”

- “Read within the context of their own historical and cultural backgrounds, the Bible texts do not address adult, loving homosexual relations as we understand them today.”

Marriage Amendment Threatens Nothing

It occurred to me yesterday after my lastest post on the fear mongering from the Left on the marriage amendment coming up on the November ballot that not only are the individual arguments they're bringing up red herrings, but the whole argument that it's going to change ANYTHING is a red herring.

I stand by the statements I made that it's foolish and wrong to expect for a non-marital relationship to receive the same benefits as marriage. But I got to thinking: I don't think the marriage amendment would do anything at all to diminish whatever protections an unmarried couple might have in a domestic violence situtation. And an interview conducted by Denise Ross of Rob Regier from the South Dakota Family Policy Council confirms my suspicion.

Rob said that while some states do require a marital relationship before the full, expidited protections of domestic abuse law come into play, South Dakota domestic abuse protections only require that the abuser and the abused live together. So even two guys living together platonically--as roomates in a college, a military barracks, or sharing an apartment--could theoretically be protected under domestic abuse provisions, though they would almost certainly consider conventional law (i.e. assault statutes, etc) to be sufficient.

I also went back and reread the amendment (http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2005/bills/HJR1001enr.htm), which is something we should always do when there is a question. My reading of this 42-word amendment confirmed that the scope of the amendment deals only with the institution of marriage itself. It says "only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized." It also says that any other name you want to call a marriage-type relationship by (e.g. civil union, domestic partnership, etc) shall not be valid or recognized in South Dakota." It has nothing to say about the enforcement of other laws, and it has nothing to say about whether a company can offer domestic partner benefits if it wants to. The scope of the amendment deals only with what marriage is and what marriage is not--and says nothing whatsoever about the benefits that come with marriage.

My thanks to the Left for this opportunity to further clarify what the marriage amendment is really about: marriage.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

The fringe-dwellers over at Coathangers don't seem to like my post that the whole argument against the marriage amendment on the basis it might affect heterosexuals is a straw man. They're good at the "but what if..." "but what if..." games that children like to play, but as people mature they begin to understand that you don't build policies, procedures or laws based on a bunch of wild-eyed but-what-ifs.

Their arguments continue to ring hollow because they just don't hold water in the real world. These red herrings they bring up are simply an effort to gain the sympathy of good people who otherwise wouldn't touch their anti-marriage crusade with a ten foot pole.

They're really just the rantings of people who want to live dangerously, but be insulated from the harm that can come from their recklessness. And they always want to rob or tear down something else in order to try and stand a little higher on their soggy ground.

Their pleas for additional protections for an illegitimate relationship are like going swimming in a river somewhere, running into trouble, then suing the state or federal government because they didn't provide a lifeguard.

It's like driving your car at 120 MPH and after having run into a guardrail and getting yourself paralyzed from the neck down, suing the state because they should have had police on hand to stop you from driving that fast...or they should have had medical personnel immediately on hand to help you, instead of having to call them in from a hospital miles away.

When you choose to live your life outside of legitimate parameters, you assume a certain level of risk. We humans have known (and pretty much accepted) for thousands of years that marriage provides certain benefits and protections. Why? Well, God established it for one thing, making it the natural order. We also recognize it as the basic building block of civilization, providing for division of labor while raising children, a stable environment for raising children, and providing a balance of gender role models for both male and female children.

When we live outside the conventions and commitments of marriage, naturally basic human rights should still apply. But a different mode of living requires a different manner of protections. It's disingenuous to provide the same protections and benefits to situations that don't constitute marriage, that you provide for marriage itself. Firemen get special suits to wear around at work--should I get one because I'm a computer programmer? Cops get a car to drive around and a gun to carry at work--should I get a car and gun because I'm a receptionist?

Then why should we give the rights and benefits of marriage to relationships (both homosexual and heterosexual alike) that don't constitute marriage? Answer: beyond basic human rights, we shouldn't.

That's where law enforcement prosecution of assault comes in. If you want any additional benefits that the label "domestic assault" may provide, then get yourself into a domestic situation by getting married; otherwise, file assault charges on the dirtbag.

The same goes for power of attorney situations. If you're eligible to get married, then get married. If you're not eligible to get married, then think ahead and get a power of attorney and any other required legal provisions. I may need legal procedures to be able to take care of my parents as they age, but it's disingenuous and demeaning to marriage to equate even the parent/child relationship with the marriage relationship. And if my parents and I don't take care of these matters ahead of time, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if an emergency arises and we find ourselves in a difficult situation. The state shouldn't have to cater to stupidity and laziness, and undermine the meaning and sacredness of marriage in the process.

In the end, it goes back to the same old liberal predilections: they want to be completely insulated from the consequences of unwise or bad decisions. And while we can throw lots of other people's money at problems to try and do that, and we can get a bunch of liberal judges to make up their own laws to try and do that, the laws of the universe catch up to us sooner or later. And ultimately, we'll all face the Creator and Judge of this universe we all live in...and liberal attempts to evade consequences won't amount to a hill of beans with Him.

Marriage Fear Mongering Gearing Up

Some anti-marriage folks are staring to rev up the fear-mongering campaign to try and defeat the marriage amendment on the November ballot.

Some opponents claim heterosexual couples living together outside marriage would be without legal protection in the event of domestic abuse. First, if they really believe that, this should be a good incentive for them to do the right thing and get married. But the argument is a red herring; laws against assault have not been repealed, and restraining orders are available to people regardless of their marital status. Empty argument.

Another argument involves someone living with another person platonically to help with expenses, poor health, etc. Even if they are not related, this bill does nothing to hinder these two people from securing power of attorney and any other legal means necessary for them to visit one another in the hospital, take care of legal affairs, etc. Another red herring.

They also argue that this law might prevent companies that offer domestic partner benefits from being able to do that in South Dakota. I honestly don't know if that would be affected or not, but even if it is, so be it. We shouldn't be giving unmarried couples (homosexual or heterosexual) the same benefits accorded to those in a matrimonial relationship. It's legitimizing a relationship that isn't legitimate.

The Left will fear-monger, the Left will mislead, and the Left will even lie in an attempt to stop passage of this marriage protection legislation which has passed by huge margins everywhere it's gone to a vote, but they'll just be chalking up yet another loss since 20 states now have constitutional amendments prohibiting homosexual "marriage," several more have DOMAs to protect marriage, and only a handful don't have anything at all spelling it out for the slow learners that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Ignorance or Revisionism?

From Nieman Watchdog:

I believe this to be the first time in modern American history that a president's religion, in this case his Christian fundamentalism, has become a decisive factor in his foreign and domestic policies. It’s a factor that has been under-reported, to say the least, and that begs for press attention.

If this guy defines "modern American history" as dating back to the beginning of the Clinton years, then maybe he has a case. Otherwise, he's woefully ignorant of American history, or he's one of these secularists who are desperately trying to rewrite history to make Americans think we've been a Godless nation until "religious fundamentalists" started trying to take over and create a "theocracy" during the Bush years.

Religious beliefs have been a decisive factor in the policy decisions of American presidents going all the way back to our first one (George Washington, not Bill Clinton); that is because America has been since before its official founding a Christian nation. The fact that presidents have been guided by their faith has continued from George Washington throughout most of our history, at least up to the point of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Everyone, especially doubters, should read "God and Ronald Reagan" by Paul Kengor. It is an absolutely amazing account of how Reagan's faith guided him in his presidency, especially in his fight and eventual victory over the "evil empire" of Soviet Communism.

This guy, like all secularists, is afraid of God. That's too bad, because God only wants the best for him and would love to make his life all that it can be. Yet that's a personal decision, one that even God won't supersede. But moving beyond a personal decision to reject God and into a position that encourages others to minimize and disregard God's relevance is dangerous territory. And trying to rewrite history is downright apalling.

Vote Yes For Life

Things are starting to slow down a little (I think I've made the proverbial one-armed paper hanger look like a slacker the past few weeks), so might get back into doing a few posts.

Everyone, both supporters and opposers of South Dakota's abortion ban, should check out the VoteYesForLife.com website. You can read the personal stories and watch videos of women who tell about their experiences with pregnancy and sometimes abortion. These aren't simply a bunch of activists shouting their opinions at you--these are real women who have been affected by this issue.

However you end up voting in November, don't you think this issue is of such great importance that you should have all the facts first?