Grace Baptist Church

The year 2012 will be another opportunity for Christians to take a look at their own lives and do an honest inventory of their own faults, failures, and prejudices. It should be a year where we strive to become more like Jesus in everything we say and do, to talk like Him, learn to love like Him, to give like Him, and to sacrifice like Him. 2012 will also be a year where we are faced with challenges to our convictions and we will have to know why we believe what we believe. Such will be the case with the marriage amendment debate in the state of Minnesota.  We don’t want to be a body of believers whose focus is singularly on the social ills and evils of our day. We risk self-righteousness and empty religion when we get all excited about external issues, but neglect the wickedness that lies in each one of our own hearts. However, we don’t want to be a church that believes the lie that says, “Churches and people of faith should mind their own business when it comes to social issues.”  When a society blatantly rejects God’s plan for a social institution in favor of its own plan, the consequences don’t just negatively affect portions of our society – the consequences impact all of us, and have serious implications to peoples of all faiths. Below is an article from Minnesota for Marriage called “Why Preserving Marriage Matters” ( Marriage Matters Info Flyer). Throughout this coming election cycle, you are going to hear much from the media and the society around you describing why they believe it doesn’t really matter who gets married. We trust you will base your research on the loving and unchanging truth of God’s Word, and be able to “give an answer” in a spirit of love, meekness, and in the fear of God.

“Why Preserving Marriage Matters” By Minnesota for Marriage

The debate over the definition of marriage has unfolded across America for the past several years, and is the subject of the pro- posed amendment on the November 2012 ballot to preserve marriage in Minnesota.

But what is the debate really about, how does it affect society and what is at stake in the outcome of the amendment vote?

What is at stake in this debate are two competing definitions of marriage. One definition – advocated by gay “marriage” activists – would define marriage as the union of any two people regard- less of gender. The other definition, contained in the proposed constitutional amendment and reflective of the collective under- standing of virtually every nation throughout recorded history, is that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Only one of these definitions of marriage would exist in the law. It would become the sole definitional basis for the only law-sanc- tioned marriage that could exist.

Why has virtually every society defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman? The answer can be summarized in one word: children. Marriage is a special relationship reserved exclusively for heterosexual unions because only the intimate re- lationship between men and women has the ability to produce children. Marriage serves a vital and universal societal purpose – to channel biological drive that might otherwise become so- cially destructive into enduring family units for the benefit of anychildren produced by that sexual union. By encouraging men and women to marry, society helps ensure that children will be known by and cared for by their biological parents. Simply stat- ed, while death and divorce too often prevent it, children need both a mother and a father.

The amendment preserves Minnesota’s historic and traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman – the same definition adopted by voters in every state to con- sider the question (31 of 31 states have voted to define mar- riage in this way).

Additionally, passage of the marriage protection amendment ensures that the people of Minnesota themselves, and not activist judges or politicians, decide how our state will define marriage in the future. Without a marriage amendment in our constitution, activist judges or politicians can substitute their values for those of the people of Minnesota. This is exactly what happened elsewhere. The marriage protection amendment en- sures that if activists want to redefine marriage in the future, they must receive the approval of voters to do so.

Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is in the public good. It serves the interests of men and women, of chil- dren, and of society itself. The marriage protection amendment on the November 2012 ballot gives voters the opportunity to preserve this special institution.

Right now, attempts are being made in Minnesota’s courts l and in the Legislature to redefine marriage or eliminate it altogether. If activist judges or politicians were to succeed in redefining marriage in Minnesota in the future, there would be profound consequences for religious organizations, individuals, and small businesses—and for society itself.

Those who do not agree with this new definition of marriage as a genderless institution existing for the benefit of adults – not children — will be treated under the law just like racists and bigots, and will be punished for their beliefs. This is already occurring:

• Religious groups who have refused to make their facilities available for same-sex couples have lost their state tax exemption.
• Religious groups like Catholic Charities in Boston and Washington DC have had to choose between fulfilling their social mission based on their religious beliefs, or acquiescing to this new definition of marriage. They have, for example, been forced to close their charitable adoption agencies.
• Whenever schools educate children about marriage, which happens throughout the curriculum, they will have no choice but to teach this new genderless institution. In Massachusetts, kids as young as second grade were taught about gay marriage in class. The courts ruled that parents had no right to prior notice, or to opt their children out of such instruction.Wedding professionals have been fined for refusing to participate in a same-sex ceremony.
• Doctors, lawyers, accountants and other licensed professionals risk their state licensure if they act on their belief that a same-sex couple cannot really be married. A counselor, for example, could not refuse “marriage therapy” to a same-sex couple because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. She’d put her licensure at risk.
• Those people – a strong majority of Minnesotans – who believe marriage is between one man and one woman, would be the legal equivalent of bigots for acting on their heartfelt beliefs. Refusal to accommodate and recognize same-sex “marriages” would be the equivalent of racial discrimination. Not only will the law penalize traditional marriage supporters, but the power of government will work in concert to promote this belief throughout the culture.
• Perhaps most importantly, shifting the focus of our marriage laws away from the interests of children and society as a whole, and onto the desires of the adults involved in a same-sex relationship will result in the most profound long-term consequences. Such a paradigm shift says to children that mothers and fathers don’t matter (especially fathers) – any two “parents” will do.