Marriage=One Man + One Woman Says Northwestern College Student Government

A leader of the student senate says position meant to start discussion on campus about the proposed Marriage Amendment.

The student senate at  Northwestern College in Roseville is supporting the concept that marriage is only between a man and woman.

But in recently adopting that resolution, the student group avoided declaring a position on the proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment, says Isaac Schultz, a member of Northwestern's student senate. (The proposed state Marriage Admendment would legally define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.)

"Our purpose is to engage students in a discussion and this (resolution) does it in a way"  that is consistent with Northwestern's Biblical and Christian beliefs, Schultz told Roseville Patch. He added the student senate didn't want to disenfranchise any students by taking an official stand on the Marriage Admendment.

Meanwhile, Isaac said he doesn't expect the campus to bring in speakers from Minnesota for Marriage or Minnesotans United for All Families to debate the Marriage Amendment. Instead, he anticipates the issue will be held at a break-out session after daily chapel. (Northwestern is a private Christian liberal arts college.)

Schultz said one reason why the student senate wanted to express its viewpoint was to become part of the community discussion, noting the Roseville City Council recently adopted a resolution opposing the Marriage Amendment.

"The Roseville City Council decision was against what we believe," Schultz said.

To read Rosville Patch's story about the Roseville Counci's recent resolution on the Marriage Amendment, click on to this link.

