The Definition of Marriage

This topic is a highly sensitive and controversial issue for many, including my family and friends. When I first realized what the topic for this week was, I thought of all the ways I could discuss this while being neutral, as my intentions are not to offend anyone. However, my strong faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ has compelled me to speak openly and honestly. I hold zero hostility in my heart toward the LGBTQIA community; they deserve the same compassion and understanding as any other beloved child of God in this world. Elder Dallin H. Oaks emphasizes such beliefs when he said, “Extreme voices polarize and create resentment and fear by emphasizing what is nonnegotiable and by suggesting that the desired outcome is to disable the adversary and achieve absolute victory. Such outcomes are rarely attainable and never preferable to living together in mutual understanding and peace.” (2015)¹. I have friends who identify as LBGTQIA. I can only hope that my interactions with them has proven that their friendship is worth just as much as any other.

On June 16, 2015 the Supreme Court of the United States officially redefined marriage to include same-sex couples. This historical event caused celebration… and outrage. Questions arose such as, “Should marriage be redefined?”, “If not, would that be considered constitutional?”, “Don’t same-sex couples have rights, too?”. 

“The real question in these cases is what constitutes ‘marriage,’ or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes ‘marriage’?” 

-Chief Justice Roberts²-

The LGBTQIA community had legitimate concerns. What happens when the person they love passes away? What will happen to their family if only one or the other can legally adopt a child? Does restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringe on the rights of LGBTQIA couples? How do we address these very real concerns? Here are two examples: 

“Michigan permits only opposite-sex married couples or single individuals to adopt, so each child can have only one [sex] as his or her legal parent. If an emergency were to arise, schools and hospitals may treat… children as if they had only one parent…, were tragedy to befall either [spouse], the other would have no legal rights over the children [they] had not been permitted to adopt.” (DeBoer v. Snyder, 2012)³.

“Ohio law does not permit [a man] to be listed as the surviving spouse on [his husband’s] death certificate. By statute, they must remain strangers even in death, a state-imposed separation… deem[ed] “hurtful for the rest of time.” (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015)⁴.

Marriage inherently comes with great responsibilities and great privileges, ones that same-sex couples sought to obtain. Fortunately, there are laws that can be instituted that can grant these benefits to same-sex couples- without redefining marriage. The happiness of same-sex couples does not hinge on the definition of their relationship. But five of nine Supreme Court Justices did not see it that way and consciously chose to ignore American democracy.

 “While the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change, individuals who are harmed need not await legislative action…” (Opinion of the Court, 2015)⁵.

“Take it from the adult child of a loving gay parent: redefining marriage promotes a family structure in which children suffer.”

-Katy Faust-

In an open letter to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, Katy Faust, a daughter of a loving and well-meaning lesbian couple plead for our children and our democracy. Still, Katy’s love and admiration of her mothers clearly shines through in her words. 

“Dear Justice Kennedy,

June is nigh, and with it will come your ruling on the most contentious political issue of our time: marriage.

I write because I am one of many children with gay parents who believe we should protect marriage. I believe you were right when, during the Proposition 8 deliberations, you said “the voice of those children [of same-sex parents] is important.” I’d like to explain why I think redefining marriage would actually serve to strip these children of their most fundamental rights.

It’s very difficult to speak about this subject, because I love my mom. Most of us children with gay parents do. We also love their partner(s). You don’t hear much from us because, as far as the media are concerned, it’s impossible that we could both love our gay parent(s) and oppose gay marriage. Many are of the opinion I should not exist. But I do, and I’m not the only one.

This debate, at its core, is about one thing.

It’s about children.

The definition of marriage should have nothing to do with lessening emotional suffering within the homosexual community. If the Supreme Court were able to make rulings to affect feelings, racism would have ended fifty years ago. Nor is this issue primarily about the florist, the baker, or the candlestick-maker, though the very real impact on those private citizens is well-publicized. The Supreme Court has no business involving itself in romance or interpersonal relationships. I hope very much that your ruling in June will be devoid of any such consideration…”⁶

How can one love and respect their same-sex parents and yet be opposed to the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples?

Katy’s concern for the well-being of children, is a valid and extremely important one. Not only because parents love them and want them to be happy, well-adjusted, successful, educated adults, but also because our society’s future rests on those important aspects of their life. The government’s interest is in the latter. Why? “The law has never been interested in love; what you feel is not the government’s business, it has never been the government’s business. The law is concerned with less loftier things, like, ‘What are you two going to do with the child you’ve made? Are you going to leave her on the steps of city hall, or are you going to clothe her and feed her, and raise her to be a citizen of our society?’ …Love has never been the government’s business; who you love is not the government’s business...” (Ruse, 2015)⁷. Marriage is what binds mothers, fathers and their children together. If we confuse this public purpose with private agendas, marriage will not be able to achieve its primary goal and children will lose “secure attachments to their mothers and fathers.” (Morse, 2011)⁸. Why is this so important? Because men and women bring distinct characteristics and gifts to parenting - “[They] are different to the core and each is necessary, culturally and biologically, for the optimal development of a human being.” (Anderson, 2014)⁹.

