Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment. She writes in the StarTribune:
Sometimes you have to take an argument to its logical conclusion to see its flaws.
I'd guess, for example, that 95 percent of Minnesotans would oppose redefining our marriage laws to include temporary marriages, where the partners' marriage certificate includes an end date; marriages of three or more people (say, two lesbians rearing their child with a gay male sperm donor), or marriages between siblings in a nonsexual relationship.
Yet how would such marriages hurt anyone else's marriage? If the individuals in question love and care for each other, isn't that all marriage is about? Doesn't love make a family? Don't people bound by affection deserve the benefits of marriage -- and suffer stigma if these are withheld? If you disagree, aren't you discriminating against others' "fundamental right" to marry as they wish?
These questions are, of course, the same as those posed by same-sex marriage advocates to fellow Minnesotans who support preserving one-man/one-woman marriage in our state Constitution.
...Marriage has always and everywhere been a male/female institution because it is rooted in biology and human ecology. Across the globe and through the millennia, its public purpose has been the same: To connect men with their children and the mother who bore them, so that every child has a loving, committed mother and father.
It won't change how much we're paying for gas, but it might comfort you to know that at Exxon-Mobil your business isn't fueling the homosexual agenda. For the 13th straight year, shareholders voted to maintain their reputation as the only major oil company to uphold the values of a majority of Americans. At Exxon's annual meeting, the corporation voted down a resolution to add special protections for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to its employment opportunity policy. After so many years of resistance, the result may not have come as a surprise--but the measure of victory certainly did. A whopping 80% of shareholders voted against the amendment--the largest margin of defeat in recent memory. One homosexual activist lamented that "the percentage of shareholders voting for the policy had increased steadily over the years to about 40%." But this week's result--in the midst of a national debate over same-sex "marriage"--was a colossal blow to the homosexual community, which is desperate to prove that its agenda is resonating with Americans.
In a corporate environment dictated by wealthy, pro-homosexual activists, we applaud Exxon-Mobil for refusing to cede the moral high ground to the special interests of the Left. While other businesses drift away from their principles or capitulate under pressure, this company is putting its stock in something other than political correctness. And, as Exxon-Mobil representatives point out, any additions to the nondiscrimination policy are unnecessary. They view the company as a "meritocracy," where employees are rewarded on the basis of performance--not sexual preference. Their conviction is a refreshing change from companies like Starbucks and Target, who continue to alienate customers with radical political views. Join us in thanking Exxon-Mobil for refusing to be bullied. Click here to send the company a note of appreciation!