David October 12, 2012 at 04:44 PM
Um, Zach, have you READ the Bible? Paul was "a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). He was a Roman citizen by birth, but he was a religious scholar first who came from a religious family, meaning that he was inculcated into the whole system that was obsessed with blood and sexual purity.
David October 12, 2012 at 04:46 PM
That's it exactly, Emily. People changing their minds based on facts, not holding mindlessly to ancient traditions and superstitions. Frankly, having been there, NWC is frozen in the Dark Ages along with the rest of conservative fundamentalist Christianity.
Zach October 12, 2012 at 08:19 PM
David... Once again...he converted to Christianity. He also brought his message to the gentiles. Something that Jews stuck in their traditions would not do. He was Roman by birth as well as a jew, but his conversion was to a mission minded Christianity. The two are totally different. Now I will be done with you until you prove that God doesn't exist or that the earth is over 10,000 years old... because I have a feeling your claims are baseless and lacking evidence. To sweeten the deal... if you prove that God doesn't exist then I will replace the vote yes sign in front of my place with a vote no one... now jump on it.
Zach October 12, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Anonymous student... you were accepted, not matriculated. Signing the DCC and the lifestyle statement along with your intent to attend the school. So you were not obligated to be at NWC before you electronically signed these statements. I went through the process. Also why come to NWC if it is so dark ages and terrible. It is no secret that NWC is a conservative school. If you dont like it then don't attend.
David October 12, 2012 at 08:35 PM
Zach, I don't need to prove that God doesn't exist. The burden is on YOU to prove that he does. Do I need to prove that Zeus doesn't exist? Thor? Vishnu? The tooth fairy? No. One by one we abandoned belief in those superstitions as our understanding of the world expanded. Your claims are baseless and even a bit childlike. So go ahead and be done with me if you like, but know that you're on the wrong side of history, along with the Neanderthals and any other species that failed to adapt to change and grow.
Bob October 12, 2012 at 08:51 PM
What is DCC? David, you cannot prove God's existence. It is a manner of faith. However, it can be proven that the earth is billions of years old and the universe even older. It can be proven and seen that there are billions of stars and countless more solar systems with planets in the universe. You should replace your "yes" sign because that is the Christ like thing to do. Jesus never condemned homosexuality. God created some humans with same gender attraction. Diversity is good. Yes, procreation needs an egg and a sperm to happen, so it is good that the majority of humans have heterosexual drives, but that doesn't make homosexuality, being what God created you to be wrong. You should replace your sign with a NO sign for both amendments, because neither belongs in a State Constitution. It is also a manner of religious freedom. You wouldn't want my Catholic faith imposed on your faith. The same is true with who a church can marry. My faith, albeit, not my bishops, believes in respect for the dignity of all persons and the right of all persons to fully participate in society, including marriage. There are many Christian and non-Christian religions that accept gays and truly believe in marriage, that is, that everyone, including gays should have a right to marriage. So please put your yes signs away and do what Jesus taught us all to do, to love God and love others.
Bob October 12, 2012 at 08:58 PM
.... make homosexuality wrong. Just a footnote, I have a lesbian daughter and she is the mother of two beautiful sons. She is a great mom. She has a PhD in Medical Physics and a wonderful partner of the same gender, a Lutheran minister. I am ok with the fact her partner is a Lutheran, but I would prefer (and I think she would too) if they were married rather than "living" together. I guess David, you are ok with couples living together, rather than having the option of marriage. I truly resent Republicans for doing this to us, putting this divisive issue before the voter. Think of what it would have been like if the slavery question had been put before the voters in the south in the 1850s. Because it likely would have been approved by the voters doesn't make slavery a good thing. If there is any sin here, it is bigotry against those that are different. I know Bethel has made great strides on ending those prejudices, but what does this say about Northwestern?
David October 12, 2012 at 09:05 PM
Exactly: the existence of God is a matter of faith, and therefore it's insoluble and not on the same plane as empirical reason. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. You hit on it though: diversity is good -- of belief, opinion, sexual orientation, etc! There are plenty of Catholics who believe that same-sex marriage should be legal, and we don't need Church leaders cracking down and silencing differences. This is definitely a matter of religious freedom under attack, and I think that worries both of us.
Caboose October 12, 2012 at 09:48 PM
Zach - You are wasting your time. You are fighting against an issue that does not affect you one bit because you are straight. You argue against it because you believe marriage is 100% under Christian values and must follow them 100%. None of the Christians I've ever met follow the Bible 100% so why should everyone follow the Bible's "exact definition" of Marriage? I'm betting you have an answer to that and refers to something that was created very long ago, but times have changed, our society has become very accepting of people's religious pursuits and freedoms. You of all people should realize this and just be glad to have the freedom to be Christian in America. If two humans choose to marry each other, that's their right to do so, not yours to argue against. (food for thought, if a man and woman who hate each other's guts and beats his wife can get married, why can't two men who truly love each other get married?) David - You must understand sir, not everyone participates in Atheism, bashing someone for viewing Christianity as their religion and calling them wrong IS wrong, even if you believe 100% that they are wrong, it's still their right to do so. Everyone has a right to follow a religion or choose not to. Being more tolerant of another persons religious views will make the world a much better place overall. Both of you can learn from one another, there are those who are intolerant for no true reason and should just be ignored.
