Prop 22 and Gay Marriage
OK, I said I wasn’t going to write about politics when I restarted my blog. But I just can’t resist.
In a spirit of fairness to the debate, I am a conservative. I want to reveal my bias before I climb onto the soap box. I also live in California. Californians voted on and ratified Prop. 22, which outlawed gay marriage. Recently, the California Supreme Court overturned the voice of the people and ruled Prop. 22 unconstitutional.
This week, my church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, will encourage members of California congregations to take an active role in promoting the proposed amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman to be on the ballot this November. I am somewhat ambivalent about social conservatism. Generally, government should butt out and let people make their own choices, whether good or bad and let people suffer the consequences of their choices. With gay marriage, it the undemocraticness of the gay position that gets me motivated — the insistence of a small minority of people to force the majority of people to accept and embrace a position I find immoral.
So what is the big deal with gay marriage anyhow? Gays already have all the same civil rights as married people, can live together, shop together, share a bed together. In other words, they have already forced the government to accept and embrace their position. So why are they so hell-bent on the right to be married?
Mr. Sulu, of Star Trek fame, summed up the gay position:
"The California Supreme Court . . . ruled that our Constitution provides for equal protection for all and that it cannot have marriage for one group and another form – domestic partnership – for another group. No more “separate but equal.†No more second-class citizenship."
The issue isn’t about "separate but equal," which is focused on how the government treats a group of people, but on the attitudes of people themselves.
The problem of the gay position is that they don’t fully understand the purpose of marriage. In other words, they don’t understand why marriage is marriage. Marriage is organizational principle about which families are created and administered — husband, wife, and children . Although gays can adopt children, they cannot ab initio have children and participate in the core function of a marriage. Children are most successful when raised in an environment with both a father and a mother present. Thus, a "gay family" is an artificial creation that doesn’t exist according to the laws of nature or according to the traditional purpose and function of getting married. A gay couple with children is a different social and emotional dynamic than a married couple with children. It simply isn’t the same as a family started with "marriage." Gay couples cannot provide children with the same nutritive environment as fostered by a father and a mother, each of whom impart very different social and emotional food to children.
Thus, gays shouldn’t be clamoring for a title that represents a wholly different family dynamic and environment than what their relationships offer. Even if you call it marriage, it will always be something different. An apple doesn’t become an orange simply by calling the apple an orange.
So why is having the name of "marriage" with all the attendant tradition etc. so important to gays? They have all the same rights with a title the aptly describes their relationship.
For gays, the battle for marriage is not about the title, or the issue of family, or any of the issues having to do with family or title. The marriage battle is a clever smokescreen for the real issue: insistence that society at large not only allow their lifestyle, but accept and embrace as correct, right, and holy. This is why they aren’t content with the same rights. Having the term "married" applied to their relationships blurs the distinction between the traditional family organizations and their unnatural relationships. By blurring the lines, the hope is that future generations come to fully accept homosexuality as correct, right, and holy. This is why they target young children in schools. This is why they have to have to crash the party of married people everywhere. This is what the debate is about, not rights, not equality, but acceptance of a lifestyle that many people in this country find repugnant.
Evidence of this argument? Again Mr. Sulu:
"With time, I know the opposition to same sex marriage, too, will be seen as an antique and discreditable part of our history."
Mr. Sulu can cast the argument in terms of intolerance and bigotry. Ironically, gays demand our tolerance of their position, but offer no tolerance to the viewpoints or voices (e.g., Prop 22) of those who disagree with their position. Gays are focused on pounding their round peg into the square hole of society (bad analogy), and have no tolerance or respect for the feelings of the majority of the people, the unchanging morality revealed in the Scriptures, or the democratic voice of the people. Perhaps that is why they have no problem that the California Supreme Court overturned the majority voice of Californians. I suppose next they will insist that they be called "heterosexuals."
For a religious examination, please see the The Family: a Proclamation to the World , promulgated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
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.
All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.
In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.
The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.
We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.
Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord†(Psalms 127:3 ). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.
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. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.
We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
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.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:28 am
Its all about having their position “accepted” by the masses, as though it is the same as marriage. Great point on tolerance…we have to tolerate their ideas and beliefs, but ours are based on fear, hate, etc, etc, while theirs are based on love, tolerance, BS, BS. I think the people need to stand up and bitch slap them back into submission (another bad analogy).