But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’

Fishkite has clashed with Wendi Thomas before on the issue of gay marriage. That earlier post, however, was dedicated to the Biblical view of marriage, rather than the legal aspect of it. Today, the columnist’s willful ignorance of the fundamental religious foundation of marriage, as included above, persists, and is now applied to the constitutional decision before us in this election, previously chewed on below.

In that recent post, I observe that critics of the amendment tend to resort to three main things: 1. Ad hominem attacks, 2. a claim that it presents a problem only for homosexuals, and 3. a claim that the amendment is redundant and unnecessary.

Thomas hits all the points in the playbook, beginning of course with a heavy dose of name-calling (Point 1.); she calls proponents of Amendment One “foolish,” “irrational,” “radical” “homophobes,” and describes them as racists who are who are stuck in “Groundhog day.”

Next, she claims that voting against the amendment would open the door only to homosexual couples (Point 2.):

[T]he radical religious right and many Republicans whine that if gay men and lesbians are allowed to marry today, then tomorrow I might demand the right to marry my dog. And my first cousin. And three or four other people, a couple of whom might be small children.

Of course, that hysteria is silly and foolish and irrational.

All that’s left is for Thomas is to claim that such an amendment is unnecessary, given the federal and state laws that are already on the books (Point 3.), a message she delivers with artistic abandon, describing the situation as “a legal version of suspenders to go along with the belt” and “an ugly, too-tight girdle to be worn on top of the pants, restricting all blood flow to the brain.”

One-two-three, there’s your column. Thanks for playing.

But what Thomas of course fails to mention is yesterday’s New Jersey court ruling, which forces legislators to change state marriage laws:

Opponents of same-sex marriage contend the New Jersey decision could have a national impact because the state imposes no residency requirements for people seeking marriage. In essence, it could open the door for gay and lesbian couples from other states to marry in New Jersey and challenge laws against same-sex marriage in their own states.

And when the formula for marriage is no longer two adult members of the opposite sex, it’s not just “hysteria” which leads a reasonable person to conclude it won’t be long before polygamists sue for similar rights, followed by incestuous couples, and so on. It’s just that, for the time being, gay rights advocates — in a smart move, politically — leave these groups out in the cold while simultaneously claiming that “love does not discriminate” and calling out the religious right on that very charge.

The long and short of it is that Thomas, and her heroes in the local Democratic party, are nowhere near as enlightened, or as Biblically sound, as she apparently believes.

Now, in my earlier post I also offered three reasons why I hesitate to support Amendment One, followed by some counter-arguments, and left it with a “likely-yes” stance. I also engaged a little bit in the comments, coming up with a rough comparison in order to give the issue some further thought. And I’ve been doing more thinking off the page as well. Then I happened to come across a post from last summer where I reacted to a church’s decision to approve gay marriage, followed by a discussion in the comments where I wrote this:

Reading about this episode has actually increased my opposition to gay marriage, at least from a Christian standpoint. The secular argument is far better, and I take a more libertarian view of the issue as a citizen. It’s a difficult issue for me only in that our government attaches unique rights and responsibilities to the legal aspect of marriage, which could be viewed, in a sense, as discriminatory. However, the solution to that is not to change marriage, but rather to change government.

It really challenges me to examine my thinking, and forces me to decide if I want government to be in the marriage business at all. As a Christian (one who, unlike Thomas, has at least a passing familiarity with the Bible), I cannot support gay marriage; as a citizen, I cannot support discrimination.

Of course, some say the amendment isn’t discriminatory (see discussion in Point 2), and they’re right in a sense. But I’m having a hard time coming up with purely legal, non-religious reasons why the government should support one contract between two people, and offer them certain rights and advantages, while denying others. And those commenting in my earlier post are asking what harm this presents to marriage — a fair question. And what affects would it have on society, as with adoption laws?

The Family Research Council addresses these questions, and other good ones, here. Among other things, they argue that the government should support marriage because children in traditional families do better in life, and because marriages are the very building blocks which propagate our species. They also argue that men and women should not be seen as interchangeable parts, that society’s view of marriage will relax and cause all marriages to suffer.

Some of it I agree with, some of it I don’t. I’m having a hard time with the issue, myself. I fear I’m going to be haunted by my decision. Part of my problem is that I’m so fed up with the Left’s hatred of religious people and its abandonment of morality that it clouds the issue, and Wendi Thomas only adds to the haze.

But, overall, it just comes back to what you think a government should and shouldn’t do. And I guess that’s something every person needs to decide individually. Everyone should be aware, though, that voting against the amendment means you’re ready for gay marriage to be legal in this state, despite the Left’s assurances to the contrary. If you aren’t comfortable with gay marriage, sitting out the vote is not an option, because the lawsuits are coming. And, with activist judges at the helm — those who can rewrite the laws on a whim — even passing the amendment is no guarantee marriage will remain as God intended.