Kristi Noem, the Governor of South Dakota, is one of the up and coming conservative stars of the Republican party. In fact, she’s been touted as a possible presidential candidate, if not in 2024, certainly in 2028. And I don’t think there are many out there that would argue that she’s not a rock-ribbed conservative.
But I have to disagree with Noem on this one!
After the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling in the Supreme Court, Noem is taking the states’ rights issue to the max. And while I would agree with her that probably 90% of the issues being talked about today are better suited to be decided state-by-state, one of her topics can’t be. Not because politically it would be a bombshell. It’s because it just wouldn’t work.
That is the institution of gay marriage.
Now, let me say, I’ve always been against the institution of gay marriage for a very simple reason. Man does not give rights, and man does not define marriage. That is defined in the Bible as between a man and a woman. Genesis 2:24 says, marriage is when “one man (Adam) and one woman (Eve) united together to become one flesh: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” I have always believed that if you haven’t coined a word, you don’t have the right to redefine it. That’s what the Democrats and the snowflake left likes to do. If a word doesn’t fit the narrative, they want to redefine it so it does.
My belief does not stem from a hatred of gays. It simply stems from the definition of marriage and the inability of mankind to change what God has ordained. And that would mean that you have to define marriage as one man and one woman. You don’t have the right to change that. I’m not getting into the whole gay argument here. That’s not my purpose.
Now, Noem has said that gay marriage should be a states’ rights issue because, for the same reason as abortion, it isn’t given as a power for the federal government to decide, nor taken away from states to decide. She’s right on that count. But the fact you’d have potentially 50 differing laws on what marriage is would make it a nightmare. If say, California makes it legal for a man to marry a rabbit, but Nevada forbids cross-species to marry, you can see the problem if the guy takes his rabbit to Vegas for the weekend!
Marriage is one of those things that needs to be defined and held to nationally. It’s not right for a couple that’s gay to be legal in say New York, but then when they cross over to Connecticut, they are illegally married, or not considered married. I find that to be totally out of bounds. And I’m saying that as a person that does not believe in gay marriage for the reason already listed above.
I don’t know how you would police that in the first place. What if a state like Alaska not only recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman, but then makes it a crime for it to be defined any other way. If a gay couple from Washington State (where presumably it would be legal) vacations in Alaska, could they then be arrested just for going to the state? I think that’s stepping over the line.
So, while Kristi Noem and I do agree on the whole gay marriage thing, we disagree that it should be a state’s rights issue due to the inability to actually police and monitor it uniformly. You don’t have that problem with abortion. You may not even have that problem in other areas. But in marriage? You certainly could run into trouble and big time!
Carry on world…you’re dismissed!