Mormons for Marriage

Leland Chan received his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1989. He is also a BYU graduate.

Guest poster Leland Chan provides some commentary on the LDS Church’s Press Release, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” as well as some “food for thought.” Both the press release and Leland’s comments are included inline. Comments are in italics.

==========

The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society, the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized. (Information about the coalition can be found at http://www.protectmarriage.com/).

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in Latter-day Saints’ church services in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

Members of the Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar to California’s are now being formed.

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) 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 family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

In expressing its acceptance of existing laws protecting gays, which are limited, the Church reserves a significant exception for superior rights of organizations and religious people not to comply with them. An example would be the right of the Boy Scouts of America not to hire gays or admit them into scouting. See article: http://www.mormonstoday.com/000430/N1GayScouts02.shtml

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

Could a single standard that applies to circumstances that are not analogous be said to be equal? As heterosexuals are permitted to marry and gays generally are not, gays are therefore proscribed from having any intimate relations that the Church considers moral. It would be worthwhile to discuss how proper gay relationships could mirror proper heterosexual relationships (e.g., no sex til marriage), but that conversation cannot even be had until the circumstances are equal—that is, when gays can marry.

The Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not affect Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.

I suppose it depends on how one interprets love, kindness and humanity. Some believe that what is best for gays in the eternities may warrant restrictions in the here and now. More on this later.

As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.

Agreed.

Intending to reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the following document, “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” and provided the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral imperative.

The Divine Institution of Marriage

Marriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them husband and wife, of which Adam said, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” [1] Jesus Christ cited Adam’s declaration when he affirmed the divine origins of the marriage covenant: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.” [2]

In 1995, “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

The Proclamation also teaches, “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” The account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” [3]

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation.

Without disparaging the sentiments expressed here, it is important to note that these are faith claims that are not shared by others. We must have enough humility to realize that, no matter how fervently we believe, we are not entitled to expect others to hold, let alone be bound by, the same beliefs. The arguments that anyone makes for or against legalizing gay marriage must be based on evidence and universal principles. Muslims believe just as fervently in the necessity of reverence to Mohammad and submission to Allah. But in America, no person may be made to observe a single restriction required by the Koran, unless it happens to coincide with a value that our society adopts as a general civic value. This goes to the essence and wisdom of the separation of church and state.

With respect to faith-based arguments against gay marriage, it comes down to this: Could I demand a non-Christian gay woman to forego a meaningful and fulfilling relationship with someone she loves, for the duration of her entire life, because I believe that, by so doing, she would enjoy my view of the afterlife?

The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children.

There are strong arguments supporting the idea that marriage and procreation should be closely linked. However, procreation has never been made a condition of marriage nor should it. No straight couple is ever asked by a county official whether they intend to raise children. The liberty to marry is broadly and correctly viewed as a right that stands alone.

Misuse of [the reproductive] power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.

Sexual morality is a serious subject, but unrelated to the issue of legal marriage, gay or straight.

Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. 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.

Should we not assume that gays who want to marry and have children would concur with these sentiments?

While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

The merits of these arguments support extending marriage commitments rather than limiting them. The Church’s values of preserving social stability would be enhanced if gays enter monogamous marriages rather than continue to be marginalized. Does not historic and persistent ostracizing of gays at least partly contribute to the less formal nature of gay relationships? Is the unstated assumption here that gays have no moral strengths, traditions, and values?

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

Cohabitating heterosexuals can instantly normalize their relationships by marrying. Is it fair to deny gay persons the ability to marry (or even have a relationship), and simultaneously disparage them for cohabitating?

High rates of divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally large number of single parents in American society. Many of these single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children to be protected, nurtured, and raised. This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their gender, bring to the task.

As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe has said:

The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender differentiated parenting is important for human development and that the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable. [7]

Popenoe explained that:

. . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development. It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child’s longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child’s immediate well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with a child’s long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support. [8]

Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America. [9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.

Citing evidence and policy considerations is a legitimate approach to the debate. Let’s consider them. It is a truism that two parents are better than one, better yet if they are both nurturing. Indeed, it may be even more favorable for children to be raised by extended families rather than just two parents. But the appropriate comparison for our purposes would be between similarly situated heterosexual and gay parents, not between stable parents and unstable (or absent) parents.

But we have to back up. Ensuring the well-being of children should be a compelling government interest. But how is this related to existing laws on marriage and on gay marriage? Ideals notwithstanding, we as a society in fact do not attempt to screen would-be parents for appropriate, gender specific capacity, or even suitability for parenting. Maybe we should. But we don’t because the state does not interfere with the decision to bear children, even if the woman is single. So is it legitimate to suggest that the question of suitability for parenting should be a bar to gay marriage? How about gays who don’t want children? Older gays? But even if we accept this line of reasoning, is the Church suggesting that it would change its position and support gay marriage if studies show that gay parents can provide both “independence” and “relatedness” to a child just as well as heterosexuals can?

