Just and Holy Principles

[Pres. Obama reviews his family tree with Church leaders]

In Part 2 of this series, we learned why the family should be the fundamental unit of society. In this post, we’ll learn why the natural family is more likely to succeed than any other family structure.

The stability of any structure (e.g., building, bridge, organization) depends on the materials that make it up and on how it is built. The same principles apply to the family. In times of adversity — great or small — some families waver and even fall whereas others stand firm. The strongest family structure is the natural family — biological father, mother, and children.

This isn’t to say that other family structures can’t succeed or that the natural family is perfect but that the structure of the natural family is the most likely to stand firm through the inevitable storms of life. Why?

To begin, the complementarity that exists between male and female, or father and mother, provides the best physical, social, and emotional atmosphere for raising healthy, productive children. Dr. Dean Byrd says that generally fathers are more firm and rely more on rules and principles, whereas mothers are more intuitive and responsive and are more willing to bargain or negotiate. According to Byrd:

Men stress justice, fairness, and duty based on rules while women stress understanding, sympathy, care, and assistance based on relationships … no reputable theory or empirical study that denies the critical importance of mothers to the healthy development of children can be found in the professional literature. Recent researchers have concluded that fathers are critical to the healthy development of children as well.

Therefore, children with one parent or with two parents of the same sex do not benefit from the balanced care that comes with this complementarity. Also, children of same-sex parents often experience gender confusion, among other problems. For example, according to Byrd’s research, “lesbian mothers have a feminizing effect on their sons and a masculinizing effect on their daughers.”

When a family has two parents whose gender identities complement one another and the parents love and care for their children, the family can bear greater stress. In the words of Paul Mero:

“The natural family structure is highly elastic. Single-parent homes are not very elastic. That is, the natural family structure can bear tremendous loads of force while bending but not breaking … Larger, more tightly knit, families reaching across generations are able to bear heavier loads. A community of such families will be stronger than a community of families comprised of alternative structural materials and non-complementary structures. On a much larger scale, this same science of elasticity works as well for nations or civilizations. Highly elastic family structures will endure the ages; less elastic family structures will die off through the ages.”

As we have been warned, “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets” (Family Proclamation). We should do all we can to create, develop, and encourage sturdy natural families that stretch across generations.

What do you think?

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 1-The Family: How to Define It
Part 2-The Family: The Fundamental Unit

Part 2 is based mostly on the ideas of Allan Carlson and Paul Mero from the book Preserving Sacred Ground. They ask:

If you could create society the way you think it should be, what would that society be centered around? The individual? The church? The corporation? The state? Or the family?

Which unit of society do you think should be the fundamental unit? Let’s look at each one briefly to determine the best answer.

Individual
Society increasingly revolves around the individual. “What do I want? What do I need?” According to Carlson and Mero, “In a world where the individual is the fundamental unit, people are socially isolated. Culturally, they are narcissistic…Politically, they are very utilitarian or, we might say today, libertarian.” Individualism tears apart families and communities. It is manifested in ever greater numbers of cohabitation, divorce, and same-sex relationships. Carlson and Mero also make the following analogy:

Sand is nothing more than atomized stone. Though substantial in the aggregate, it is no more than the accidental product of stones and shells as they slowly disintegrate. Individualism as a force is no more than the atomization of the family unit. Individualism is the sand; family is the stone.

Just as the foolish man built his house upon the sand and it fell, society will fall if it is built upon the sand (the individual) rather than upon the rock (the family).

To read some great quotes from the Brethren on individualism and the family go here.

Church
Though religious institutions do much good to promote morality, selflessness, and happiness, the church cannot be the fundamental unit because the family existed before the church. The best role for the church is to complement the family — to provide opportunities for learning and religious expression. It is in the family that religion has the best opportunity to flourish; “the family is the perfect home for God.”

Corporation
The main purpose of any corporation or business is to exchange goods and services and to create wealth. These activities are not inherently bad; in fact, they can help individuals and families obtain what they need to live, fulfill their responsibilities, and enjoy life. And yet, life is about much more than buying a car, getting a haircut, or saving for retirement; thus, the corporation cannot be the fundamental unit of society.

State
Government is necessary to help provide order for society, but history teaches us that when society revolves around government society fails. Totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and Communist China have tried to gain control over individuals by eliminating marriage and family as a significant structure. In a government-centered society, people tend to become just another roadblock between government and its social goals, whereas in a family-centered society government exists to serve people and promote healthy families.

