From: Don Evanson
The vote of the Minnesota House last week to change the definition of marriage was most unfortunate, and not courageous at all, as some promoted a “yes” vote to be.
Representative Gene Pelowski got it wrong, despite that he lauds his experience with the Winona Human Rights Commission and with the League of Women Voters — that failing organization that gets little, if anything, correct of late.
One would think that if thoughtfulness had accompanied such experience, Rep. Pelowski would have garnered a better understanding of what the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is all about in terms of rights, and that he would adamantly work to preserve its importance. Rather, he has joined the coalition of the “Nones,” those that would check such on a survey of their religious affiliation and who continually work to expand the scope of the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to serve the purpose of diminishing or obliterating its “free exercise” clause.
As we move forward with the redefinition of marriage, and the advance of the regressive Progressive secularization of our culture, religious organizations and individuals will encounter litigative abuse when they seek to cherish and promote the one man/or woman institution of marriage in the public square. The Editorial Committee of the Winona Daily News will also want to label organizations and individuals seeking to freely exercise their conscientious choices as bigots, thus themselves fostering bigotry. Isn’t it ironic that Progressives have no tolerance for tolerance?
Those that promoted the Marriage Amendment during the last election cycle had it correct when they suggested that an amendment was needed to protect the eclectic wisdom of the ages, much of which even precedes Christianity, from the sort of legislative onslaught it saw last week in the Minnesota House of Representatives. Yes, government is needed in the role of fostering a better, more stable society, in this case that being to provide the best setting for the nurture and stability of children and family. Rather, the so-called Progressives have seized the fashion and passion of the moment to mislead the public into a misstep.
Hopefully, it won’t be too long before the resulting problems will lay bare the mistake and there will be a correction. Will the voters support Pelowski next time around? Maybe they will. Despite knowing what is best for their interests, they find him to be a “nice guy,” and one who has fulfilled their personal appeals for his “constituent services” well while assuming that his successor would not do better.
I think we can do better. The first vote of any legislative session is the vote that determines the leadership and thus the agenda for that session. Therefore, it is the most important vote that a legislator casts, and it shouldn’t necessarily be a party-line vote. Next time let’s send someone other than Pelowski to cast that first vote of the session.