Challenges to Marriage and Family

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). [10] Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. [11] At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.

The reasons for the distressed state of marriage in America are complex. Developing solutions may be even more complex and warrants serious attention. At several places the author assumes generally the inferior morality of homosexuals, an assertion that would have merit if gays are made immoral by definition (e.g., being gay). But gays (and straights) are diverse. It is no more fair to depict the entire gay community by the actions of a subset than it is to condemn all straights based on the spring break set.

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Advocates of same-sex marriage seek endorsement and recognition of same sex marriage, not consensual sexual behavior between adults (i.e., of living together).

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.

In November 2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to encourage voter approval of this amendment.

The people of the United States – acting either directly or through their elected representatives – have recognized the crucial role that traditional marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.

Forty-four states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all, have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in California, Arizona, and Florida. [12]

How exactly is a straight couple’s relationship or effectiveness as parents hurt if two gay people commit to each other in marriage? Why wouldn’t the institution (and society) be stronger if more people were allowed to commit to each other, have their stable relationships recognized, and be responsible for their societal obligations including raising children—that is, if all of the good reasons that we support strong marriages applied equally to gays? As a corollary, how would heterosexual marriages be stronger if we continue to condemn gay people for having relationships at all?

In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia. Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts – six out of eight state supreme courts – have upheld traditional marriage laws. Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3 in both cases.

In sum, there is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this issue, and asking members to get involved.

In light of the historic persecution of the Church as a peculiar minority sect, Church leaders should be leery about appealing to majority sentiment to determine the proper course of action. The Church in virtually every other circumstance is correct in maintaining that ethical principles are not based on popular vote. Would the Church change its position on gay marriage if, 20 years from now, a strong majority of Americans support gay marriage? The basic precept of the Bill of Rights is that there are certain interests that are so fundamental that they must be protected from the political process (which is based on majority rule). Also, marriage as we know it today is not so “traditional” as the Church describes. It is true that, for millennia, marriage has only been between persons of the opposite sex, but we should not be allowed to appeal to tradition when we were able to maintain it only through systematic exclusion of the very people who now seek to change it.

Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom

Those who favor homosexual marriage contend that “tolerance” demands that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But this appeal for “tolerance” advocates a very different meaning and outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. “Love thy neighbor,” He admonished. [13] Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting her to “sin no more.” [14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not “tolerating” transgression.

We are capable of, and entitled to, assert “moral” arguments when crafting public policy. We do so when debating child pornography, incest, and movie ratings. More broadly speaking, many laws are morally based, such as laws prohibiting burglary, cheating on taxes, and murder. But once again, we are constrained to furnish arguments that are universal and comprehensible to a diverse populace. In other words, we enact these laws not because a particular religious group believes they were instituted by a deity, but because the laws help build and maintain a civil society without regard to anyone’s specific faith or lack of faith. Equating homosexuality as sin is strictly a religious concept; it requires making the assertion that a deity disapproves of homosexuality. This is not the same as trying to argue that homosexuality harms society and therefore should be restricted. Are we entitled to legally enshrine purely religious concepts of sin and transgression?

In today’s secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus taught that we love and care for one another without condoning transgression. But today’s politically palatable definition insists that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.

As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,

Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination. [15]

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.

The point is well taken. Opposition to gay marriage is not equivalent to hate speech. It is a contentious issue that reasonable people disagree about. It would be worthwhile to discuss what “tolerance” and “acceptance” mean in a civil society. Does my desire not to tolerate or accept the “sins” of divorce or adultery entitle me to legally prohibit others from divorcing or committing adultery? Or am I only entitled to choose not to divorce or commit adultery myself? Since a law allowing gay marriage does not prevent me from marrying a woman or require me to marry a man, the imposition on me to tolerate and accept is rather narrow. It is part of our obligations of living in a diverse civil society.

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.” [16]

The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result, Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption services.

Other advocates of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. [17] Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership. [18]

Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. [19] Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.

As members of our wonderful society we are subject to limits on how we treat others—whether we are individuals, restaurateurs, or Wal-Mart. Religious groups fairly regularly are able to win exemptions based on the Free Exercise Clause, but there is a careful balance between protecting individual rights and religious freedom. These arguments have been made before in different historical contexts when change was imminent. History teaches us to be very wary of giving legal sanction to purely sectarian sentiments. The tenor of the prior four paragraphs has been expressed repeatedly in history each time some faction has had to give up its antipathy toward some group that was viewed as religiously suspect.