David October 12, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Perhaps I failed to articulate this more clearly: Zach is free to believe whatever he wants. Belief itself isn't wrong. What is wrong is forcing a belief on others who do not share the same view -- more simply stated, religious liberty ends when it tramples on civil liberty. Mostly I take a laissez-faire attitude toward religion and belief. However, when a belief leads people to mistreat or harm others, limit others' rights, or spread fear and ignorance that hinders people from living together in harmony, I speak up. Right now I'm concerned about Christians teaching children to mistrust science and education as tools of the devil. These people do exist, and Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia is one of them (http://goo.gl/OcUJk). It's the idea that the Bible contains everything a person could ever need to know, when there is so much information to consider. Zach is free to believe that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that we were poofed into existence by some all-powerful deity who cares which genitalia we possess and what we choose to do with it. He's not free to blind his children to scientific evidence. Similarly, he's not free to blind his children to the fact that LGBT people are no less human than he as a white heterosexual male is. Again: religious liberty ends when it tramples on civil liberty.
Wilhelmina October 12, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Has a single person changed what they believe through reading this comment blog? I think everyone who is on hear running their mouth just to voice their feelings about this topic is a child. Everyone needs to stop bickering, grow up, and realize this is a sensitive subject that should be discussed face to face. Being able to type whatever the heck you feel like without any accountability is reckless. Cheers
David October 13, 2012 at 01:06 AM
Wilhelmina, if I talk about this with amendment supporters in person it usually comes to blows or the violent end to a friendship. This is not a "reasonable" conversation, like a chat over tax reform or conservation. People are trying to take away my constitutional rights (see 14th Amendment) via a religious argument (see 1st Amendment).
Anonymous Student October 13, 2012 at 12:08 PM
Zach, two things: One, you have a habit of that. "I went through the process." Translation: "I did it, so I am an expert on the subject. I know more about this than you." Guess what. I went through the process, too. However, I can see where the disconnect is, because it would appear that you don't know what the definition of matriculate is. So there's that.
Sam October 13, 2012 at 09:05 PM
The 14th Ammendment: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "Without due process of the law." Voting to add the Marriage Amendment to the Minnesota Constitution would be due process of the law.
Dr. Donald Sonsalla October 14, 2012 at 11:13 AM
The student government should be honest and just say they oppose homosexuality rather than use false reasons to support their anti gay position.
Benton Oie October 16, 2012 at 04:04 AM
David, You sound like a very intelligent and passionate person. I just want you to know that I respect your views, and I apologize for any Christians who have ignorantly forced their views upon you or made you feel like a second-class citizen. One of my best friends is gay and it doesn't mean that I don't love him, care about him, or respect him. My views on marriage are indeed different from yours but it doesn't mean I am trying to limit your freedom, your rights, or your happiness. I wish you happiness, joy ,and peace in life and I know that arguing with Christians about this amendment is not worth your time. Arguing and "making Christians eat their words" may temporarily make you feel better but there are more fulfilling things to do with your time. If you are to continue having a discussion with Christians about this amendment please do so in a respectful manner, I've been called ethically incompetent by my teachers and I am told that my views are incorrect and conceited every day in class. I know that you want to be heard and respected and so do I. Take it easy man and enjoy life's greatest blessings.
David October 16, 2012 at 04:12 AM
Benton, I don't care if you respect my views. If you don't stand on the side of marriage equality and equal rights for LGBT citizens here in the United States and around the world, you stand with centuries of fear, ignorance and oppression. It astounds me how people can claim to "have gay friends," yet see no problem in opposing their right to have their relationships recognized by the law, the same as any heterosexual person currently enjoys by sole virtue of being heterosexual, whether they intend to or are able to have children or not. This is not about "making Christians eat their words." This is about defeating fear and ignorance, and giving the next generation of LGBT youth the hope of one day being able to live in our society without having to look over their shoulder for fear that someone is going to abuse, hurt, kill them for being different. Ultimately, I hope to do my small part in making the world a better place for all, not just "my kind." Unless you have tried to look at the world through our eyes, you will never be able to look past your position of privilege as a heterosexual male.
B. Allan Ross October 24, 2012 at 09:57 AM
It's very clear why people "believe" that these incestuous (closed-in family, dominant-male, culty little schools like Liberty and Northwestern, etc.) religious schools are so very inferior to actual institutions of higher learning. I'd put your arguments, your knowledge (even your "Biblical" knowledge) in the same realm as the happy history & science-stupid hordes of religion-based, incompetent, inferior, self-deluded, home-schooled causes of the "dumbing down" of America. You're sad excuses for young human beings. More like zombies that are still alive. I am extremely happy that there are two or three people who are currently enrolled at Northwestern who are upset that the douchebags on the student senate announced that the entire school wants the community to vote for the shameful further enshrinement of discrimination against gay and lesbian U.S. citizens. As the supporter of the amendment above stated, you are of a certain religious cult, and you want every other religious cult in the world to do things your way. The height of selfishness, the opposite of Jesus' way. But you can't even see that due to the humans who have lied to you since birth. Lied to you about everything, since birth. If your beliefs about the world are based on the Bible, then everything you know is wrong. It's about time you accept that and quit using your cult's rules to screw around with the only goddamned life I will ever have, alive or dead. Lighten up?! You must be crazy.
