Why Did the Church Work So Hard Against Gay-Marriage Legalization? Don’t we Believe in Freedom and an Individual’s Right to Choose?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the only true and living Church on the Earth and Jesus Christ is at its head. The Church is led by prophets and apostles called of God and ordained with priesthood power and keys to direct the work of God in this world, to build his Kingdom, and to provide the words of Christ to all the world. When the church takes actions as serious as advocating for public policy, it is not done lightly or without prayerful counsel of Priesthood leadership. A testimony of the restoration of the Christ’s Church, the doctrines found therein, and the inspired leadership of a living prophet, will aid each member of the Church in receiving their own witness of the principles upon which the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage are founded. Understanding of the principles will provide peace and assurance that the leadership of the Church is in harmony with the will of God.
The Vital Role of Marriage in Society
The church has stated that the actions that governments take in relation to marriage law are vital to the stability of families and society. A thorough statement detailing the doctrine of the family and why the church holds a public policy position regarding marriage and family, is posted at Mormon Newsroom. This official statement from the church was released prior to the Supreme Court Decision on same-sex marriage and remains the single best resource detailing the reasons for the church’s opposition to same-sex marriage. Some key excerpts from that document follow:
“For millennia, strong families have served as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization… Marriage is far more than a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage is a vital institution for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. Throughout the ages, governments of all types have recognized marriage as essential in preserving social stability and perpetuating life. Regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, in almost every culture marriage has been protected and endorsed by governments primarily to preserve and foster the institution most central to rearing children and teaching them the moral values that undergird civilization.”
“The special status granted marriage is nevertheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation and to the innate differences between the genders. By contrast, same-sex marriage is an institution no longer linked to gender—to the biological realities and complementary natures of male and female. Its effect is to decouple marriage from its central role in creating life, nurturing time-honored values, and fostering family bonds across generations.”
“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 child rearing is unique and irreplaceable. . . . The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is striking and of enormous importance to a child’s overall development.”
“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.”
After the Supreme Court decision making same-sex marriage a Constitutional right, the church released a long and detailed statement which makes clear that the change in law does not impact the Church’s public position on marriage. Here is the part of that statement that refers to the Church’s objection to same-sex marriage:
“[The Church’s] objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable.” (Church Leaders Counsel Members after Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng)
Elder Christofferson expounded upon the reasons why the church upholds a public position on marriage law in his talk, “Why Marriage, Why Family,” He says, "Marriage between a man and a woman transcend their love for one another and their own happiness... [marriage is] 'a post of responsibility towards the world and mankind' A critical mass of families built on such marriages is vital for societies to survive and flourish. That is why communities and nations generally have encouraged and protected marriage and the family as privileged institutions. It has never been just about the love and happiness of adults... The social science case for marriage and for families headed by a married man and woman is compelling.” Elder Christofferson goes on to repeat the warning from the Proclamations, “We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets." (The Family: A Proclamation to the World)
(Why Marriage, Why Family, By Elder D. Todd Christofferson, https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/why-marriage-why-family?lang=eng)
The law as a teacher
Elder Dallin H. Oaks declared, “We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments. We know that the existence of God and the existence of absolute truth are fundamental to life on this earth, whether they are believed in or not. We also know that evil exists and that some things are simply, seriously, and everlastingly wrong.” (Balancing Truth and Tolerance, by Elder Dallin H. Oaks, https://www.lds.org/ensign/2013/02/balancing-truth-and-tolerance?lang=eng)
Because there are absolute truths, and God is the source of truth, it is important that we understand how God defines concepts like law, freedom, rights, marriage, etc. We live in a world where people are confused, in a world where more and more people are rejecting absolute truths and God as the great source of truth and the everlasting law giver. We truly live in times when people call “evil good, and good evil.” In this state of spiritual darkness, God’s children are limited in their ability to exercise their God-given agency, because the lack basic knowledge of good and evil and are increasingly blinded by the father of lies. The Apostle Paul taught that the law is a “schoolmaster to bring us to Christ,” but when people can no longer distinguish between truth and error, the only result can be captivity. It is our responsibility to seek truth with patient diligence and come to understand that God’s children cannot remain free if they choose to forsake His law.
