The Arizona Marriage Proposition
One of the propositions we will be voting on in my state this fall is a proposed amendment to our state constitution to only recognize marriage as between one man and one woman. It has been frequently discussed at church recently—one of the few instances where our church takes a stand on a political issue. In response, I’ve heard or read of many opinions on the subject, so I’m going to offer my own thoughts on it as well.
One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard recently is that we already have a state law saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so why are we beating this issue to death? There’s a good answer to this: currently it’s only a statutory requirement, not part of our state constitution. That leaves it open to the same problems that California and New York have, where courts have overturned the laws. In fact, California is voting on the same issue again this year, for the same reason. They are trying to amend their state constitution so that the court judgment does not overrule what the voters decide. Either way it will still probably be challenged in court—just to get the proposition on the ballot in Arizona involved lawsuits. Still, it is important for those of us who believe in this principle to fight for it, rather than apathetically shrugging our shoulders and saying, “Same-sex marriage is bound to happen anyway.” (Another common response, even among LDS Church members.)
So why is this issue important? That’s the other common response that I hear. Aren’t we really just being bigoted and reactionary by refusing to grant others the “civil right” of marriage, no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Well, I’ve recently read two responses to this question that have struck me, so I’m going to quote from both. The first comes from my friend Brooke, who is actively helping to promote this amendment in California. She says, “It really becomes an issue of separation between church and state. If same-sex marriage is legalized then the homosexual couples will try, as they have in other states, to force the churches to allow them to marry in their facilities even if it is against that particular religion. (They have already done this in the state of New Jersey with the Methodist church and the lesbian couple won while the Methodist church lost their tax exempt status for not allowing the homosexual couple to be married on their property). Thus, by legalizing same-sex marriage it steals our religious rights to worship according to the dictates of our own will. Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike could be forced to allow such marriages in their churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, or other church owned property or lose their tax exempt status or other rights.”
Are we really so confident that our government in this country cannot take control of our lives to the point that we are not allowed to worship according to the dictates of our conscience? I don’t know why we think so. History has shown people in power over and over again (whether a government or an individual) basically taking control and changing people’s freedom and lives forever. Is our country so immune to this? I believe it can happen anywhere where people are willing to look the other way and go on with their lives when the changes are gradually introduced.
The other response comes from the official commentary on the subject by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a publication titled “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” It states, “Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.” It goes on to explain the importance of children being raised in a loving, family relationship with a married father and mother, as well as touching on the legal ramifications I already mentioned. It concluded with the statement “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.”
In the end, I can personally look at this issue in only one way. If I judged the importance of social changes according to my own knowledge and experience, I would frequently make terrible mistakes. However, I have a strong testimony that our prophet today, President Thomas S. Monson, is inspired and receives his direction from Jesus Christ. In that case, when the Church leaders tell me that this issue is of vital importance, guess what? I am going to listen. If I didn’t, I would be no different than those living during the Savior’s time who insisted they were followers of the prophets, while ignoring or persecuting the living ones, including John the Baptist and the Savior himself. So count me among those people who will be heading to the polls in November and choosing to support the marriage amendment.
By the way, if you are interested on reading the full statement from the LDS Church, it can be found at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.
One of the biggest complaints I’ve heard recently is that we already have a state law saying that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, so why are we beating this issue to death? There’s a good answer to this: currently it’s only a statutory requirement, not part of our state constitution. That leaves it open to the same problems that California and New York have, where courts have overturned the laws. In fact, California is voting on the same issue again this year, for the same reason. They are trying to amend their state constitution so that the court judgment does not overrule what the voters decide. Either way it will still probably be challenged in court—just to get the proposition on the ballot in Arizona involved lawsuits. Still, it is important for those of us who believe in this principle to fight for it, rather than apathetically shrugging our shoulders and saying, “Same-sex marriage is bound to happen anyway.” (Another common response, even among LDS Church members.)
So why is this issue important? That’s the other common response that I hear. Aren’t we really just being bigoted and reactionary by refusing to grant others the “civil right” of marriage, no matter what their sexual orientation happens to be? Well, I’ve recently read two responses to this question that have struck me, so I’m going to quote from both. The first comes from my friend Brooke, who is actively helping to promote this amendment in California. She says, “It really becomes an issue of separation between church and state. If same-sex marriage is legalized then the homosexual couples will try, as they have in other states, to force the churches to allow them to marry in their facilities even if it is against that particular religion. (They have already done this in the state of New Jersey with the Methodist church and the lesbian couple won while the Methodist church lost their tax exempt status for not allowing the homosexual couple to be married on their property). Thus, by legalizing same-sex marriage it steals our religious rights to worship according to the dictates of our own will. Muslims, Jews, and Christians alike could be forced to allow such marriages in their churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, or other church owned property or lose their tax exempt status or other rights.”
Are we really so confident that our government in this country cannot take control of our lives to the point that we are not allowed to worship according to the dictates of our conscience? I don’t know why we think so. History has shown people in power over and over again (whether a government or an individual) basically taking control and changing people’s freedom and lives forever. Is our country so immune to this? I believe it can happen anywhere where people are willing to look the other way and go on with their lives when the changes are gradually introduced.
The other response comes from the official commentary on the subject by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in a publication titled “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” It states, “Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults.” It goes on to explain the importance of children being raised in a loving, family relationship with a married father and mother, as well as touching on the legal ramifications I already mentioned. It concluded with the statement “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to the future of our society.”
In the end, I can personally look at this issue in only one way. If I judged the importance of social changes according to my own knowledge and experience, I would frequently make terrible mistakes. However, I have a strong testimony that our prophet today, President Thomas S. Monson, is inspired and receives his direction from Jesus Christ. In that case, when the Church leaders tell me that this issue is of vital importance, guess what? I am going to listen. If I didn’t, I would be no different than those living during the Savior’s time who insisted they were followers of the prophets, while ignoring or persecuting the living ones, including John the Baptist and the Savior himself. So count me among those people who will be heading to the polls in November and choosing to support the marriage amendment.
By the way, if you are interested on reading the full statement from the LDS Church, it can be found at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.
Comments