D November 06, 2012 at 08:13 PM
Wow, apparently there are alot of self-proclaimed "Biblical scholars" posting about this story. I love it when people claim to know what parts of the Bible are applicable and which parts aren't, even referencing other "Biblical Scholars" or studies in an attempt to support their various interpretations of the Bible or the interpretations that they have conveniently decided to adopt as their own. That said, people are free to believe whatever they want about the Bible and are free to express themselves by writing messages on postcards and taking photographs and them posting them online, if they think that's helpful. The rub, so to speak, is that their free exercise of religion protected by the Constitution cannot by statute take the legal rights of others who are guaranteed legal rights to equal treatment under the same Constitution. It's pretty clear that the equal protection clause of the 5th and 14th amendments are going to provide a basis for marriage equality for consenting adults, just as it did in prior Supreme Court decisions invalidating similar state discriminatory laws, i.e. Loving v. Virginia. The exact same alleged "Biblical" arguments were raised as to interacial marriage. And when the Supreme Court struck down the laws of discrimination, the world did not end. The alleged "sin" of interacial marriage fell by the wayside and everyone moved on to more important issues of our time.
Josh November 06, 2012 at 09:27 PM
The best way to argue with a Christian about their views on marriage, is to first and foremost tell them the most important thing in their lives (God) doesn't exist. </sarcasm> Seriously David, how on earth do you hope to generate meaningful discussion on this topic when you're just as offensive to Christians as they are to you? I don't mean to insinuate that the homosexual community has not been wronged by the Christian community - as they very clearly have - but the rhetoric I've seen on message boards from the gay community toward Christians might as well be the same as the awful Westboro Baptist folks. Marriage has been around, as one man and one woman, for thousands of years. While that doesn't mean it's perfect or that the definition is flawless, the reason the state is involved in it at all is to provide stability/benefits that promote the creation and raising of children. It's not the job of people who believe in this traditional viewpoint to defend it - it's the job of same-sex marriage proponents to prove that it benefits society to change said definition. What tangible benefit (beyond "I want it!") does gay marriage provide to society? I would argue the only possible argument here would be a more stable home for those who adopt children. That said, I believe it's biology's design (note, not God's) for children to be raised by both a mother and a father - so I don't necessarily think there's a benefit in promoting gay marriage for that reason either.
D November 06, 2012 at 09:30 PM
Benton, by your statements, you seem to be only too interested to focus on what YOU deem to be disrespectul aspects of David's arguments, and miss the point of contention. "Enjoying life's greatest blessings" is the whole point of the opposition to this amendment. Preventing 2 consenting adults from marrying because of an alleged Biblical interpretation (especially 1 derived from an implication found in the Bible, where marriage was not only between man and wife but between man and 100 wives, who may or may not be underage and therefore unable to consent) is the very act that is preventing an individual who loves another of the same sex from the ability to "enjoy life's greatest blessings"-marriage and all of the rights thereof, provided under the law. For some, this may not be a serious, important issue worthy of passion, anger, and argument, but to the individual whose rights to "enjoy life's greatest blessings" are being VOTED upon, this is THE issue of his or her life. I presume that if we were to vote on whether you should be allowed to marry the consenting individual of your choosing, you would be somewhat angry, frustrated, and passionate about fact that the issue was even one to be decided. Should we start voting as to whether Christians should be allowed to marry--whether a Catholic should marry a Pentecostal...a Christian and a non-Christian...Perhaps we should find out what "Biblical scholars" would say about that and then create statutory law based upon that.
Josh November 06, 2012 at 09:31 PM
I recognize that not all heterosexual couples have children - but laws are put in place to govern the majority. We can't legislate for every exception to the rule. So ALL of that said - my own personal view is that the state should get out of the marriage business altogether and only perform civil unions. If the state is going to provide benefits or tax breaks to couples who are in a union of some sort, it should be based on children, not on the fact that they're together. Marriage, meanwhile, would remain a church issue, to be defined by the church. I'm familiar with all the arguments against my stance - and some of them have their merits - but to call people against same sex marriage homophobes and bigots is a gross mischaracterization. Take heart in the fact that this debate has made millions of people rethink and rearticulate their position. I do NOT think homosexuals should be second class citizens, and can articulate my own beliefs on the matter without the help of a Bible.
D November 06, 2012 at 09:50 PM