American Constitutional law is also inspired of God, and our founders were inspired when they taught the first generation of patriots that liberty and natural rights have a divine origin, as such, God given Liberty and natural rights are maintained upon principles of truth given through the “Supreme Governor of the World.” Thus, it follows, that for a free republic to function properly and endure the people and their leaders must be moral, and thus their law must be moral. There is much at stake for the Kingdom of God if liberty is lost in the American Republic.
American culture today has begun to corrupt the civil law, which was founded upon eternal truths, and was inspired of God to protect God-given rights. One way the culture corrupts the inspired Constitutional law, is to supplant natural God-given rights with manufactured man-made “rights,” and to elevate those so-called rights to the status of God-given natural rights. If the law is a teacher, and the scriptures tell us that it is, and if that law is corrupted (no longer built on a sure foundation) then the people will falter and suffer the inalienable consequences as a nation. It is upon this principle that the prophets warned in the Proclamation to the World on the Family that, “the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."
Doesn’t the church believe in an individual’s right to choose? Isn’t that the central point of liberty in the first place?
The Church believes in God-given agency, and the central point of agency is to be able to choose “liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 Nephi 2:27) The Church believes in truth, and what is true about liberty and rights is that they are God-given, and as such they are predicated upon obedience to the laws of God. There is no God-given natural right to transgress the laws of God without consequence. “For ye have sought all the days of your lives for that which ye could not obtain; and ye have sought for happiness in doing iniquity, which thing is contrary to the nature of that righteousness which is in our great and Eternal Head.” (Helaman 13:38)
When we transgress the laws of God, whether they be religious law or inspired civil law, the consequence will be a loss of freedom and misery. We can only remain free to choose when we choose the right, and only through choosing the right can we be happy. This principle is true when applied to individuals and nations. When nations depart from moral law they begin the decent into captivity. Heavenly Father wants us to accept his definitions of law, freedom, rights, and yes, marriage. Why? Because he wants us to be happy, and it is upon principles of truth that happiness is predicated.
The law is a teacher. Indeed, there is a tendency for people to believe that what the Supreme Court says, the Constitution requires, and is in fact, right and good. This is why Constitutional law is so important. In the Doctrine and Covenants the Lord warns us that what law is “more or less than [Constitutional] cometh of evil.” Therefore, it is not a sound practice to create Constitutional Rights, which by our founder’s own words, were not granted by governments but endowed upon us by God.
Our Founders were inspired men, not so confused about right and wrong, good and evil, as our leaders today. They did not subscribe to philosophies of moral relativism which teach that the law can shift with the changing morality of the people. They believed and accepted absolute truths and it was from these truths that they gave utterance to the words “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” They understood and accepted God’s definition of law, rights, liberty, and happiness. Alexander Hamilton used these words to describe the principle of natural God-given rights:
“Good and wise men, in all ages, have embraced a… theory... supposed, that the deity, from the relations, we stand in, to himself and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is, indispensibly, obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institution whatever. This is what is called the law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind, and dictated by God himself, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.” (“The Farmer Refuted: or, a more comprehensive and impartial View of Dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies,” by Alexander Hamilton, Feb 25, 1775)
For our free republic to endure with justice and liberty for all, we must, like our founders, accept God’s definitions. Our society must embrace absolute truths and understand the role of God’s law in preserving liberty. When we do, the law will teach the people to be just and righteous, and it will secure liberty to all.
What will be the effect on religious liberty of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision?
