Why we must defend the moral order per Tom

By Tom Rasmussen - Your turn - 07/10/08
This is written in response to a recent front page IR article about two women from Montana who were to be married in California following that state’s Supreme Court decision striking down a law banning same-sex marriage.

Some would support this action and argue that two people who love each other should be able to make their union legal and that the concept of freedom and justice for all should prevail.

However, the issue is immeasurably deeper than that. If this court verdict stands and then spreads to other states, it will destroy a moral order that has stood throughout recorded history. Not a single religion or moral philosophical system since antiquity has ever defined marriage as between members of the same sex.

The institution of marriage is the basic building block of society, and is the means by which we produce children that will be the next generation. The future of the human race depends on this relationship. Relationships between two men or two women are by their very nature sterile and, thus, not marriage.

If marriage crumbled, the practical implications to society would be enormous, and in ways we could not even foresee at present. If “love”, “commitment” and “fairness” became the only criteria, it would become impossible to exclude any “marriage” between two or more partners of either sex. There would be nothing stopping polygamy, three men, one man and two women, etc., etc., getting married.

Further outcomes would in all probability be
Our language would change. Ordinary words like “husband” and “wife” would disappear, to be that textbooks would not be allowed to describe marriage in male/female ways alone. Little girls would be asked if they want one day to marry a man or a woman. The sexual confusion that would be created among young people is not fully measurable and is scary even to consider.

replaced by “partner” and “spouse”. Marriage preparation and sex education classes in the public schools would have to include instruction on homosexual sex. Parents who complained would be branded as homophobes and their children would suffer.

Any advocacy of man/woman marriage would be regarded morally as hate speech and shortly thereafter it would be deemed so in law. Traditional Christianity, which has provided the underpinnings of our nation’s value system and government, and indeed that of Western civilization, would be marginalized.

In addition, we cannot ignore the fact that Christianity along with all major religions, clearly states that homosexuality is wrong. This is not something that is just open to interpretation. One reference in the New Testament. I Corinthians 6:9-10, groups homosexual behavior with idolatry, thievery, drunkenness and adultery, among other weaknesses. This is not to say that homosexual people themselves are evil, but the actual behavior is evil in God’s eyes.

Trying to explain this away in the name of tolerance, human dignity, or the fact that a tiny segment of the church community has chosen to ignore this part of Christian teaching, does not change what the Bible says.

That being said, the fact is that we are all sinners. The central message of the Gospel is that God loves us so much that He sent His Son to die for our sins. Through this, we are given the free gift of forgiveness and eternal life. What a wonderful gift this is.

However, Jesus’ message was very clear, that we must repent and turn away from our sins and accept this free gift. If we continue in our previous behavior pattern of drunkenness, adultery, etc., it means we have made the choice to not accept God’s gift.

Concerning homosexuality, thousands of people have made the decision to step away from it, and this most often happens through the experience of accepting Christ as Savior. This obviously undercuts the arguments that homosexuality is inborn and genetic.

Certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding. They should not be discriminated against or have to experience bigoted behavior against them. They have every right in our culture to continue in their behavior if they choose to.

We must not, however, let a false sense of “fairness”, “tolerance”, or “non-discrimination” undercut a foundational part of the fabric of our culture. The price to society and succeeding generations would be too great.

Tom Rasmussen of Helena is a former member of both the Montana House of Representatives and the Senate.


Reader Comments:

mark1228 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 12:19 PM:

" Well done Mr. Rasmussen! Well written.

gun- I can understand you feeling sick, sad and angry... sometimes the truth hurts "

rambler wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:25 AM:

" Well put, Mr. Rasmussen. As Christians are taught to love (not tolerate) and love can be tough at times. We have customized Jesus' teachings and choose what we see as sin. Lifestyle choices of all sorts are a part of that. Thank you for stating the situation so succinctly. "

gun961960 wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:33 AM:

" I feel sick....I feel sad....I feel anger....I cannot imagine how any member of the gay/lesbian community feels reading this. Mr. Rasmussen has every right to feel this way as a free American, but when I read that he is a FORMER member of both the Montana House and Senate the only thing that brought me comfort was the word FORMER. This ideaology is exactly why I turn away from organized religion. How presumptious and arrogant this man is to presume to speak on behalf of God, his God that is. I really don't know what to say....I am a Health Educator and we DO NOT INSTRUCT ANY OF OUR STUDENTS ON HOW TO HAVE ANY KIND OF SEX.....SICKO! There it is for everyone to read....Toms Bible quoting, comparing homosexuality to drunkeness, thievery, and adultrey...and "certainly people who believe they are homosexual need love, support and understanding"...Oh this brought a little tear to my eye. I feel that people who believe they speak for God and who fill themselves full of this BS need love, support, and some serious THERAPY!! This entire article made my skin crawl!! "

bhallinan wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:57 AM:

" "Destroy the moral order", "The institution of marriage", "If marriage crumbles" "Text book changes", "Language changes", "People who believe they are homosexual" and the implication that Christianity is under assault, but also that Christ provides the answers. The first half of the argument focuses on the notion of institution, and the fear of possible, but unlikely outcomes. The second half of the argument has a religious bent, promoting dogma above false notions of fairness, tolerance, and non-discrimination. The religious argument is based on the purported words of one character from a 2,000+ year-old narrative written by unknown author(s) on behalf of a God who might be more imaginary than real (www.godisimaginary.com). Ironically, that character's life, Paul's, was saved by his appeal to Roman citizenship when religious leaders wanted to kill him. Citizenship has its privileges.

One of the first principles of morality is to "do no harm." A civil marriage contract defines the limits and scope of paired relationship. A contract is not an institution. It is the institution, State Government, that protects the contract. If anothers contractual relationship has no effect on mine, no harm is done. My marriage is not going to suffer because someone else got married despite the sex paring. If however, I deny access to the same benefits and responsibilities of this civil contract only because of my religious views, then I cause harm and violate a moral principle. The harm is in the denial of economic benefits, violation of church-state separation, limits placed on anothers freedom and liberty.

The following repeats what I have said before. Distinguishing between "God" language and the language of "liberty and justice" is important for America and Montana. Often, the same passion for liberty and justice becomes confused with religious passion. In civil law marriage is a contract, not an institution. One responsibility of Montanas civil marriage contract is to protect children from death (Rubella) and deformity (inbreeding of recessive genes). The law, Montana Code Annotated (MCA) 40-1-401 Section 1, also prohibits same-sex marriage. One must ask, "How is liberty and justice served by legally implying that a same-sex marriage is as bad as killing or physically deforming children?" Evidence suggests that same-sex parenting is at least as safe and successful as mixed-sex parenting or single parenting. To make matters worse, under Montana law no social contracts, civil unions, domestic partnerships, etc. can include same sex couples (MCA 40-1-401 (4)). This may be the only legal sex-text applied in Montana law. As a mater of liberty and justice, not of "God", the law must change. Same sex couples, as contributing citizens in a civil society, merit equal treatment under the law. Obviously, same-sex couples can fulfill the responsibilities of the marriage contract and raise children with as much success as other couples. No amount of "God" language should be allowed as evidence against actual observation of fact. Outside of civil proceedings, of course, churches are free to sanctify marriages according to their congregational convictions.

This author thinks that homosexuality the consequence of belief rather than biology. He uses a belief system to argue against a biological fact. Moreover, what difference does it make if it is biological or not? Two people decide to abide by a civil marriage contract. I was not asked to be part of that couples contract. It is none of my business.

My personal observation has been that every same-sex couple I know is in a loving, supportive, and contributing relationship. I just want to thank all those couples who continue to enrich my community through your presence, love, commitment, courage and patience. I hope due recognition and just treatment under the laws of our nation and state will soon be yours as they are mine. "

al wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:51 AM:

" As a Straight man with some experience in the realm of marriage, I must say that I find Mr. Rasmussen's praise of the "moral order" of heterosexual marriage to be laughable, considering that half of all hetero marriages end in divorce, and that cheating and abuse are rampant.

Gay marriage causes folks like Mr. Rasmussen to bristle for various reasons, but there is no danger to the traditional family from gay marriage; it does not make straight couples love their familes any less.

Mr. Rasmussen and his fellow believers seem more concerned with building an ideal society (a scary concept in itself) than he is with respecting individuals and their choices, and that is too bad.

Let's face it: Most of these anti-gay-lifestyle folks would blow a gasket if Jesus and his suspiciously all-male group of Disciples moved in next door to them. Being blinded by the light, I think they call it. "

purple wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:02 AM:

" Also, what is to stop folks from marrying their dog, cat, horse, goat, etc.? "