Forgive the posting here, but I had to get this off my chest.
Many of you may not know this about me but, I’ve had a very close relationship to homosexuals and their struggles. I’ve sat with a gay friend in my arms as he sobbed as he struggled with dealing with his same sex attraction. I’ve attended support groups with friends who needed some companionship to get up the courage to go. I’ve never stopped loving my gay friends, in spite of my disagreeing with their choices.
California Proposition 8 has brought up a lot of questions. I supported this proposition and this is why:
There are no provisions in any law (because no law was ever passed) protecting churches from legal action for not performing or recognizing same-sex marriage. This means that there are no stopping a homosexual couple from suing a church for not performing a marriage. You may think it is silly but, this has happened ALREADY in the United States.
Unfortunately, specifically in California, this law does nothing to change the rights of any person. The only change is the terminology used. Each right given to an individual in the state of California by marriage is available without a marriage. According to Family Code 297.5 - Any two individuals in the state of California may enter into a domestic partnership, which, by statute, grants them all legal rights and responsibilities of married individuals. So, why do they need the title “Marriage”? Personally, I also oppose these domestic partnerships and any other law that condones sin.
Legally speaking, when you open the door to re-definition of marriage you open it all the way. This means that Warren Jeffs and his followers are equally able to challenge the definition to marriage using the same arguments and precedent that our same-sex marriage proponents have used – requesting that their multi-wife marriages be recognized. Frighteningly, they actually have an additional weapon in their arsenal – the first amendment, which guarantees their right to freedom of religion. Their religion has taught polygamy much longer than it has been illegal. I come from a religion that taught polygamy. I consider myself grateful that I am not asked to practice it. The thought of polygamy becoming legal again opens the door for the my church to re-institute the doctrine – something I am not excited about being asked to do (this may be the reason so many of the LDS fought so hard for Prop 8).
In addition, if we abandon the values on which our country and society was founded, you create a totally arbitrary and fluid set of morals upon which our legal system is based. Popular culture becomes the basis for our legal and moral code. Looking at how much popular culture has changed in the last 100 years and looking at the direction it is going, I’m really not interested in handing over the legal “keys” to our culture.
Finally, and this will only have significance to members of the LDS church, in October I raised my right hand to publically confirm that I supported the church leaders. How can I very well not put stock into what they counsel me after doing that? If we look through the history of the LDS church we see that when people strayed from the prophet they suffered (think Haun’s Mill). Jesus himself taught us to love the sinner and not the sin. Nowhere in any scripture that I have read have I seen the sin of homosexuality, or any other sin, condoned in any form. I love and support everyone I know in all of their righteous desires that I can. This will not change.
It saddens me that there are any Christians at all who would be comfortable with opening the door to gay marriage – and that those who are for this change in definition of marriage are allowed to use the word bigot to describe those who continue to hold up the values upon which our society was founded.
As a note - there have been lots of great thinkers who have affected my thoughts on this matter. My brother-in-law posted a great post here: http://dandafamily.blogspot.com/2008/10/defense-of-traditional-marriage.html
And I was also very inspired by Princeton's Dr. Robert George's address here:
http://www.byub.org/devotionals/?selectedMonth=10&selectedYear=2008
My wife as done wonders to help me to articulate my opinions by challenging me on them.
Well said. It concerns me especially when members of the Church see nothing wrong with gay marriage. It concerns me for a lot of reasons, but chief among them is that it's the beginning of apostasy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I love how those who are supposedly for tolerance and openmindedness are making hateful speeches and defiling houses of worship. Classy.
Uh, maybe I should go write my own blog post about this. I could go on.
The whole illogical nature of this situation bugs the crap out of me. I like logical and reasonable and fair and NOT hypocritical, and this is none of those.
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking a lot about this too. I am concerned that many of the implications of this "movement" haven't really been thought through. I also thought about the polygamy thing and wondered why the media didn't pick up on the Mormons so against that - so ironic.
ReplyDeleteAfter legalizing polygamy people could push to define marriage between 2 men and 3 women, etc. If it were nationally legal, one man could have a wife in every state. Would they have to know about each other? It just gets really messy. Where do you draw the line?
The social, political and economic ramifications could be huge. Say there is a married soldier that is going off to war. He knows that he will probably be killed. He knows that if he dies, his family will be supported by the military or at least be given a lump sum of money. Because he knows he's going to die, he legally marries (but has no sexual relations with) his wife's sister, her mother and her best friend. Maybe they all decide to move into one house. Whether they do or not, when the soldier dies, the government must recognize all of the marriages and support the families accordingly. I'm not against the military compensation or finding legal ways to support your family, but this just leaves the door wide open for anyone to take advantage of.
I just hope that this is thought through and becomes public before any other hasty decisions are made.
You make some very good points. I sometimes get flack for my beliefs and when put "on the spot" it is sometimes difficult to explain exactly why I feel a certain way. Of course, to me it makes total sense to just say, "because the Prophet said so" but others don't quite seem to get that. I generally end up wishing I had more time to think of my answers because I can always think of better responses later on. Next time this comes up, I will simply referr them to your post. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that polygamy is the marriage of one man to one woman, but just done multiple times by one party. And, it would only come back if it were commanded, so don't worry.
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts.
Hurrah, Jared! Thanks for articulating this so clearly. For once, I am in absolute agreement with you (shocking, I know!) I've also worried specifically about the doors opened by a re-definition of "marriage". You're dead on.
ReplyDelete