Another aspect to consider when asking the question, “Why did the church work so hard against the legalization of Gay-marriage?” Is to consider the effect of creating a Constitutional right for same-sex marriage upon the Constitutional right of religious freedom. Remember there is no natural God-given right to same-sex marriage, in fact, there is no such thing as same-sex marriage in God’s definition of marriage. However, there is absolutely a God-given right to religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, freedom of speech. Our founders believed this right was first among our inalienable God-given natural rights. So, the fact that religious liberty might be jeopardized by the redefinition of marriage and the establishment of a Constitutional right for same-sex marriage is a serious danger to people of faith.
What might be the effect on religious liberty of the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision?
(The commentary below comes from: “Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Freedom: Two Possible Roads Ahead;” By Alexander Dushku · July 9, 2015 http://ldsmag.com/same-sex-marriage-and-religious-freedom-now-what/)
“The answer is that it depends: it depends on how our culture—our society—responds to the decision and how, in turn, the law reacts to those cultural and social responses… I believe there are two very different paths that our culture—and the law—can now go down when it comes to the religious liberty of those who sincerely believe, as a matter of faith and faith-filled reason, that marriage is, and should remain, between a man and a woman.”
Path One:
“If the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision results in support for traditional marriage being equated culturally and legally with racism, then as a practical matter religious liberty will be severely restricted. Under that model, government itself will come to have powerful justifications for suppressing and marginalizing religious beliefs, speech, and especially actions that challenge the new right to same-sex marriage. Schools will be expected to instruct children in the new marriage ideology and to suppress speech and beliefs that run contrary to it, just as schools do when it comes to racist speech and viewpoints.
“The expression of pro traditional marriage viewpoints within the workplace will be seen as harassment that cannot be tolerated, even as pro-gay marriage viewpoints are openly discussed. There will certainly be no right to avoid providing services to activities related to same-sex marriages. And institutions—including churches and religious schools and universities—that have sexual teachings and standards rooted in traditional marriage can expect, eventually, to have their tax-exempt status challenged. Indeed, if support for traditional marriage is equated by our society and culture to racism, then every negative outcome that Apostles just warned about—and worse—will become a very real risk.
Path Two:
“In 1972, in Roe v. Wade, a divided Supreme Court removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process, declaring that abortion is a fundamental right during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. What followed could have been something like the aftermath of the Brown and Loving decisions, where anyone who questioned the right to abortion would be driven out of polite society and marginalized socially and legally. But that didn’t happen. Today it is entirely possible for a strong pro-lifer to be open and frank about his or her beliefs in public, in the workplace, at school, and in the various other areas of life. There may be severe criticism in some quarters and even angry debates, but one does not become a social pariah for being against abortion. Indeed, various laws and court decisions protect beliefs, speech, and even actions that oppose abortion.
“If, in the aftermath of the same-sex marriage decision, our nation follows the example set in the wake of Roe v. Wade, then religious liberty will survive. There will be hard times, to be sure, but eventually there will be accommodations for those who dissent from the new gay marriage orthodoxy.
“How is it that opposition to abortion was able to secure a place of respectability in our culture and law? The answer is, no doubt, complex. But assuredly one reason is that religious and other pro-life voices decided that they would not, indeed could not, remain silent. They spoke up. They refused to be intimidated. They organized. They insisted on their rights of free speech. And they learned to make their case with reason, civility, and even love.
“There were missteps and mistakes, course corrections and recalibrations. But, eventually, the pro-life movement found its voice and succeeded in convincing about half the American people of the rightness of its beliefs. In my view, the effect of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision on religious liberty will depend, to a great extent, on people like you and me. If supporters of traditional marriage retreat—if they are intimidated into silence—if they give up trying to find the right words and arguments to defend their beliefs—if they do not stand as witnesses and living examples of the goodness of their beliefs—and if people of goodwill do not, at least, stand up for the rights of others to dissent in good faith and yet still be numbered among us as our fellow citizens, neighbors, colleagues, and friends—then the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision will indeed be a disaster for religious liberty.