Actually, if we went by the principle of "it's been around for thousands of years, therefore, let's keep doing it--it's traditional and therefore, the right thing," then by that rationale, slavery, discrimination against women's property and voting rights, and polygamy would still be legal (all are found in the Bible, by the way). The state's interest in children has no relevance to marriage--using your own rationale regarding time and tradition, single parents have been raising children on their own for "thousands" of years; further, individuals have been getting married, under state law and with state licenses, and NOT having children for "thousands" of years. Shifting the burden of proof to the minority to oppose a law, while stating that the law is valid because of how long it's been on the books, are strategies that have been deemed unconstitutional and unfair for some time. Each law should treat people equally and be Constitutional. The test is not "how does it (marriage equality) benefit society" but "what reasonable interest does a government have to limit your right to do it." An alleged Biblical proscription does not provide such reasonable governmental interest. Biological "design"--whatever that's supposed to mean--has not provided a scientific basis for arguing against marriage equality. Simply stating "children should be raised by both a mother and father" has no relevance to marriage equality.
Josh November 06, 2012 at 10:05 PM
D- thanks for your reply. You're proving my point actually - on all the issues you brought up - changing the status quo was proven to be beneficial to society. My second post responds a bit more to the other arguments, but as I stated, obviously there are couples who don't have kids and single parents out there - but marriage law is first and foremost in place to promote child rearing and stable homes for said children. When I say biological design - I'm implying nature/evolution's design. I know homosexuals hate this argument - as it eliminates the idea of love from marriage momentarily - but the law says nothing, and promotes nothing about marrying for love. Because of this, the law is equal to all people, as every person in this country has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The state has no interest in promoting the marriage of same sex couples because it does not benefit society.
D November 06, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Actually, that would be incorrect. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were created to guarantee that the majority could not take away the rights of the minority, including the right to equal protection. Again, the government has not care about whether a marriage produces children. Quite frankly, it never has, and I'm not sure why you seem to think so nor why you have such preoccupation with whether or not a marriage produces children.
D November 06, 2012 at 11:38 PM
Further, if one believes that a certain group of people should not have the same benefit of marrying as the majority has, simply because of irrelevant rationales for such belief, then that would be a bigotted, homophobic viewpoint. Your belief implies that you feel that such minority group is not entitled to equal treatment under the law. Currently, only heterosexuals may marry another consenting adult of his or her choosing. Homosexuals cannot under the law. You're entitled to have such viewpoint of discrimination, but you should own it for what it represents. I would almost have more respect for your opinion if you felt you had a Biblical basis for it. To come up with random arguments that would only be applicable to the existence of children--that have nothing to do with whether a marriage is legally recognizable--makes you sound less genuine. If your only qualm with marriage equality related to children, there are plenty of studies that show homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual ones.
Sid Carton November 26, 2012 at 11:48 PM
Dan: So you're claiming that Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. actually have Biblical (i.e. Christian) marriages? Or worse, that they don't have "real" marriages because you claim marriage as a Biblical institution? The sheer arrogance of your position is breathtaking.
B. Allan Ross December 05, 2012 at 06:33 AM
Only in your pre-conceived, bigoted -- too many CAPS in too many telling places to be otherwise -- definition of "Creator". (You're in the majority so take comfort in automatic support of your blatant religious supremacism). Successfully injecting religions where they were intentionally not meant to be, specifically because of people like you and yours, doesn't give your religious views any extra validity. Eventually the obscene execution crosses of death and the illegal, anti-Constitutional 10 Commandments monuments get removed from public property, the 1950s-era insertion of "God" into our national properties will be reversed. Our money will be cleaned up, our motto "E Pluribus Unum" will be returned to its premiere place of honor, the Pledge of Allegience will be returned to all of the people of the USA, etc. The decades-long (I'm 58), studied, illegal and un-Constitutional attempt to hijack the USA for the Christian-American version of the Taliban will be reversed and we will be living closer to the Founders' ideals, but not any time soon. Except for inside the brains of religious people, which is to say, except for a person's own beliefs and actions, government-issued same-gender marriage licenses issued equally to consenting adult citizens have no bearing on the religion of any of "The People" who are all to be "Equal Under The Law." And, there are laws against incest, along with provable, evidenced societal interest in preventing that consentable crime against genes.
B. Allan Ross December 05, 2012 at 06:43 AM
BTW, my "Creator" was my mother, with an assist from my father, though "Co-Creator" isn't mentioned in the ... Declaration of Independence ... which did not even create the USA. Neither "Creator" nor "God" is to be found in the Constitution of the USA. For the good reason, as you know, that our nation was founded by (hypocritical) people who knew what it was like to live under a state "religion" making up the laws for everyone of every religion and none. They chose freedom for everyone, at least ideally.
B. Allan Ross December 05, 2012 at 06:57 AM
FYI, to me, a 58-year-old gay man, Max used Northwestern to inject a very public Northwestern endorsement for the anti-gay, anti-lesbian, anti-marriage amendment, in order to defeat the ban on tax-welfare receiving churches and religious organizations endorsing ballot measures, political parties, or candidates. But then again, US Christians no longer want to abide by the laws that allow them to exist tax-free and enormously profitable. They are intentionally breaking the IRS laws. Max will go far in the political Christian (Republicans Only, No Gays Allowed) establishment. And he'll smile beatifically as he willfully yet ignorantly crushes underfoot the lives of me, my family, and my tribe, sharing what he calls God's love, but only creating rivers of our blood gushing endlessly from under his blood-soaked sandals.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »