Letters: Same-sex marriage answers

Farm Forum

A three-way battle occurs in my mind every time I read or hear the phrase “same-sex marriage.” The fight involves common sense logic, history and political correctness.

From both the logical and historic standpoints, it is a no-brainer that a human male and female are necessary to continue the human race.

From the historic viewpoint, the Bible was the first place to define marriage as a sole union between a male and a female. The U.S. Constitution does not have the meaning of marriage in its content, perhaps because it was clearly evident that marriage does not need to be explained. History shows that this country was founded on biblical principles.

History’s definitions and common sense tell me it is impossible to have a same sex male-female marriage. Could same-sex marriage therefore show ignorance, and so be classified as an untruth or dimwitted statement? Civil unions and marriages are complete opposites. To classify them to mean the same thing is an oxymoron.

From the politically correct perspective, the Supreme Court has ruled there is a separation of church and state. How is it possible for the court to claim this separation and then ignore it by claiming and acknowledging there is such a thing as a same-sex marriage? That decision by the state is a complete opposite of the church’s definition. The federal government has the power to award the same benefits to civil unions as married people have, but does not have the power to redefine marriage.

The war will continue and some will consider me an extremist. It will be easier for them to just call me names than to rationally explain such a thing as a same-sex male-female marriage. Using their rationale, they might even believe pregnant fathers exist.

Jerry Hout

Sioux Falls