“But if those who support traditional marriage are examples of what is highest and best about their beliefs—if they, like the pro-lifers, refuse to be silenced—if they find ways to explain and persuade with reason as well as kindness, meekness, and love—and if they cheerfully but resolutely endure the indignities that will be visited on them, and without bitterness ask only for toleration, understanding, and respect for their basic rights as Americans—then I believe that, ultimately, the great goodness and decency of the American people will rise up and our culture and law will carve out and protect enough space so that people of faith who maintain traditional beliefs about marriage, family and sexuality can participate fully in all aspects of American life.
“That will not happen all at once. Those who hold such beliefs are assuredly in for some difficult and uncertain times. Sacrifices will have to be made. Carefully chosen lawsuits will have to be filed. We may even lose some friends on Facebook, and perhaps even some real friends. But I am hopeful that, in the end, if we stand firm, both our culture and the law will accord those who believe in traditional marriage the respect and freedom they deserve.
How Will Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?
(Excerpts from, “The Divine Institution of Marriage:” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-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 your marriage, so why should you care?” is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing same-sex marriage will not immediately and directly affect existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations… the legal recognition of same-sex marriage may, over time, erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children.
“As one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably entail changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex marriages are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, public school administrators will feel obligated to support this claim.
“This has already happened in many jurisdictions, where from elementary school through high school, children are taught that marriage can be defined as a legal union between two adults of any gender, that the definition of family is fluid, and in some cases that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. These developments are already causing clashes between the agenda of secular school systems and the right of parents to teach their children deeply held standards of morality.
“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. Strong, independent families are vital for political and religious freedom.
The focus of Church leaders after the legalization of same-sex marriage:
Many have noticed a shift in the focus of Church leaders after the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage. Instead of active opposition to same-sex marriage as a legal matter, the church has stressed the need for church members, and believers in all major religions to defend religious liberty. Elder Dallin H. Oaks has been in the forefront of this effort in the Church and sits on interfaith councils discussing this most important God-given right. Elder Lance B. Wickman, the General Counsel of the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, released a statement on Mormon Newsroom outlining principles and practical priorities for the Church’s defense of Religious Freedom. The document is an extensive brief on the principle right of religious freedom, but it calls for temperance and tolerance as our nation becomes more secular and hostile to gospel standards.
“In my view, those of us who care deeply about religious freedom have two important responsibilities if we want to also be peacemakers. First, we must set priorities so we are clear about what is core to religious freedom and what is less vital. Only then can we understand where compromises can be struck. Second, we must learn how to get involved politically, socially, and professionally to both defend religious freedom as a fundamental right and to make appropriate compromises in the interest of fairness to others and peace.”
“In a pluralistic nation where religious people and institutions find themselves competing for influence with others having much different priorities and interests, sometimes we have to make hard choices. We have to prioritize. Defenders of religious freedom have to decide what is closer to the essential core of religious freedom and what is more peripheral. To do otherwise risks weakening our defense of what is essential. If everything that could even loosely be considered “religious” is treated as equally important, then effectively nothing religious is important.”
We should be careful not to mistake this shift in focus with a change in position or doctrine on marriage and law. Truth does not change. The consequences to our society will not suddenly vanish. The law will continue to be a teacher, for good or ill, and rights assumed by men will never be natural God-given rights. What is true, is that freedom of religion is a God-given natural right, and the first right for which the foundations of our nation were laid to protect, and it is of such paramount importance to believers that we must carve out clear battle lines in protecting this freedom. This first liberty is the freedom that leads to all life, liberty, and happiness; and if lost, so too will we lose all our liberties.
In Conclusion:
“The Church acknowledges that same-sex marriage and the issues surrounding it can be divisive and hurtful. As Church members strive to protect marriage between a man and a woman, they should show respect, civility, and kindness toward others who have different points of view.
“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.
“Strong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor of 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 identities as men or women. Some will find it more difficult to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.
“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.
“The final words in the Church’s proclamation on the family are an admonition to the world from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “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.”
(Excerpts from, “The Divine Institution of Marriage:” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/the-divine-institution-of-marriage)
No comments:
Post a Comment