In light of recent developments in our neighboring state, I feel it necessary to comment on the impending ‘undefinition’ of marriage.
Let’s begin with terminology. Although we hear about the ‘redefinition’ of marriage, we also hear from the same people about ‘marriage equality’. Considering the end-result these activists are seeking, these goals are not compatible. Marriage equality exists in North Dakota. That is, every citizen has equal access to the institution of marriage, which is legally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That is absolute equality with regard to marriage. The fact that some choose not to employ that option does not mean that it has not been extended to them, and changing the definition of marriage does not ‘level the playing field’, it creates a new option entirely, which, based on the argument of the activists, only leads to discrimination against other proposed variations of ‘marriage’. Redefining marriage to include unions such as one man and one man or one woman and one woman does not afford equal access to those who wish to engage in polygamist ‘marriages’. It was my understanding that the intentions of those who wish to undefine marriage rationalize their actions as a manner of allowing consenting adults to do and love as they please in the privacy of their own bedroom (which is a phrase we will examine next). If that is the case, and their definition of equality is to be realized, marital rights and benefits must be extended to polygamist relationships as well as to mothers who wish to marry their adult sons and/or daughters, siblings who wish to marry one-another, fathers who wish to marry their sons or daughters, and so on. I do not believe that this is the intention of the activists in question, which takes the rallying cry of ‘equality’ completely off the table. Redefinition is definitely their intention, but redefinition essentially opens the door to the other incarnations of ‘marriage’ I mentioned earlier, and many I didn’t. Those who desire such relationships to be legally recognized as ‘marriage’ will have solid ground to stand upon when making the argument for equality. If we change the definition to accommodate for one preference, why wouldn’t we change it again and again to accommodate for all preferences? Here is borne the undefinition of marriage.
Next let’s look at, ‘the privacy of their own bedroom’. I am aware that some states still have laws which disallow sodomy. I am also aware that these laws are not enforced, and many have already been stricken from the books. Nobody I am aware of in the pro-marriage movement has proposed passage or enforcement of any law which regulates what consenting adults do in ‘the privacy of their own bedroom’. This is simply another mischaracterization of the intentions of we who favor the protection of marriage designed to make us look like voyeuristic thugs who wish to break down bedroom doors and forcibly stop individuals from engaging in behaviors with which we disagree. Intimacy is certainly an integral component of marriage, but intimacy outside or marriage has little to do with the topic.
How about discrimination? We have all experienced charges of discrimination when we advocate traditional marriage. Why do we feel the need to discriminate against two men who love one-another? That’s easy; we don’t. In order to discriminate against somebody one needs to refuse them access to something to which another individual has open access on the basis of some arbitrary standard (like sexual preference). As we discussed earlier in this post, North Dakota defines marriage as one man and one woman. Two men who wish to marry do not meet the criteria to do so and disallowing them from issuance of a marriage license is not discriminatory, it is logical. These two individuals do not meet the requisite criteria to obtain a marriage license. If a blind man walked into the North Dakota Driver’s License bureau to apply for a license to drive, he would be denied on the basis that he was blind. This does not constitute hateful discrimination, the man simply does not meet the criteria to obtain a license to drive on the basis that he is incapable of doing so. Every year I apply for and receive a Minnesota fishing license. When I receive my license, they also provide me with a guide which details the rights I have as a licensed fisherman in Minnesota. The license affords me the right to harvest a specified number of fish by specific means. It does not allow me to harvest fish with dynamite nor does it allow me to harvest deer. I do not dictate the terms of the license, which is left to a higher authority that has the interest of the licensee in mind as well as all of those affected by the issuance of the license. The same is true of marriage.
Another expressed desire of these many activists is tolerance. Contrary to what they may believe, tolerance does not require the subject to endorse any particular behavior. To tolerate a behavior is not to advocate it, but to not act in such a way as to stop the individual from engaging in the behavior. I may not like the fact that a peer is living with a girlfriend. I may even discourage it, but I have no choice but to tolerate it as I am unable physically prevent him from doing so. Tolerance goes both ways. I have deeply-held beliefs which hold that marriage is between one man and one woman. This doesn’t require you to agree with me, but if you wish to exhibit tolerance, it does preclude you from attacking and slandering me for my beliefs. For many on the other side of this debate, tolerance means that you have to agree with them on all matters, but if you go by definition, that attitude represents the embodiment of a decidedly intolerant position.
