NOW:53132:USA00949
http://widgets.journalinteractive.com/cache/JIResponseCacher.ashx?duration=5&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.wp.myweather.net%2FeWxII%2F%3Fdata%3D*USA00949
36°
H 40° L 32°
Cloudy | 3MPH

This Just In ...

Kevin Fischer is a veteran broadcaster, the recipient of over 150 major journalism awards from the Milwaukee Press Club, the Wisconsin Associated Press, the Northwest Broadcast News Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and others. He has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for over three decades. A longtime aide to state Senate Republicans in the Wisconsin Legislature, Kevin can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, "InterCHANGE," on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their lovely young daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.

Thoughtful views on same-sex marriage

The hot button issue of same-sex marriage is back in the news. The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the cases of Hollingsworth v. Perry and U.S. v. Windsor.

Hollingsworth challenges California’s Proposition 8 that defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Windsor challenges President Bill Clinton’s Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Rulings on both cases are expected prior to the high court’s recess this June.

Last October, Dennis Prager wrote a compelling piece about the opponents and proponents of same-sex marriage:

“Given that there are good people on both sides of this issue, how are we to explain their opposing views?

“The primary explanation is this: Proponents and opponents ask two different questions.

“Proponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is keeping the definition of marriage as man-woman fair to gays? Opponents of same-sex marriage ask: Is same-sex marriage good for society?

“Few on either side honestly address the question of the other side. Opponents of same-sex marriage rarely acknowledge how unfair the age-old man-woman definition is to gay couples. And proponents rarely, if ever, acknowledge that this unprecedented redefinition of marriage may not be good for society.

“That is why proponents have it much easier. All they need to do is to focus the public's attention on individual gay people, show wonderful gay individuals who love each other, and ask the American public: Is it fair to continue to deprive these people of the right to marry one another?”

Prager continues on to make the case that same-sex marriage is not good for society because it perpetuates the war on gender.

This past weekend our church’s Sunday bulletin published a portion of another thoughtful piece written in January by Cardinal Francis George of Chicago about what’s at stake in the same-sex marriage debate. The state of Illinois is considering changing the legal definition of marriage:

“What is certainly at stake is the natural relationship between parents and children. Children, even if they are loved and raised by those who are not their biological parents, want to know who their parents are, who are their natural family. The fascination with genealogical tables and the opening of adoption records are evidence of this desire to find oneself in a biological succession of generations. No honest ‘study’ has disproved what we all know. Stable marriage between a husband and wife has safeguarded their children, surrounding them with familial love and creating the secure foundation for human flourishing. This natural desire, already weakened in a seemingly more and more promiscuous society, will no longer be privileged in civil law. It will be no more ‘normal’ than any other ‘family’ arrangement. If the nature of marriage is destroyed in civil law, the natural family goes with it.

“As well, those who know the difference between marriage and same-sex arrangements will be regarded as bigots. This is where the religious question does come into play. Including ‘religious freedom’ in the title of the proposed law (in Illinois) recognizes that religious teaching based on natural truths will now be considered evidence of illegal discrimination and will be punishable by law. The title of the law is ironic if not disingenuous. Those who know that marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the sake of family will carry a social opprobrium that will make them unwelcome on most university faculties and on the editorial boards of major newspapers. They will be excluded from the entertainment industry. Their children and grandchildren will be taught in the government schools that their parents are unenlightened, the equivalent of misguided racists. Laws teach; they express accepted social values and most people go along with societal trends, even when majority opinion espouses immoral causes.”

You can read the Cardinal’s entire column
here. 

This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.

Page Tools