Family
Each of the units we’ve discussed plays an important part in our lives, but the family must be the center of it all.

Carlson and Mero nicely sum up the importance of the family as the fundamental unit:

All facets of life are enriched when we choose the natural family as the fundamental unit of society. Our social life is richer — we experience broad diversity within a context of stable familiarity. Our cultural life is richer — we are better able to take advantage of generational experience and the lessons of tradition. Our political life is richer — strong, autonomous families maximize the best functions of democracy. Our economic life is richer — we work with lasting purpose, cooperatively and altruistically, for others and not just for ourselves. And our spiritual life is richer — we are motivated to become our better selves as we give birth and nurturing to the rising generations

The natural family is the key to the fullness of life. It does what no other organizing principle can do — it makes everything around it better, it amplifies the best elements of all other institutions. It is the foundation of ordered liberty.

What do you think?

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 1-The Family: How to Define It

Photo credit: freeparking

What is a family? Father, mother, and children? Single mother and child? Grandfather and grandchildren? Two men committed to sharing their lives? Any group of people living in the same household?

Society’s view of the family likely includes most of these relational arrangements, if not all of them. In the beginning , God ordained marriage as the union of man and woman, leaving their father and mother to become one flesh. Of course, God’s sanctioning of marriage and family is only an affirmation of what is natural.

The first man and woman on earth, whether one believes in the biblical account of Adam and Eve or not, needed to procreate in order to continue their species. Undoubtedly, a man and woman who combine to create another living soul feel a strong desire to care for it. So, they work together to provide for its physical, social, emotional, and spiritual needs. A family is born — naturally.

The parents care for the child until he or she is mature enough to leave them and cleave to his or her spouse. Of course, if the species is to continue to perpetuate itself, then the son or daughter must follow the natural pattern which preceded, created, and prepared him or her, by joining with a person of the opposite gender. And the process repeats itself, generation after generation. This brings us to the definition of the family. In the words of Paul Mero, “The true tests of a functional family structure are both that it lasts through generations and that it doesn’t need the state to create it.”

1. The family lasts through generations. As I’ve described, the natural family reproduces itself and cares for each of its members generation after generation, passing blood, traits, knowledge, and assets down a line of inheritance. The family has “a past and a future tied together intergenerationally.”

2. The family doesn’t need the state to create it. Government does not create families, it only recognizes and affirms what already exists in nature and offers protection for it and encourages it. Any relational arrangement that requires state sanction to be designated a family (e.g. same-sex marriage) is not a natural family. The family is prior to the state.

There may be variations within the structure of the natural family. For example, a parent may die or a couple may be infertile. As the Proclamation says, “disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.” One specific adaptation is adoption. When a family cannot care for one of its children, for whatever reason, then the child may need to become part of another family that can care for it.

As we celebrate this Memorial Day, we remember those who have gone before us. To a great extent, this holiday is a manifestation of our human desire to recognize and appreciate the intergenerational bonds that connect us with one another. It is one way to honor and encourage the perpetuation of the natural family — man, woman, and children.

What do you think?

*I recognize that there are a lot of issues related to this topic that could be addressed. I’ve chosen to keep these posts simple — addressing one basic question or idea at a time — in order to keep them concise and focused. Please feel free to bring up related questions or ideas in the comments section.

Related posts:
Intro-The Family
Part 2-The Family: The Fundamental Unit

Photo by Steve Polyak

The Family: A Proclamation to the World declares that the family is “the fundamental unit of society.” It also urges us “to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen” it as such. This call to action brings up two common questions: 1) Why is the family the fundamental unit of society? and 2) Which measures can I promote to help maintain and strengthen it?

In conversations with Latter-day Saint friends, I’ve discovered that most of them believe that the traditional family — one man, one woman, and children — should be the fundamental unit of society, but many of them find it difficult to explain why. Their opinion is often based solely on Church doctrine or official statements from the Church.

Without a doubt, following the Prophet is the right thing to do, even if a person doesn’t completely understand why the Prophet says what he says. But it is also important to try to understand his counsel and teachings the best we can and to learn to explain our beliefs to others.