We have discussed the legality of and the state’s interest in marriage, but how about personal beliefs and moral parameters? I am a Christian. That means that I defer to God on all matters including marriage. Many argue that marriage predates Christianity, and they are right, but it does not predate God. The Bible clearly details the origin of marriage on Earth with the creation of Eve. Genesis 2:20 states that God created Man, “but there was not a helper fit for him”, so He created woman. This is not only the first example of humanity; it is the first example of marriage, and the basis for all marriage. Genesis 2:24 goes on to say, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh”. This foundational passage does not provide for any other combination but one man and one woman, nor does any other portion of Scripture contradict that formula, thus defining marriage for all the ages.
As a Christian, I do not oppose same-sex union as a matter of bigotry; I oppose it out of love for my fellow man and a want for the common salvation of mankind. I love my daughter, but I do not give her whatever she wants, because some things are not good for her. As a toddler, this primarily applies to candy for dinner, climbing on dangerous objects, going in the water without supervision, etc. But as she gets older, I will discourage her from acting in sin for the simple fact that it is not in her best interest to do so, and because I wish for her to live in God’s will and by His word. It is easy to say ‘not everyone is a Christian, so this does not apply to them’, but I wouldn’t be much of a Christian if I believed that. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I recognize that many do not agree with me and have other beliefs and I may even be in the minority, but that should not and does not affect my witness. The Bible is very clear as to what is sinful and what is righteous, and it is unambiguous on this matter. I wish for all to experience the peace and love found only through Jesus Christ, and recognize that it is not realized through sin and self-governance, but in faith and adherence to Biblical truth. Nobody, despite their past actions, is precluded from such grace, one need only to repent of their sin and move forward in faith and righteousness.
John Trandem
Let’s begin with terminology. Although we hear about the ‘redefinition’ of marriage, we also hear from the same people about ‘marriage equality’. Considering the end-result these activists are seeking, these goals are not compatible. Marriage equality exists in North Dakota. That is, every citizen has equal access to the institution of marriage, which is legally defined as the union of one man and one woman. That is absolute equality with regard to marriage. The fact that some choose not to employ that option does not mean that it has not been extended to them, and changing the definition of marriage does not ‘level the playing field’, it creates a new option entirely, which, based on the argument of the activists, only leads to discrimination against other proposed variations of ‘marriage’. Redefining marriage to include unions such as one man and one man or one woman and one woman does not afford equal access to those who wish to engage in polygamist ‘marriages’. It was my understanding that the intentions of those who wish to undefine marriage rationalize their actions as a manner of allowing consenting adults to do and love as they please in the privacy of their own bedroom (which is a phrase we will examine next). If that is the case, and their definition of equality is to be realized, marital rights and benefits must be extended to polygamist relationships as well as to mothers who wish to marry their adult sons and/or daughters, siblings who wish to marry one-another, fathers who wish to marry their sons or daughters, and so on. I do not believe that this is the intention of the activists in question, which takes the rallying cry of ‘equality’ completely off the table. Redefinition is definitely their intention, but redefinition essentially opens the door to the other incarnations of ‘marriage’ I mentioned earlier, and many I didn’t. Those who desire such relationships to be legally recognized as ‘marriage’ will have solid ground to stand upon when making the argument for equality. If we change the definition to accommodate for one preference, why wouldn’t we change it again and again to accommodate for all preferences? Here is borne the undefinition of marriage.
Next let’s look at, ‘the privacy of their own bedroom’. I am aware that some states still have laws which disallow sodomy. I am also aware that these laws are not enforced, and many have already been stricken from the books. Nobody I am aware of in the pro-marriage movement has proposed passage or enforcement of any law which regulates what consenting adults do in ‘the privacy of their own bedroom’. This is simply another mischaracterization of the intentions of we who favor the protection of marriage designed to make us look like voyeuristic thugs who wish to break down bedroom doors and forcibly stop individuals from engaging in behaviors with which we disagree. Intimacy is certainly an integral component of marriage, but intimacy outside or marriage has little to do with the topic.
