September 11, 2009

Gay Marriage

I was asked a while ago to explain my views on gay marriage. I have avoid this topic because of alienating some, or offending others. However, why should I have to remain silent because of something I believe in.

As I try to respect everyone, please also respect my opinion.

So here I go.

My view on marriage is: Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now let me explain why I feel this way, and also let me explain what this does not mean.

This means that the religious sacrament or ceremony is a program instituted by God, for his children on earth, to bring children into this world. God wants children to be brought into a union of father and mother, in a family. To be raised with with the best of abilities, with the security of this God given bond.
I believe that people trying to expand marriage to include unions and matches that were not originally intended is not right. Now let me explain what supporting traditional marriage does not mean.

This does not mean I think gay couples should be excluded from seeing loved ones in the hospital, or from having difficulties in loans or home ownership, etc. I believe that we should extend something similar to civil unions to gay couples. Something to bring a balance in legal rights and or life long decisions. I don't want a couple to suffer when a partner dies because there were not legal ties between the two because of a lack of a marriage.

The institution of marriage is reserved for a man and a woman, but the rights of a partnership should still be upheld.

I like to use examples because sometimes I feel like my words can be convoluted, and I feel like examples helps to solidify my opinion. I dislike how people will rip apart the example and say things like, "How dare you compare us to....". So having stated that, I will use an example.

The Boy Scouts of America is a organization, a program. It had been known and was always a group of BOYS/MEN. Trying to expand the tent and allow women into the Boy Scouts, which has happened, then changes the program and the original purpose is lost, and the intended goals are lost. This is nothing against girls, they have Girl Scouts of America. I believe allowing boys into the GSA is wrong as well. It defeats the purposes for which the group or institution was started.

So it is with marriage, trying to change the requirements is only going to lose the original intent. So why not create something, legally, to offer rights to gay couples, that doesn't manipulate the original intent of traditional marriage.

4 comments:

  1. I just wanted to let you know that I respect your view on this matter - even though I personally hold a differing view.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If marriage is a "religious sacrament or ceremony... a program instituted by God, for his children on earth, to bring children into this world" than it has no place being defined as such in our constitutions, or our laws. After all, we believe that everyone should be able to worship as they see fit... "let them worship how, where, or what they may." Marriage is one of the most sacred ordinances of the restored church, its a very clear and important part of our religion. Because of that, I have a very difficult time when we try and regulate how other people experience a similar ordinance in their own lives.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What Abelard said. However, I think you fail to make a distinction which most Mormons also miss.

    Marriage is both a religious and a secular legal institution. Your defense of it makes sense as a religious principle. However, the advocates of gay marriage are not talking about the religious principle. They want marriage equality only as a matter of secular, civil law. Their position has nothing to do with religion.

    Your reasons for supporting marriage between a man and a woman are, again, fine as a religious matter. But in the United States we separate church and state. Purely religious reasons have no business pushing for institutionalized discrimination within a secular contractual relationship, as marriage is under US law. The Iowa Supreme Court recognized this and addressed the issue in its opinion on gay marriage, which I strongly encourage you to find and read.

    In no US jurisdiction where same sex marriage is legal has any church been forced to perform a marriage with which it disagreed theologically. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits such efforts. No church would lose any of its religious freedom if gay marriage were allowed throughout the US; every day that goes by is further proof that secular gay marriage has no impact on traditional religious marriage.

    I respect your opinion and defenses of marriage as a religious principle. But I believe they fall short as reasons why marriage as a non-religious, secular civil contract should not be extended to same sex couples in a country where the equal protection of the laws is constitutionally guaranteed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your point of separation of church and state is important, and I will devote a soon to follow blog about that point of the debate. Which will in turn answer your issue of the civil side of the gay marriage debate.

    ReplyDelete