How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

Here are more evidentiary claims, but only generalities are provided. It would be enlightening to determine what harmful consequences to society are alluded to. There are strong studies that show secular Western Europe to excel in most measures of a society’s health (mortality, crime, educational achievement, etc.) compared to overwhelmingly Christian America.

Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.

When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. 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 all means, we would all be better off if everyone took marriage and parenting more seriously, but yes, indeed, society and governments do provide recognition and legal protection to thousands of new couples every day who are seeking self-fulfillment, and even some who have no intentions to raise children. Is it a sound argument to deny marriage to gays based on their supposed failure to reach the Church’s notion of an ideal marriage?

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.

It is an axiom in philosophy that we cannot derive “ought” from “is.” The fact that gays cannot naturally conceive or that homosexuality is not “natural” should not guide how we should treat them.

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children.

Good empirical questions are raised, and the answers are worth exploring. Here are other questions: are those children of same-sex couples better or worse off if their parents are in a legal relationship and bound by society’s laws ( including those aimed at protecting children)? Would the children be worse off if they continued to be considered the products of a relationship that society views as illegitimate? As to gender identity confusion, how many of the estimated 25 million gays in America and millions more throughout time were the products of gay marriages? Are children who are gay (let’s not pretend otherwise) better or worse off if society acknowledges that homosexuality is also a “clear gender identity” rather than treats gays as persons who fail to develop a correct identity?

Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

Is “radical experiment” the appropriate metaphor? It implies trying something out just to see what happens, and it does not acknowledge the compelling interests at stake.

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Finally, throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of children in the home.

It comes down simply to treating gays fairly. Parents’ right to teach and train their children that homosexuality is a sin remains unfettered.

Strong families are thus vital for political freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life.

The Church is trying to overturn a decision to allow millions of individuals to enjoy a sense of socially-approved domesticity, a right that straights have taken for granted for millennia, but it is the government that is “intervening in the sacred sphere of domestic life?”

The consequences of crossing this line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to pursue.

The power and reach of the state has been exercised historically to cross several such lines, and invariably to similar warnings.

The Sanctity of Marriage

Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of civilized society.

When marriage is undermined by gender confusion and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their natural identity as a man or a woman.

How much suffering, lost potential, and even death has been caused by society’s refusal to acknowledge homosexuality as a “natural identity”? Imagine the creativity and contributions to human kind that have been lost because of our systematic persecution of gays. Are we not all the richer because we’ve shed traditional and condescending ideas about women? Imagine if our gay brothers and sisters had been part of civilization’s story all along as equals rather than outcasts, perhaps that anchor would now be even firmer and civilized society may be filled with (dare I say it?) more gaiety?

Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.

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.

The final line in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: “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.” This is the course charted by Church leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the nation.

Final thoughts: Much of the article is an appeal to the need to preserve or raise moral standards, but we do not oppose moral standards by supporting gay marriage. The (better parts of) scriptures are replete with admonitions to enrich the world by becoming the best person we are capable of and actualizing those talents that we have. Is this even possible if a gay person is made to believe that his very nature is abhorrent to God?

As the author has pointed out, the state of marriage is not pretty. Gays too will marry for good and not so good reasons. Some will divorce and others will stay married for a lifetime. Some will choose not to marry. Parenting is and always will be rewarding, difficult, fulfilling, or frustrating (most likely all of the above). Gay or straight, there are no guarantees, and we all have to find our way and try to make things work. Yes, there will be uncertainties, but uncertainty should not be a bar to marriage.

________________________________________________

[1] Genesis 2:24.

[2] Matthew 19:4-6.

[3] Genesis 1:27.

[4] M. Russell Ballard, “What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest,” Ensign, November 2005, p. 41.

[5] United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.

[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes (Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America (Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project, July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, “Do Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family Structure and the Best Interests of the Child,” Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).

[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.

[8] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, “The Role of Righteous Women,” Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.

[9] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 219-220.

[10] Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99,” National Vital Statistics Reports 48:16 (18 October 2000); and Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and Stephanie J. Ventura, “Births: Preliminary Data for 2006,” National Vital Statistics Reports 56:7 (5 December 2007).

[11] Alan Guttmacher Institute, “Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States,” In Brief, July 2008.

[12] Christine Vestal, “California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate,” stateline.org, 16 May 2008, updated 12 June 2008. Stateline.org is funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.

[13] Matt. 19:19.

[14] John 8:11.

[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.

[16] Maggie Gallagher, “Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,” The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.

[17] Jonathan Turley, “An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular Practices,” in Douglas Laycock, Jr., et al., eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, forthcoming).

[18] Marc D. Stern, “Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the Scholar’s Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006.

[19] “European Parliament Resolution on homophobia in Europe,” adopted 18 January 2006.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS