Pastor's
Page
By
Fr. George Welzbacher
October 14, 2012
Chances are that few of our parishioners would find themselves puzzled
as to where I stand in the matter of amending our state's constitution.
By now it should be clear that with many Minnesotans I offer
unconditional support to adding to our state constitution's present
language
a definition of marriage as
explicitly a commitment, legally recognized, between one man and one
woman. My recommendation now, as it has been since the start of the
campaign, is: VOTE YES! And may I add this important reminder:
the proposal as it appears on the ballot is so worded as to guarantee
that
IF A VOTER DOES NOT REGISTER A
PREFERENCE, leaving that part of the ballot
BLANK, his vote will be counted as a
"NO"!
This is an issue fraught with consequence. Apart from other important
considerations (which I have addressed at length in a recent
Pastor's Page), should the
proposal be defeated, then, one may plausibly surmise, given the
prevailing moral climate, the next item on the opponents' "to do" list
will be legislative agitation combined with action in the courts -
such movement is in fact already underway -
to grant full parity with traditional marriage to the "marriage" of
same-sex couples, with the present statute prohibiting such
grant struck down. And if such parity should come to be enshrined in
the law, or to be imposed by judicial decree,
anti-discrimination laws already on the
books could then be used to insist that a clergyman authorized by the
state to officiate at marriages in the name of the state must, in
observance of such laws, be open to officiating at ALL marriages,
INCLUDING the "marriage" of same-sex couples. After all, in the age of
that profound transformation of society proclaimed by President Obama
as the goal of his administration, his Health and Human Services
Department has ALREADY handed down a mandate requiring, under penalty
of ruinous fines, Catholic hospitals, schools and charitable agencies
to subsidize what the Catholic Church officially identifies as evil. It
thus would seem that our federal Constitution's First Amendment no
longer constitutes quite so strong a deterrent as once it did against
governmental VIOLATION OF CONSCIENCE. Especially would this be true if,
in the not so distant future, vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court
should be filled with exponents of the "Living Constitution" philosophy
of law, holding to fairness, however defined, as trumping the
Constitution's letter.
From
Father Moriarty:
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
As the election gets closer it is important that we step up our efforts
to pass the Minnesota Marriage Protection Amendment. This amendment
asks Minnesota voters to defend the long held definition of traditional
marriage as a marriage between one man and one woman. I would like to
point out a few things that will be helpful as you converse with your
friends, relatives and co-workers who might have questions or concerns
about this effort.
We are taking this particular approach because
we wish more effectively to defend marriage
from activist judges and politicians who wish to change or strike down
the state statute already passed. Enshrining the definition of
marriage as between one man and one woman
in the state constitution is the most we
can do legally to protect the traditional understanding of marriage.
Lawsuits have already been filed to attack our current state statute
about marriage.
The amendment does not take away anyone's current rights. The amendment
does not limit anyone from visiting a loved one in the hospital. Nor
does it inhibit an individual from willing/bequeathing his or her
property to another.
Marriage between one man and one woman is not only a tenet of our
faith. This is
a commonly held
understanding about the most basic institution known to society, the
family. Traditional marriage and family are the key instruments to
foster and form the NEXT generation of citizens. The state recognizes
marriage as the basic building block of society and therefore
has a right and a duty to legally protect this unique and critical
relationship in society.
If you leave the ballot box
blank
it counts as a NO vote; that is, it is a vote
against the Minnesota Marriage
Protection Amendment. This is not a situation of the Church trying to
impose its belief on others.
This is
primarily a cultural issue so crucial to the very health and
well being of children and society as a whole, that
the Church is lovingly speaking the truth
for the sake of the common good. Please also
consider offering, if you can, a donation to
Minnesota for Marriage
in order to assist in getting the word out about this issue. [According
to
the Star Tribune as much
as
a hundred thousand dollars A DAY
is pouring into the coffers of those OPPOSING the amendment.] PRAYER IS
ALSO ESSENTIAL.
[Emphasis added].
*
*
*
* *
Let's
Protect Marriage-and Free Speech
Star Tribune, September
30, 2012
Matt Birk
It should come as no surprise that the National Football League
supports the right of its players to share their opinions on important
public matters, nor should it come as a surprise that I personally
support my colleagues' right to voice their opinions.
But the conversation during the
last few weeks on the subject of same-sex marriage has told a different
story --one that appears to be drawing a false connection between
supporting true American values like free speech and the institution of
marriage, our most fundamental and important social institution.
I think it is important to set
the record straight about what the marriage debate IS AND IS NOT about,
and to clarify that not all NFL players think redefining marriage is a
good thing.
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. ... 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.
CHILDREN HAVE A RIGHT TO A MOM
AND A DAD, and I realize that this doesn't always happen.
Through the work my wife and I do at pregnancy resource centers and at
schools for the under privileged, we have witnessed firsthand
the many heroic efforts of single mothers
and fathers -- many of whom work very hard to provide what's best for
their kids.
But recognizing the efforts of
these parents and the resiliency of some (unfortunately not all) of
these kids, does not give society the right to dismiss the potential
long-term effects on a child of not knowing or being loved by his or
her mother or father. EACH plays a vital role in the raising of a
child.
Marriage is in trouble right
now....
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 an issue to permit remaining
silent.....
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 pro-marriage culture in this upcoming
election.
Matt Birk, a native
Minnesotan, is a former center for the Minnesota Vikings and current
NFL Man of the Year for 2012.
*
*
*
* *