|
by John Helmberger
Chief Executive Officer Minnesota Family Council As you might imagine, the Minnesota Family Council gets a lot of negative responses to its pro-family stance on a number of controversial issues, especially following media exposure. The hostile feedback has included nasty letters, e-mails, phone calls – on one occasion, even a box of dog feces in the mail. We usually take this feedback in stride; it goes with the territory, and we’re used to it. However, one recent email was downright chilling in its implications – chilling because it underscores what we are really up against in the battle for our culture. The e-mail in question came in response to Tom Prichard’s commentary on same-sex marriage (SSM), published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on July 30th. In his commentary, Tom dismantled the litany of arguments used by the editors a few days earlier in their editorial encouraging the U.S. to follow Canada’s lead in legalizing SSM. He concluded that “we don’t want to follow Canada, because that nation’s path will only lead to the further disintegration of marriage, harm to children, and religious persecution. Thankfully, most Minnesotans realize the folly of following that lead.” The Usual Arguments As usual, I read this particular e-mail response to learn how we could improve our communication on the issue. Who better to point out the flaws in our arguments and presentation than our opponents? In this case, the writer of the e-mail repeated the usual phony arguments for legalizing SSM — i.e., that the Constitution prescribes “separation of church and state” (it doesn’t); that homosexuals are born that way (they aren’t); that marriage is for any two people who “fall in love” (it isn’t); that it’s a matter of civil rights for gays and lesbians (it isn’t); that there is no scientific basis for claiming that children of same-sex couples are disadvantaged “in any significant respect” (there is); and that procreation is not an essential purpose of marriage (it is). Then I came to the paragraph that stopped me cold. It began by minimizing Tom’s concern about the infringement of religious freedom that has invariably accompanied legalization of same-sex unions everywhere this has occurred (most recently in Canada, where Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary – one of the featured speakers at MFC’s Minnesota Pastor’s Summit coming up in November – was subjected to intimidation by Canada’s national government for openly putting forward Church teaching on gay marriage). Alarming Proposal I had to read what came next several times to make sure the writer really meant what I thought he did. He didn’t protest the assertion that religious freedom was being restricted. Rather, he acknowledged it. But instead of disavowing such infringement of First Amendment rights (as, for example, pro-life leaders have disavowed abortion clinic bombings), he went on to argue matter-of-factly that limitations on Christians’ freedom to oppose SSM “outside their church” were appropriate! In other words, he in effect advocated suspension of the First Amendment for Christians. Now if this writer had come across as a crackpot, it would have been easy to dismiss his e-mail. But the fact is that he didn’t come across that way. To the contrary, he appeared to be intelligent, educated, and articulate. That being the case, I have to assume that he represents the thinking of many in our society on the other side of the SSM debate. If anything should convince us that Christians can’t afford to remain on the sidelines in the battle for marriage and in the broader culture war, this kind of thinking should be it. To be silent is to tacitly agree with such thinking. Ultimately, if we don’t speak out for biblical moral righteousness, we most certainly will lose the right to do so. |
|
Minnesota Family Council / Minnesota Family Institute 2855 Anthony Lane South, Minneapolis MN, 55418-3265 Phone 612.789.8811, FAX 612.789.8858, www.mfc.org |