WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO "PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION?"

By Lenora Grimaud

Recently, I received an email from a very angry and hurt Religious Leader of a Gay Community, accusing all those who supported Prop. 8, in California, of “promoting discrimination.” This has prompted me to reflect on why I supported Prop. 8. It appears to me that there is a very narrow and exclusive interpretation of the word, “discrimination,” today. This has filtered down from minority groups who claim that their rights come first, and anything that violates their rights is bigotry—regardless of whether their rights violate the rights of others. Before we can answer the question WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO “PROMOTE DISCRIMINATION?” we should have a clear understanding of what the word discriminate really means. Webster defines it as:

Discriminate 1 a: to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of b: DISTINGUISH, DIFFERENTIATE 2: to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; to distinguish from another like object; to make a distinction; to use good judgment.

Discrimination 1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing 3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudice or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment. Syn see DISCERNMENT.

Many religious people are accused of “promoting discrimination,” in the terms of prejudice and bigotry, when they are only attempting to use discernment and good judgment. A country without discernment or right judgment is headed for ruin. Religious freedom has always been a part of the Constitution of the U.S. “Gay Rights” does not include the right to violate the religious freedom of others. It does not include the right to impose their biases on others—through our laws, government, educational systems, healthcare, and religious institutions, by calling all those who disagree with them, “bigots.” This is a rash and prejudicial judgment.

Good discernment enables us to pass “just laws.” In America, there is an age limit for those who want to get married. We do not allow adults to marry children. We do not allow marriage between close relatives—we do not allow incest. We do not allow polygamy. Marriage has always been an institution that is inclusive of family—an act of total self-giving of both spouses to each other, resulting in the gift of new life—children; the family. Marriage has to be “consummated,” through natural intercourse, in order to be a valid marriage. This interpretation rules out marriage between adults and children, humans and animals, and same-sex couples. We use discernment and right judgment to pass laws that will protect the sanctity of Marriage and Family Life. Without discernment and right judgment, anything goes; it wouldn’t be long before incest, polygamy, and even pedophilia would be considered rights of the people. We must not lose the capacity to discriminate between good and evil, or diminish this ability by calling it prejudice and bigotry. We are a free nation, but if we use our freedom to indulge the wants of individuals and minority groups at the expense of the legitimate rights of others, we will not only destroy ourselves, but everyone else, as well.

The opposition of “same-sex marriage” is not a violation of “Gay Rights.” Our Constitution does not give homosexuals the right to marry, and never has. The same-sex marriages that have been performed during the last four months are invalid. Those responsible for proclaiming same-sex marriage as legal, did not have the authority to do so, and went against the will of the people and the Constitution in order to do it. Marriage is a legal/social, moral, and religious/spiritual institution. The Institution of Marriage was not an outgrowth of the Constitution, or of Democracy; it has been around as long as "Religion" has. The Constitution has always been based on (and supported) the Traditional and the Religious interpretation of marriage. Marriage serves no purpose for same-sex couples who are incapable of consummating a marriage, of procreation, and of providing both a mother and a father for children. Although there are many couples who marry and do not have or want children, these marriages do not violate or change the Institution of Marriage, or the interpretation of marriage according to our constitutional rights. They are not an open door to a series of abuses and violations to the dignity of marriage; and of the human person. Same-sex marriage would change the Constitution and all the laws we have in place that protect the dignity of marriage, and the human rights of others. Same-sex marriage would eventually obliterate the Institution of Marriage. If same-sex marriages were legal, what would prevent a heterosexual couple, who live together merely as friends or roommates, from getting married in order to receive marital benefits, such as tax benefits & social security benefits?

The “Separation of Church and State” is grossly misinterpreted, today. It does not mean a separation of religion from the people, or of religious principles from the government. The "Separation of Church and State" was instituted in order to protect the freedom of all Religions, from being controlled by the State, as well as to prevent any one Religion or ideology from controlling the State. The Government does not have the right to force any Religion or Church to perform same-sex marriages. That would be a true violation of the “Separation of Church and State.” A country without religion and morals is doomed to fall. According to George Washington, religion and morality are the pillars of our Democratic Republic. Without religion and morals, we will revert—regress—and go from a civilized people to a primitive and barbaric people.

Scripture says: “My people perish for a lack of knowledge.” Unless we promote right judgment and maintain our ability to discern and discriminate, we will perish!