The illogical arguments for same-sex “marriage” (especially the non sequitur and circular) have begged for correction, and the constant propaganda has forced me to write more than I should wish about tomorrow’s constitutional referendum. Rather than mine being an “obsession,” this is responsible focus.

Their strategy is effectively predicated upon on old principle. If a person can tell a lie with a straight face and no hesitation in his voice—and keep telling the lie despite the facts being known and even against valid contradiction, eventually people will begin to believe the lie even when they don’t recognize they do. They will act upon it (in this case, vote) without recognizing they have been deceived. The secret of successful lying is to believe it oneself and never temporize or quit. Once you start lying, lie to your death. It is to call the bluff of such strategy that I have persisted.

It has been “too much” because there is any number of issues that more require our attention. I have wanted these weekly columns to enjoy a rich and pleasant variety of topics, but these have become as weary for me in thinking and writing as they have been for reading. I have not enjoyed such sustained focus on this particular matter. While I do not allow the hatred posted by anonymous persons on the Herald’s website to bother me, I have not enjoyed it. It’s not pleasant to see people do this to themselves. I don’t want to believe it makes them happy. It certainly weakens their argument.

Their appeal is not to take away rights, but the “right” demanded just does not exist so it could be taken away. They dissimulate on this.

“The government does not tell people who they can love and, so, they shouldn’t tell us who we can marry.” But governments always have and always will, e.g., your parent, sibling, cousin, child. They also play around with the term “love,” which they disingenuously leave undefined and irrationally subjective. It can mean simple friendship, emotional preference, social convenience, illicit lust, or outright crime. It can mean conditions that seem as ridiculous now as those now politically correct did a few years ago. It can include the agenda of the Man-Boy Love Society.

They argue a constitutional amendment is unnecessary because law already so defines marriage when the next step on their agenda is to abrogate that very law. This would not be by the democratic process that enacted it through the legislature but through subversion by some court manufacturing law.

Remember how a Democrat state senator lied that supreme court justices had assured him they would never uphold such a decision? In the face of justices’ unanimous denials, he still was not willing to admit it was a lie and dismissed it as “sanding off the truth.”

One of the most reprehensible lies being perpetrated is that defeat of the amendment will not affect “traditional” (i.e., actual) marriage. Strictly speaking it could be so and, in all fairness and honesty, it should never become so. But it will. This much is certain. It is not what amendment defeat will do in and of itself, but what the amendment opponents will do with its being defeated. This is answered by what is already happening in the armed forces after repeal of DADT.

A common emotional appeal is that there are many very nice gay couples living together well. This is no a lie; I know a number. But it is irrelevant. If it were valid, it would argue against itself, because there are even more married couples who are very nice people.

Gay activist are not attempting to redefine marriage, but to un-define marriage. Two objects cannot both be better than the other. If one so treats them, the only thing accomplished is to show there is no such thing as “better.” If a relationship other than one-man/one-woman is so treated, the only thing accomplished is the abolition of the institution of marriage. A man “married” to his father, mother, brothers, sisters, and his neighbor’s wife is not marriage (even though he says he has a right to “marry the ones I love”), nor are gay couples marriage. No law can allow them to marry; it can only abolish marriage.

This is what House File 1710 states, and this is what we will vote on tomorrow: “Shall the Minnesota Constitution be amended to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota?”

This is the truth and I lie not.