gaylordhub.com

Robert Fred Gladitsch, 86, passed away October 18, 2010. He was born in Gaylord on May 25, 1924. Continue reading »

I am not in the habit of addressing one person in such a public fashion, but I feel I ought answer the questions publically directed at me by Rev. Hinz and clarify a few points.

First of all, my column was not directed solely at Rev. Hinz and his column. I apologize if he felt singled out.

I did not, as Rev. Hinz states, assert that we live in a purely secular nation. Nor I did not state that we must divorce morality from law. I said we must continue to keep religion and government separate. One can be moral without subscribing to a religion. And one can claim a religion without being moral. Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, “I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”

Rev. Hinz also stated that there is no right to marriage enumerated in our national or state Constitutions and therefore I am not allowed to call it a right. “Perhaps Liz would be willing to state specifically what civil right she is referring to,” wrote Hinz.

Here is my answer: I need not assert that marriage is a “right;” the Supreme Court did that for me.
In 1942 The Supreme Court of the United State of America unanimously ruled that the act of marriage was a fundamental right even though it is not in the Constitution. (Skinner V Oklahoma) In 1967 (Loving v Virginia) The SCOTUS declared “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man.”

Rev. Hinz argues that, “…marriage is also a matter regulated for the public good.”

There is no public good served by limiting marriage to opposite-sex  couples only. In his 1998 decision Alaska Superior Court Judge Peter A. Michalski stated that “marriage…is a fundamental right. The state must therefore have a compelling interest that supports its decision to refuse to recognize the exercise of this fundamental right by those who choose same-sex partners rather than opposite-sex partners.” (Brause v Alaska) Such compelling interest does not exist. The medical and psychiatric communities agree that homosexuality is not a threat to our society. It is not a sickness or a choice.

Rev. Hinz wrote, “If she (myself) would like to have the State’s criteria—the State’s definition of marriage— changed from the one man/one woman definition is has been since the founding of our nation to something else, she has every right to advocate for such a change.”
Minnesota’s definition of marriage and the nation’s definition of marriage have not always been one man/one woman. The In Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996—not 1776. The Minnesota State Supreme Court declared that “one man/one woman” was the definition of marriage in 1971. Until that time, it was simply assumed.

In the Brause case, Judge Michalski also stated, “It is the duty of the court to more than merely assume that marriage is only, and must only be what most are familiar with. In some parts of our nation mere acceptance of the familiar would have left segregation in place.”

Indeed, Judge Michalski is correct. Despite the 1967 Supreme Court ruling in Loving, the state of Alabama did not repeal its last law against mixed-race marriage until 2000.

This is a re-print of a letter from a local pastor inresponse to my column last week.

To the Editor:

As a Christian pastor I don’t normally “talk back” to the one who speaks “From On High” but in this case I think I’ll “chance it” as a bit of clarification is in order.

In last week’s “The Word from on High (Avenue)” column it appears that Liz Reishus took issue with my statement (and the statement of the Catholic Church) that the novelty called “same-sex marriage” is NOT a civil rights issue.

Perhaps Liz would be willing to state specifically what civil right she is referring to. Where in the Constitution (either State or Federal) is marriage enumerated as “a right” that the State must guarantee to any two people who claim it? As I read our Constitution there is no such right nor does the fact that the State regulates marriage elevate it to that status. For example, the fact that the State regulates the licensing of drivers does not obligate the State to award such licenses to anyone who asks for one. Such applicants must first meet the criteria (age, training, eye sight, etc.) established by the State in order to quality for such a license. It’s a matter of the public good…of public safety. Similarly, marriage is also a matter regulated for the public good.

If she would like to have the State’s criteria – the State’s definition of marriage – changed from the one man/one woman definition is has been since the founding of our nation to something else, she has every right to advocate for such a change. What she is not allowed to do is claim such a change as “a right” – as something the State is obligated to do.

As much as Liz would like to assert, and does assert, that we live in a purely secular nation…governed by purely secular laws – laws which have no moral quality to them…which do not attempt to judge between right and wrong (that’s what a moral judgment is), the simple fact is that ALL our laws are based on moral judgments. That is, all our laws are based on the moral judgments of the people as enacted through the democratic process…the moral judgments of the people as formed by the exercise of their reason and the insights of their particular religious faith, whether that be the faith of Islam, Christianity, atheism or any other.

Liz would have us divorce such moral judgments from our laws…but I would contend that she cannot do so unless she is willing to live with some very unpleasant consequences – the same consequences that the people of Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia or PolPot’s Columbia were forced to live with. I for one am not willing to step into that “brave new world” and, I suspect, neither is she.

Your fellow citizen, Rev. Fredric Hinz

Gaylord voters made history in Tuesday’s general election when they selected Brenda Pautsch to be the City’s first woman Mayor. Continue reading »

Incumbent Jessica Uecker was the top vote getter Tuesday in the Gaylord City Council race while newcomers Jim Landaas and Shawn Losure also gained seats. Continue reading »

There will be two new faces on the Sibley County Board of Commissioners next year. Continue reading »

Residents of the Sibley East School District re-elected Scott Dose, Anne Karl, and Dan Woehler to four-year terms on the Board of Education Tuesday. Continue reading »

New Auburn residents re-elected their long-time mayor, and added a new face to the City Council. Continue reading »

Jim Kreft was successful in his bid for a second term as City of Arlington Mayor. Continue reading »

Challenger Tim Nytes defeated incumbent Keith Swenson in race for Henderson Mayor. Nytes received 246 votes, 89 more than Swenson. Continue reading »