Minnesota's Marriage Amendment again

In this morning's Star Tribune, Robert G. Kennedy, the chair of the department of Catholic Studies at St. Thomas University makes the Catholic case for supporting a constitutional amendment to define marriage. He says in part:

Given the experience of Massachusetts, it seems foolish to argue that a constitutional amendment is not necessary to preserve before the law the traditional definition of marriage. Most knowledgeable people will agree that, sooner or later, in the absence of such an amendment marriage is likely to be redefined by the courts. The principal point of disagreement between them is whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing.

My question for the professor is -- how does preserving before the law the traditional definition of marriage help marriage? Existing marriages between a man and woman are in no way threatened by same-sex marriage. "Civil" same-sex marriage simply grants the same legal rights to same-sex couples as men and women now have in marriage. Granting civil rights to same-sex couples doesn't force churches to recognize their weddings and it has not affect whatsoever on my marriage to my wife or any other "traditional" marriage.

The argument that he also makes that granting legal recognition to same-sex marriage would open the door to "a Pandora's Box of mischievous consequences," like polygamous marriages is a red herring. Who is arguing for legal recognition of polygamy? A few old-school Mormons, maybe. The legal standard is two consenting adults, end of story.

If the professor really wanted to protect marriage, and base his argument on an appeal to Christian scripture, then he ought to be working on a marriage amendment to put an end to divorce. In the one unambiguous statement Jesus makes on marriage, he says nothing about same-sex marriage. He says that there should be no divorce (although compare the earlier version in Mark 10 with the later Matthew 19 and you will see that the church was already qualifying Jesus' statement). Which is really more threatening to the institution of marriage: divorce or same-sex marriage? It is divorce by a long shot.

So why not work to put an end to divorce? Because even the most conservative Christians have come to realize that as "sacred" as marriage is, there is something even more sacred--the well-being of the individual. We have come to recognize in our society that there is a higher value at stake here, higher than the religious definition of marriage, higher even than the will of the majority or the power of the state: the dignity, rights, and well-being of the individual. And in the interest in honoring and protecting the rights, dignity, and well-being of the individual, we allow men and women to marry... and we allow them to divorce.

In the interests of honoring and protecting the rights, dignity, and well-being of gays and lesbians, we ought to grant to them the same legal rights.

I do agree with professor when he says that religious leaders "who try to rally their people in support of legislation are not subverting the democratic process; they are participating in it." As a liberal Christian clergy, I am engaged in the same democratic process. As long as we are not seeking to "establish" a religious position as the legal position, there is nothing wrong with using whatever influence we have in the political realm.