I had to speak about this. My wife was looking through the voter's guide yesterday and noticed, where I didn't, that the first three or so FOR statements for measure 36, the "one man one woman" measure, are pretty rediculous.
As a Christian I know where I stand on what God says is right, but I still fight intellectually about whether or where in government I should be pushing to reflect God's wisdom on this issue.
The author of these statements, however, seems to have no issue with that.
In the Holy Bible, Saint Paul says that Christians should remain single and abstain from sex. The New Testament says that people should get married only if they are too weak-willed to abstain from sex:
"It is well for a man not to touch a woman…. It is well … to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (I Corinthians 7:1, 8-9)
Marriage is not sacred. Marriage is for wimps and sissies!
It gets worse.
The sissy institution of marriage must not be perverted by sinners who are capable of abstaining! The sacred union of church and state must prohibit the immoral union of men and women capable of the discipline of sexual abstinence. We are not saved by either faith or good works. We are saved by religious-right legislation!
Freedom of religion and equal treatment under law is simply the special right to sin, because our tradition is the one and only truth! And our tradition (that is, our personal moral opinions) should become law.
AGREE WITH US OR BURN IN HELL!
There are two other statements in favor of the amendment with the same tone. They are all by the same person, M. Dennis Moore, who represents some apparently made up PAC type entities. Notably, "Traditional Prejudices Coalition" and "The Beaver State Defense of Beaver Coalition."
Once again, this brings up what I was saying about the comments for Measure 37, where there are a couple of FOR statements by some guy who is advertising buying lots of land and get rich when measure 37 passes.
Is the Sec of State trying not to discriminate who gets arguments published? These arguments seem to me to be either some real nutcase or someone on the opposition side trying to make the FOR side look bigoted and religeously extreme. There's no other explanation.