Often, people feel in their hearts that something is right but have a hard time supporting their feelings with rational arguments, which is often the case with defending the family. At times, we simply may not be able to explain some beliefs using rational thought or logic — not because they aren’t true but because they are spiritual in nature and thus can only be discerned through the Spirit. This is not the case, however, with understanding the importance of the family. There is both a spiritual and a rational basis for promoting the family as the fundamental unit of society.

For this reason, I’m going to publish a series of posts that present rational arguments for why the family is, and should continue to be, the fundamental unit of society. If you find yourself among those Latter-day Saints who believe in the importance of promoting the family but also want to square your thoughts with your heart on this issue and share your beliefs with others, then I hope the arguments I present will help you do so.

Please contribute your ideas to the discussion to help make it as meaningful as possible for all who participate. I’ll publish Part 1 sometime this weekend.

What do you think?

Related posts:

Part 1-The Family: How to Define It
Part 2-The Family: The Fundamental Unit

Utah Governor Jon Huntsman, Jr. (R) recently reaffirmed his support of civil unions. We know that the Church has opposed same-sex marriage, but what is its position on civil unions? There has been some confusion regarding this matter, which I hope to clear up here.

The Deseret News reported that Elder Clayton, Church spokesman during the Prop. 8 battle, said that “in general, the church ‘does not oppose civil unions or domestic partnerships,’ that involve benefits like health insurance and property rights.” However, when questioned about the Common Ground Initiative, an effort to promote civil unions and other benefits for homosexuals, the Church did not take a public position. Instead, it said “we have tried to clearly define the principles regarding the importance of marriage and its attending issues.” So, let’s take a look at the Church’s most official statements regarding marriage.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” emphasizes that sexual relations, marriage, and parenting should be between only man and woman, husband and wife, but does not mention civil unions. It does say, “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” Would civil unions “maintain and strengthen the family” — as the Brethren have defined it — “as the fundamental unit of society”? Let’s look at another statement.

In the Church Newsroom, there is an official statement on same-gender attraction. It’s an interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman (member of the Seventy). In response to the question, “Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?”, Elder Wickman replied:

One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.” (emphasis added)

Another publication, The Divine Institution of Marriage, does not mention civil unions specifically. It does outline some of the possible negative effects if “government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right” or allows “single-sex unions” or “non-traditional unions,” but it doesn’t distinguish specifically between civil unions and marriage.

To summarize, based on official public statements, the Church seems to oppose any type of civil union that bestows “the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage” on same-gender couples, which likely includes most any type of “civil union” or “domestic partnership.” As for particular rights within that bundle, the Church stated during the Prop 8 debate that it “does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.” To me, this statement means that the Church could support, or at least not object to, legal measures that grant certain rights to same-sex couples, depending on the specific language, context, and possible effects of such measures.

In the interview cited above, Elder Wickman also said:

As far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.

In my opinion, the only benefits that meet these requirements and “do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches” are those that do not reference “sexual orientation,” or anything like unto it, in any way. In other words, any rights granted to people in a non-marriage relationship should apply equally to all people without regard to gender, so that same-gender partnerships are not given special consideration over opposite-gender partnerships. Measures that meet the criteria described here may be worthy of consideration, provided that they are also necessary and practical.

What do you think?

The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is that homosexual partners have a right to marry just like everyone else. People often compare the current movement to the civil rights movement of the 1950-60’s. This argument is compelling to many people, but it is also misleading. The “gay rights” agenda has little to do with rights.

Today in the United States, every person, no matter their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, has a right to marry. Any American can marry a person of either gender privately. This right is denied to no one. Similarly, any American can marry civilly, including homosexuals, provided that their partner is of the opposite sex. This right also is denied to no one. Permitting civil marriage between people of the same sex would not extend an additional right, it would only expand the existing right to marry to include a specific preference.

Same-sex marriage vs. interracial marriage
Perhaps, though, this theory sounds simplistic. Until 1967, it was legal to prevent people of different races from marrying. One could argue that blacks and whites had equal rights to marry before then, provided that their partner was of their own race. Today, interracial marriage is legal and seems to be acceptable to most Americans. But are race and sexual preference comparable?

According to the courts, the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone, including government, from discriminating against people of any specific race, ethnicity, color, gender, or age. These are protected classes of people because those attributes define who people are, whether they like it or not. Whites are born with white skin. Same goes for blacks, and everybody else. To my knowledge, a black person cannot make their skin white. People are also born male or female and can’t change their gender. A person’s color and gender is just part of who they are.

