Mormons in California Called to Defend Marriage by Top LDS Leaders

Marriage is Only Between a Man and a Woman

In traditional marriage the symbol of the ring - a circle - represents a relationship that is Eternal - which can continue beyond this life - as an eternal family unit which goes on and on...
In traditional marriage the symbol of the ring - a circle - represents a relationship that is Eternal - which can continue beyond this life - as an eternal family unit which goes on and on...

Mormon Leaders by Letter - To Address California Members In The Defense of Traditional Marriage.

Frankly, it is hard to believe that we are living in a day, where there is an imperative need to declare the definition of marriage, which by the way - is only between a man and a woman. We not only need to teach the definition of marriage, but we must also defend marriage. It is not only Mormons that believe that traditional marriage is only between a man and a woman, but also millions of Californians feel the very same way.

In fact, local citizens went so far as to take this issue to the voice of the people in California, to ensure that the only definition of marriage - be upheld in the state of California. Proposition 22 was approved by citizens in the state of California, by a 61-39% vote in 2000.

Since then, opponents of Prop. 22 have worked vigorously to ignore the voice of the people, and have now overturned the ban on gay-marriage in California. In an outrageous move by the California State Supreme Court, a 4-3 vote was taken - and that which was legitimately won, through the proper use of due process - has been rejected by a handful, who have abused their authority. As of now, same-sex marriage is considered legal in the state of California.

Deseret News

LDS Church officials are urging California Mormons to "do all you can" to support a state constitutional amendment to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman.

The call to action came from the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in a letter that is scheduled to be read to local California congregations, church spokesman Scott Trotter said.

"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal," the letter reads. "Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the creator's plan for his children.

"Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage."

Mormons in California Rally to Defend that Marriage is Only Between a Man and a Woman

In what continues to be a very passionate battle between morals -- citizens in California responded quickly, by easily collecting more than enough signatures, to have placed on the ballot in November, a proposed amendment which would finally end the war and declare marriage to be only between a man and a woman in the state of California - once and for all.

There are many, who feel that those who defend traditional marriage, are simply religious bigots, who do not want others to be happy. I must say, that there could be nothing further from the truth. Those who stand up and defend the traditional institute of marriage, are not advocating unhappiness or inequality to any other citizen of the U.S.

Defending Marriage is a Very Faith-Based Cause Which Has Strong Merit.

What we are defending, is that the only definition of marriage be upheld in the land. Any persons who meet the qualifications for marriage, are welcome to join in this bond -- absolutely no exceptions. In this sense, upholding the only definition of marriage is most certainly about equal rights. Equal rights for those who qualify legitimately. Changing the definition of marriage, by a relatively small sect of society - is not the way to achieve equal rights for two people who do not meet the long-held standards, meaning, reasons and qualifications -- for what constitutes a marriage.

I am convinced, that this aggressive rhetoric is being used, to silence good people from having their opinions considered legitimate. There is a strong movement currently, to silence all those whose opinions are faith-based, as being meaningless and not legitimate voices in the cause to defend traditional marriage. This, because that which is seen as faith-based and religious, come from personal beliefs, which are not considered valuable opinions, by those who oppose them and live contrary lives.

The Bible teaches that it is a sin before God to commit adultery. Christians honor the teachings of the Bible, as the word of God.

  • Thou shalt not commit adultery.

  • What is adultery?

The dictionary gives us this definition -

adultery - voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse : she was committing adultery with a much younger man.

ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from the obsolete noun adulter, from Latin adulter ‘adulterer,’ replacing an earlier form avoutrie, from Old French avouterie, likewise based on Latin adulter.

Proposition 8 in plain english

Marriage Is Clearly Between Only A Man and A Woman - and Perpetuates the Family Relationship and Core Unit in Society.

Research for the definition of the word adultery, goes back as far as the late 15th century. Notice that there is clarity in the relationship of marriage being between only a man or a woman.

This clarity, that opponents to the definition of what marriage is and what marriage was always meant to be, attempt to disclaim any relationship ever being determined, as to whom marriage was and is only between.... that being a man and a woman.

But the facts are, that this - until only the last few decades was never even questioned. When the Constitution for the State of California was compiled, there was never even a hint, that the true and only definition for the institution of marriage, would ever be challenged, let alone need to be defended.

We must also appreciate the dictionary, which is not a religious volume - on the definition of marriage.

marriage

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

It is Not Possible to Re-define What Marriage IS - No Matter How It is Written.

