Marriage A Re-Definition?!

Since the dawn of time it has been man and woman together. Adam and Eve were commanded to leave the Garden of Eden, to go forth and “be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” (Gen 1:28) This was the first marriage upon the earth as we know it. Man and woman, together to have children and form the first family. “For those millennia, across all those civilizations, “marriage” referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.” (Roberts, C.J. Dissenting, pg 4) This is how families are created, by a man and a woman, legally and lawfully wedded… preferably in the Lord’s temple.

That is until a few years ago, when same-sex partners felt that they should be married as well. This turned the institution of marriage upside down. When looking at the courts history, this has been in the system since 1971, when the first same-sex couple sued to be allowed to marry in the state of Minnesota. In all actuality, this is not a new issue, this has been building for over forty years. These couples are seeking to ratify their love for each other and to get the rights they need for insurance coverage, medical needs, custody rights, etc. While I do not wish to deny them this right, I cannot support a same-sex “traditional marriage.” A traditional marriage, in the eyes of God is between a man and a woman, not between parties of the same-sex.

The First Presidency has said, “In view of the close links that have long existed between marriage, procreation, gender, and parenting, same-sex marriage cannot be regarded simply as the granting of a new “right.” It is a far-reaching redefinition of the very nature of marriage itself. It marks a fundamental change in the institution of marriage in ways that are contrary to God’s purposes for His children and detrimental to the long-term interests of society.” (Divine Institution of Marriage)

Although I do not wish to see the institution of marriage be turned upside down, I do wish for these couples to have the same rights which a traditional couple receives. I perceive that there are things that are not going to change in this world, these couples will continue to cohabitate, bring children into their homes, and need the same consideration a traditional couple needs.

I am not saying that I condone their relationships, but I do not want to discriminate against them as well. I am thankful for the guidance of the First Presidency in this, “Many advocates of same-sex marriage argue that traditional standards of sexual morality have changed and that “tolerance” requires that these new standards be recognized and codified in law. If tolerance is defined as showing kindness for others and respect for differing viewpoints, it is an important value in all democratic societies. But as Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, ‘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.’” (Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001, 17)

The recent decision handed down from the Supreme Court Justices regarding same-sex marriages was unexpected. The idea that the Justices would put into play a law that would designate how each State would marry their constituents amazed me. As the dissent by Justice Roberts affirms, “It is instead about whether, in our democratic republic, that decision should rest with the people acting through their elected representatives, or with five lawyers who happen to hold commissions authorizing them to resolve legal disputes according to law. The Constitution leaves no doubt about the answer.” (Roberts, C.J. Dissenting, pg 3) I will respect this law, because not only is it the “law of the land,” but this is how I was raised by my parents.

This is what Elder Dallin H. Oaks had to say when addressing the Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference in Sacramento, California, on October 20, 2015, “I say to my fellow believers that we should not assert the free exercise of religion to override every law and government action that could possibly be interpreted to infringe on institutional or personal religious freedom. As I have often said, the free exercise of religion obviously involves both the right to choose religious beliefs and affiliations and the right to exercise or practice those beliefs. But in a nation with citizens of many different religious beliefs, the right of some to act upon their religious principles must be circumscribed by the government’s responsibility to protect the health and safety of all. Otherwise, for example, the government could not protect its citizens’ person or property from neighbors whose intentions include taking human life or stealing in circumstances purportedly rationalized by their religious beliefs.”(Divine)

Again, from the First Presidency, “The Church’s affirmation of marriage as being between a man and a woman “neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians.”Church members are to treat all people with love and humanity. They may express genuine love and kindness toward a gay or lesbian family member, friend, or other person without condoning any redefinition of marriage.”(Divine)

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, along with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, will continue to defend 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 society.”

I would like to add the final words from the Proclamation to the Family and give my testimony of its truth. “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.” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)

References

"Church Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Votes." www.mormonnewsroom.org. 2008. Web. <http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-responds-to-same-sex-marriage-votes>.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting, Obergefell vs. Hodges (6/26/2015), 576 U.S.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles. "The Divine Institution of Marriage." 2008. Web. < http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage>.

The First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles (Sept. 23, 1995) The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Web. <https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng>.

Photo courtesy of LDS media
https://www.lds.org/media-library/images/garden-of-eden-clawson-art-37727?lang=eng