Genetics or choice?
The issue of same-sex marriage boils down to this question: is homosexuality an inborn attribute that defines who people are or is it a choice?

Scientific evidence is not conclusive on whether or not homosexuality is part of a person’s genetic makeup. Some scientists believe it is, others believe it is a result of environmental factors, and others believe it’s a combination of both. I believe it’s a combination of both, in a way. According to Elder Oaks:

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.

People have physical characteristics and susceptibilities that give them natural inclinations to do many things. A person’s physical strength and mental toughness might make them more likely to want to become a boxer or football player. A person’s natural sensitivity and loving disposition might give them a natural inclination to care for others as a parent, neighbor, or nurse. Similarly, a person might have a natural propensity to take on risk and therefore enjoy gambling, or they might crave the odor and taste of alcohol and decide to take up social drinking.

Note that though each person has unique physical characteristics and susceptibilities, he or she must choose how to respond to them. A person with natural inclinations to take on risk does not become a compulsive gambler unless he or she chooses to do so. Similarly, a person with physical characteristics and susceptibilities that makes him or her more likely to feel attracted to the same sex does not become a homosexual unless he or she chooses to act on those feelings.

A physical characteristic or susceptibility might be a natural part of who a person is that they cannot change, like race or gender, but the way he or she responds to who they are is a choice. No matter the struggles that people endure, everyone has the ability to choose how to respond to any thought, feeling, or urge.

Protected classes for behavior?
Homosexuality is a sexual preference, or a series of actions that lead to a behavior. Should we begin to recognize a group of people that engage in a specific behavior as a protected class? In my opinion, that would be unwise. Then people with a natural inclination to play board games who choose to start up a chess club, or people who love the elderly and make a habit of volunteering at rest homes and for Meals On Wheels might demand to be protected classes. Of course, this probably wouldn’t happen, but it illustrates the silliness of creating a legally protected class for people who engage in a specific behavior.

Should government endorse homosexuality?
A state’s or nation’s laws reflect the general beliefs of its people. Through government, the people can encourage or discourage behavior that they believe benefits or harms society, whether for scientific, religious, or other reasons. Americans have decided to encourage a human behavior — marriage between one man and one woman — that most Americans believe is best for society. Today, government does not discourage homosexuality by prohibiting it, and it also does not encourage or endorse it by making it legal.

The marriage debate is not about rights, it is about whether or not we as a society believe that homosexuality benefits society and if we want to encourage and endorse it. To this day, despite the rulings of several courts, no people of any U.S. state have chosen to make same-sex marriage legal. Let’s hope the courts leave this decision to the people rather than making it for them.

What do you think?

Resources
Same-Gender Attraction, Dallin H. Oaks
LDS quotes, articles, and materials on same-gender attraction

Backlash from the passage of California’s Proposition 8 has been widespread, aggressive, and, in some cases, deplorable. And it may be just the beginning. People have been protesting nationwide in front of government buildings and religious sites, and even inside churches.

How should one who supports traditional marriage react to all this? Here are a few questions and my answers. Let me know what you think.

1. Should I be worried about all these protests?
No, as long as they remain peaceful. Last Friday night, I was in downtown Salt Lake and stopped by to see the gay rights protest in front of the Church Office Building. I saw thousands of people chanting, yelling, waving signs and rainbow flags, and people in cars driving by honking their horns in support of the protest. My favorite sign was one that read, “Keep your doctrine out of my covenants.” Very creative. For the most part, the protesters were peaceful. They weren’t vandalizing property or harassing passersby, at least at that protest.

Same-sex marriage supporters have a right to protest, just as traditional marriage supporters, including the Church, had a right to speak out in support of Proposition 8. As long as they abide by the law, let them protest. Let them boycott Utah, businesses, and anything else they want to. Just hope they don’t cross the line of civility. As the Church has stated:

Attacks on churches and intimidation of people of faith have no place in civil discourse over controversial issues. People of faith have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear of reprisal. Efforts to force citizens out of public discussion should be deplored by people of goodwill everywhere.”

Though activists have a right protest as they are doing now, I do think it’s unwise.

The gay rights movement has quietly, but in a very calculated manner, been advancing its agenda throughout the U.S. This sudden tantrum-like outburst may set it back. It may awaken the sleeping giant of the mostly heretofore silent majority of traditional marriage supporters. It may motivate them to coalesce and push back, maybe even hard enough to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Gay rights activists would be wise, for their own benefit, to return to their homes and focus on pushing their agenda through the courts and the media. This way, they can very gradually help change our legal structure and win over the hearts of the American people without us noticing or fearing their subtle progress (Hint: we shouldn’t let them do this).

2. Can the Church speak out on political issues like this?
Without a doubt, unequivocally, yes. At least for now. All non-profit organizations (501(c)(3)), including religious ones, have the right to speak out on any political issue provided that they don’t support any particular party or candidate. Given that the Church has maintained its tax-exempt status until now is pretty good evidence that its 501(c)(3) status is not in jeopardy.

3. How should I respond to the backlash?
With love, just as Christ would. We should stand firm and seek to preserve and encourage traditional marriage through legitimate democratic processes, but we should do it with respect, decency, and civility. When there are attacks on us, the Church, or other people or institutions we hold dear, we should “turn the other cheek” and press forward with faith and charity. “Charity suffereth long, and is kind, and…is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in inquity but rejoiceth in the truth…charity never faileth” (Moroni 7:45-47).

What do you think?

The Church recently released a document called “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” The document explains the Church’s “reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative” and is intended to “reduce misunderstanding and ill will” regarding its position.

I’m glad the Brethren chose to publish this essay. I had been able to gather snippets of information regarding the reasoning behind the Church’s position on same-sex marriage from other statements, but there was no single document that combined them all or went this much in depth.

“The Divine Institution of Marriage” outlines the social, legal, moral, and political implications of legalizing same-sex marriage and the Church’s reasons for defending traditional marriage. The document mentions many common facts and arguments used to support traditional marriage, but from the Church’s unique perspective. Some parts could be more clear or argued in a better way, but overall it does the job. There is only so much evidence one short essay like this can provide.

Here are some of the most interesting and important quotes from it:

“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.”

“Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not ‘tolerating’ transgression… The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds — including same-sex marriage — does not constitute abuse or the frequently misused term ‘hate speech.’ We can express genuine love and friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.”

“Legalizing same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place ‘church and state on a collision course.’”

“Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.”

“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 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.”

I invite everyone to read this document, think about it, and decide whether or not it makes sense to you. Same-sex marriage is an issue that will become only more pressing as time goes on. We must each decide where we stand and how to defend our position, whatever it is. Whether it makes sense to us or not, I hope we all choose to follow the Brethren, but we are not to follow them blindly. We must learn for ourselves if what they say is true, which I believe it is. Please study this document and the related materials and decide where you stand.

What do you think?

For some time now, I have struggled to understand whether or not government should define marriage as between a man and a woman. The Church has very specifically counseled us to do all that we can to support constitutional amendments (state and national) that ban same-sex marriage. For me, an official directive from church leaders is enough to spur me to action because I know that Pres. Monson is a prophet of God. Protecting traditional marriage through the law does feel like the right thing to do. And yet, my rational mind and intense inner drive to understand everything cause me to continue to seek knowledge and understanding to help square my logic with my heart. I think this is what we are supposed to do–follow the prophet even if we do not understand everything, but do all we can to understand through study and prayer. Answers may not come when we prefer, but they come if we persist.

I still don’t completely understand the legal and moral reasoning behind banning same-sex marriage. It’s hard for me to accept any law that limits individual liberty. Freedom to choose is what makes America great. However, I’ve learned that marriage is less about the individual and more about the family–as ordained by God–and society. The purpose of public policy should be not only to help individuals find happiness, but also to help society progress as a whole.

Only the “natural family” (father, mother, and children together) can cause society to progress in perpetuity. Government should not sanction any type of relationship that runs counter to the natural family. Encouraging the natural family is not about civil rights; it is about encouraging and preserving the only institution that can promote progress and freedom.

A recent publication of the Sutherland Institute has helped me understand this reasoning better. It’s a dialogue between the Institute’s president, Paul Mero, and Stephen C. Clark, an attorney in the gay rights movement who is also in a same-sex relationship. Below are links to the dialogue’s three parts as well as some of Mr. Mero’s quotes that have helped me understand better why the law should prohibit same-sex marriage. The dialogue is fascinating, educational, and blunt. If you open the dialogue, be warned that, as you may imagine, it contains some sexually explicit language in order to debate the issue.

Here are the quotes:

“If a relationship requires the state to formally create it, then it is a creature of the state, and the antithesis of freedom … The natural family does not require the state to create it; it is prior to the state. State sanction in its case is only to confirm in public policy that society recognizes and encourages its ideal…

The ‘Friends’ characters are not a family. ‘Murphy Brown’ and her daughter are not a family. Unfortunately, the ‘Bundys’ are a family. The ‘natural’ seems to be the key to understand all of this. The state interest is in the natural family. It is quite patient with all sorts of atrocities in ‘natural’ families, and has zero patience for even minor glitches in ‘created’ families, because only in the natural family can the ideal be realized for human progress and freedom. ‘Created’ families exist as contracts with the state. In their formation they are pretend families. They play house. Their human emotions are real, but their family structure is fabricated. The state can recognize and legitimize a family structure. It would be impossible for it to even try to recognize and legitimize every human emotion. To do so would also be the antithesis of freedom…

I have some very wonderful friends, dear friends, I would die for them. I have cried with them, rejoiced with them, sacrificed for them, counseled their children as if they were my own — but we are not a family. All of my love for my friends is authentic; it is real. But all of this genuine sentiment and service does not make us a family … Nature created families; the state simply recognizes what nature created. If indeed you are truly insulted by my words, then take it up with nature (and ‘Nature’s God’)…”

What do you think?

Read the dialogue:
Part I
Part II
Part III

On May 15, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state of California cannot prevent same-sex couples from marrying. The Court declared that sexual orientation, like gender or race, is not “a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights” such as “the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” The ruling overturned the California Defense of Marriage Act (approved by 61.4% of CA voters in 2000) that defines marriage as only “between a man and a woman.”

Courts have a limited role
Some Americans have expressed great joy over the decision, others profound disappointment. Whether or not one agrees with the Court’s opinion, many people agree that the Court overstepped its bounds by making the decision at all.

One of the three dissenting justices on the California Supreme Court who personally supports same-sex marriage argued that the people at the ballot box, not the courts, should define marriage. The Church expressed its disappointment with the ruling as well, and even the Washington Post’s editors (very liberal folks) argued that the Court overstepped its bounds. Public policy decisions of great importance, especially one as important as defining marriage, should be left to the people through democratic processes.

Now that courts in Massachusetts and California have effectively legalized same-sex marriage, other state and federal courts will likely follow their lead. On the state level, only a state constitutional amendment can override a state supreme court ruling. 26 states have already approved amendments that ban same-sex marriage; Californians will vote on such an amendment this fall.

America needs a federal marriage amendment
The U.S. Constitution requires all states to respect the “public acts, records, and judicial rulings” of other states; therefore, if California or another state legalizes same-sex marriage, then other states may be forced to recognize marriages performed there. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, 1996) does provide that states and the federal government do not have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where such marriages are legal, but many scholars question the constitutionality of DOMA. Furthermore, federal courts could potentially declare that state marriage amendments violate the federal Constitution. It seems, therefore, that the U.S. legal system will continue its trend toward legalizing same-sex marriage unless some major action reverses it.

For this reason, the best way to preserve the legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is “the supreme law of the land.” An amendment to the U.S. Constitution would prevent any state legislature or court from redefining marriage. The Church supports a federal constitutional amendment for this purpose.

The law has a “teaching function”
I know it’s difficult to defend banning same-sex marriage when people make convincing arguments in support of legalizing it. We can debate all day whether or not same-sex relationships and marriages benefit or harm individuals, communities, and society. One can find research that supports any point of view on this issue, though the majority of research does tend to favor traditional marriage.

In the end, government should not allow same-sex marriage simply because it’s wrong. “God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” (Read more) And as Elder Oaks has explained, the law acts as a “teaching function” by declaring some actions to be unacceptable, even if such laws are not always enforceable. He says that “the time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman.”

The California Supreme Court’s recent decision reinforces the urgent need for a federal marriage amendment. Americans who want to preserve traditional marriage to benefit our communities, our nation, and the world should act now. We should “promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family”–as God, not man, has defined it–”as the fundamental unit of society.”

What do you think?

Resources
Amici Curiae Brief to the Supreme Court of California (co-sponsored by the Church)
The Family: A Proclamation to the World