“Understand well what this dissent is about: It is not about whether, in my judgment, the institution of marriage should be changed to include same-sex couples. 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., 2015)¹¹. The problem of the dissenting party was not their personal preference, but the gross misuse of authority on the part of the other Justices. “One can conclude that certain essential, or fundamental, rights should exist in any just society. It does not follow that each of those essential rights is one that we as judges can enforce under the written Constitution.” (Address at Stanford, 1986)¹².

I would like to invite all Christians to keep an important principle in mind: we are commanded to follow and uphold the laws of the land. “Office holders remain free to draw upon their personal beliefs and motivations and advocate their positions in the public square. But when acting as public officials they are not free to apply personal convictions — religious or other — in place of the defined responsibilities of their public offices, …invoking of religious reasons to justify refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-gender couples violates this principle.” (Oaks, 2015)¹³. This principle is based on the foundation of the teachings of Christ- to love one another.

My testimony to you, is that men and women were beautifully designed and crafted for a very specific, very crucial reason: to create our own eternal family, essentially providing mortal bodies to the other sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father- a prerequisite for our progression on earth. Though this truth may be difficult to abide by for some, only through the application of this understanding can we experience true joy. I also stand for the freedom whom many fought and died to protect. It is true, that the Supreme Court took away our democracy in this issue; all for what some would call a simple word. 

But, it’s not a simple word, and the adversary knows this all too well.

Ricardo’s Story

"I am happy to know in my heart that my SSA does not define me as a person or as a son of God. "

For more information about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Same Sex Attraction visit https://mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org/

References

1. Oaks, D.H., (2015). The boundary between Church and State. Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars
2. Roberts, J., (Chief Justice) dissenting. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. Case Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571, 14–574. 576 U. S. ____ (2015) p. 43. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
3.  DeBoer, A., et al., v. Snyder, R., Governor of Michigan, et al. Case No. 14–571. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. 576 U. S. ____ (2012), p. 10. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
4. Obergefell et al. v. Hodges, Director of the Ohio Department of Health, et al. (2015) Case No. 14–556. Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Sixth Circuit. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
5. Opinion of the Court. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. Case Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571, 14–574. 576 U. S. ____ (2015) pp. 23-27. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf.
6. Faust, K., (2015). “Dear Justice Kennedy: An Open Letter from the Child of a Loving Gay Parent”. The Public Discourse: The Journal of the Witherspoon Institute. Retrieved from https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2015/02/14370/?utm_source=The+Witherspoon+Institute%20utm_campaign=782782f4d4-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN%20utm_medium=email%20utm_term=0_15ce6af37b-782782f4d4-84114781
7.  Cathy Ruse, Esq: Senior Counsel, Family Research Council (2015). The Future After the SCOTUS Decision. World Congress of Families IX. Salt Lake City, Utah. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=558&v=xVTHhQhFb8M
8. Morse, J.R., PhD, (2011). Testimony to the Rhode Island House Judiciary. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/embed/ifUSSt--gLg?rel=0 Dr. Morse is the Founder and President of the Ruth Institute.
9. Anderson, R.T., Ph.D., (2014) To the House Judiciary Committee. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/embed/3TNmKo5KcMY?rel=0 Dr. Anderson is the William E. Simon senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, and the founder and editor of Public Discourse, the online journal of the Witherspoon Institute of Princeton, New Jersey.
10. Sen. Barack Obama, (2008). Remarks given at the Apostolic Church of God in Chicago, IL. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/us/politics/15text-obama.html
11. Roberts, J., (Chief Justice) dissenting. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. Case Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571, 14–574. 576 U. S. ____ (2015) p. 42. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf. Emphasis added.
12. Address at Stanford, (1986). Kennedy, Unenumerated Rights and the Dictates of Judicial Restraint 13, quoted by Roberts, J., (Chief Justice) dissenting. OBERGEFELL v. HODGES. Case Nos. 14–556, 14-562, 14-571, 14–574. 576 U. S. ____ (2015) p. 50. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
13. Oaks, D.H., (2015). The boundary between Church and State. Second Annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference, Sacramento, CA. Retrieved from https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/elder-oaks-balance-accommodation-not-culture-wars