How about discrimination? We have all experienced charges of discrimination when we advocate traditional marriage. Why do we feel the need to discriminate against two men who love one-another? That’s easy; we don’t. In order to discriminate against somebody one needs to refuse them access to something to which another individual has open access on the basis of some arbitrary standard (like sexual preference). As we discussed earlier in this post, North Dakota defines marriage as one man and one woman. Two men who wish to marry do not meet the criteria to do so and disallowing them from issuance of a marriage license is not discriminatory, it is logical. These two individuals do not meet the requisite criteria to obtain a marriage license. If a blind man walked into the North Dakota Driver’s License bureau to apply for a license to drive, he would be denied on the basis that he was blind. This does not constitute hateful discrimination, the man simply does not meet the criteria to obtain a license to drive on the basis that he is incapable of doing so. Every year I apply for and receive a Minnesota fishing license. When I receive my license, they also provide me with a guide which details the rights I have as a licensed fisherman in Minnesota. The license affords me the right to harvest a specified number of fish by specific means. It does not allow me to harvest fish with dynamite nor does it allow me to harvest deer. I do not dictate the terms of the license, which is left to a higher authority that has the interest of the licensee in mind as well as all of those affected by the issuance of the license. The same is true of marriage.
Another expressed desire of these many activists is tolerance. Contrary to what they may believe, tolerance does not require the subject to endorse any particular behavior. To tolerate a behavior is not to advocate it, but to not act in such a way as to stop the individual from engaging in the behavior. I may not like the fact that a peer is living with a girlfriend. I may even discourage it, but I have no choice but to tolerate it as I am unable physically prevent him from doing so. Tolerance goes both ways. I have deeply-held beliefs which hold that marriage is between one man and one woman. This doesn’t require you to agree with me, but if you wish to exhibit tolerance, it does preclude you from attacking and slandering me for my beliefs. For many on the other side of this debate, tolerance means that you have to agree with them on all matters, but if you go by definition, that attitude represents the embodiment of a decidedly intolerant position.
We have discussed the legality of and the state’s interest in marriage, but how about personal beliefs and moral parameters? I am a Christian. That means that I defer to God on all matters including marriage. Many argue that marriage predates Christianity, and they are right, but it does not predate God. The Bible clearly details the origin of marriage on Earth with the creation of Eve. Genesis 2:20 states that God created Man, “but there was not a helper fit for him”, so He created woman. This is not only the first example of humanity; it is the first example of marriage, and the basis for all marriage. Genesis 2:24 goes on to say, “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh”. This foundational passage does not provide for any other combination but one man and one woman, nor does any other portion of Scripture contradict that formula, thus defining marriage for all the ages.
As a Christian, I do not oppose same-sex union as a matter of bigotry; I oppose it out of love for my fellow man and a want for the common salvation of mankind. I love my daughter, but I do not give her whatever she wants, because some things are not good for her. As a toddler, this primarily applies to candy for dinner, climbing on dangerous objects, going in the water without supervision, etc. But as she gets older, I will discourage her from acting in sin for the simple fact that it is not in her best interest to do so, and because I wish for her to live in God’s will and by His word. It is easy to say ‘not everyone is a Christian, so this does not apply to them’, but I wouldn’t be much of a Christian if I believed that. I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of Heaven and Earth. I recognize that many do not agree with me and have other beliefs and I may even be in the minority, but that should not and does not affect my witness. The Bible is very clear as to what is sinful and what is righteous, and it is unambiguous on this matter. I wish for all to experience the peace and love found only through Jesus Christ, and recognize that it is not realized through sin and self-governance, but in faith and adherence to Biblical truth. Nobody, despite their past actions, is precluded from such grace, one need only to repent of their sin and move forward in faith and righteousness.
John Trandem