Marriage Amendment II the Sequel: Thumbs Down Review

I feel like I’m watching the same tired and worn out B movie sequel for the fifteenth time reading articles in the latest issue of The Catholic Spirit. The archdiocese is re-releasing its tattered theatrical film on the Minnesota marriage amendment trying to convince every one of the evils of same-sex marriage.  It’s the same old mixed bag of scare tactics and worn out arguments that sound like the Night of the Living Dead 5 that just doesn’t make any type of relevant argument.  In addition, the plot isn’t that good, the script is full of clichés, and the actors can’t deliver their lines very well.
 
The Catholic church is using the same worn out story line that didn’t work in the first movie to convince everyone of the wholesomeness of having marriage between a man and a woman . The same suspicious characters are trying to infect the world with the disease (Jaws music swells in the background) same-sex marriage! These characters are all those same old evil bad guys of "rogue legislators" and "activist judges" trying to suck the life out of everyone’s “religious liberty” (have no fear as this article is rated G for everyone).  You know what I’m talking about, the inalienable right for couples to rent an apartment, see a counselor, and seek social services without the fear of prejudicial treatment.  Wait a minute; we have that already without this constitutional amendment.  (This movie is boring already… maybe I can get my money back.) The heroes of our movie (spelled r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n-s) will ensure this wholesomeness of marriage so that only Nell can marry Dudley Do Right by using their secret weapon: the constitutional amendment. (I thought I saw George Washington and Abraham Lincoln in the background holding apple pies during this scene).
 
The underlying theme behind this evil invasion of the marriage snatchers is that individuals including gays and lesbians shouldn’t get married because they can’t have children. Jason Adkins articulated this in his article on behalf of the Catholic Church that “love and commitment are necessary for marriage, but not sufficient… [marriage] is fundamentally about begetting children” (begetting or is it begatting… darn archaic words we should just get rid of them). You know who they are as they walk among us, the elderly, men and women who are infertile, those who are physically injured.  To say that people shouldn't get married because they can’t “begat” children is ridiculous.  There are plenty of times when people get married because they love each other and realize later in life whether or not they want to have children (Maybe they should get divorced if the decide not to have children… Hmm, I don’t think the church let’s them do that either).
 
It’s not going to be the end of the world as we know it by changing marriage into something without children.  It’s just that the Church wishes to retain the idea of marriage for everyone in its own image.  This is an image that excludes people who don’t believe as the church does from being just as happy as they define happiness to be. It is truly a suspension of disbelief (sorry for the movie jargon) that these concepts from the middle ages should be perpetuated in a well educated society.  Maybe it would work better if they came out with a different message that God is Love and we should all love one another as God has loved us. You know an All Saints Day 60’s love fest.  Ok, maybe it would work better as a cartoon. Nahh, that kind of messages doesn't sell movies.