(Now, look what has recently been added to elongate and attempt to change this definition of marriage , to reflect a few, in society today...)

• a similar long-term relationship between partners of the same sex. (italics added)

(Do you like the word similar? It is apparent, that similar is not the same, no matter how hard some may want it to be. There is only one definition of marriage)

• a relationship between married people or the period for which it lasts : a happy marriage | the children from his first marriage. (oops, they should have removed this natural reference of marriage to children)

• figurative a combination or mixture of two or more elements : a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel.

2 (in pinochle and other card games) a combination of a king and queen of the same suit.

PHRASES

by marriage as a result of a marriage : a distant cousin by marriage.

in marriage as husband or wife : he asked my father for my hand in marriage.

marriage of convenience a marriage concluded to achieve a practical purpose.

ORIGIN Middle English : from Old French mariage, from marier ‘marry.’

The Institution of Marriage is at the very heart of our society, and has been for millenia. It is because of this bedrock Institution of Marriage, that the family is perpetuated generationally. The family is the basic unit of society. When the natural and traditional origin of families are diluted - this basic unit of society begins to weaken and ultimately may fail the original intention. When the family is broken - society becomes broken. Confusion perpetuates utter chaos.

Reliability of Studies on Same-Sex or Homosexual Parenting in Question?

It is routinely asserted in courts, journals and the media that it makes "no difference" whether a child has a mother and a father, two fathers, or two mothers. Reference is often made to social-scientific studies that are claimed to have "demonstrated" this. An objective analysis, however, demonstrates that there is no basis for this assertion.

The studies on which such claims are based are all gravely deficient.

Robert Lerner, Ph.D., and Althea Nagai, Ph.D., professionals in the field of quantitative analysis, evaluated 49 empirical studies on same-sex (or homosexual) parenting.

The evaluation looks at how each study carries out six key research tasks: (1) formulating a hypothesis and research design; (2) controlling for unrelated effects; (3) measuring concepts (bias, reliability and validity); (4) sampling; (5) statistical testing; and (6) addressing the problem of false negatives (statistical power).

Some major problems uncovered in the studies include the following:

Unclear hypotheses and research designs

Missing or inadequate comparison groups

Self-constructed, unreliable and invalid measurements

Non-random samples, including participants who recruit other participants

Samples too small to yield meaningful results

Missing or inadequate statistical analysis

Marriage Law Project, Washington, D.C.

Through Marriage Comes The Birthright of Every Child - to Be Raised by Both a Father and a Mother.

Many opponents to marriage, who want to redefine marriage, so that they might legitimize a relationship that is not considered mainstream, even today -- and call it "marriage", just don't seem to be willing to honor the majority in society - as to what marriage is meant to Be, and ultimately accomplish... and is also, the very best way to do so.

Marriage is more than just the legal joining of two adults, independent of any other persons. No, family and family relations, is what marriage is all about. For most Christians, and those who are also Mormons - the coming together of a man and a woman in the bonds of the marriage covenant, is to ultimately raise up a family together... and in the way we believe God intended.

Who can argue, that the natural and traditional family - regardless of problems, death, divorce, etc.. is not the absolute optimum way to bring up a child. As a society, we have a responsibility at large - to ensure this for all children -- who do not have a voice.

That is not to say, that individuals who practice homosexuality cannot and would not make good parents. What is being defended, is the fact that the optimum circumstance for the bringing up and raising of children is through the bonds of traditional marriage. It is the natural birthright of every child to have both a father and a mother. Although not every child has this advantage in life, and not every husband and wife union is perfect -- nevertheless -- this is the birthright and natural organization of the family, which should be strived for - on behalf of every child.

Marriage in California is Only Between a Man and a Woman - Now An Amendment is Necessary to Ensure The Only Definition of Marriage.

Californians have another opportunity to have their voices heard on the issue of marriage and ensuring the definition of traditional marriage.
Californians have another opportunity to have their voices heard on the issue of marriage and ensuring the definition of traditional marriage.

Mormon Leaders Send Letter To Encourage California Members To Defend Marriage.

Those with faith-based opinions, feel very strongly that the organization of the natural and traditional family, which is the product of a marriage only between a man and a woman - is ordained of God.

Those who have a belief in God, consider the teachings of the Bible to be as legitimate as any scientific discoveries or philosophies of man -- for acquiring knowledge about the family of God. Those who are Christian and claim belief in the Bible - are bound by these teachings, and live their lives accordingly. The teachings and understandings of the Bible are not trendy and do not change. They are not opinion based. The definition of marriage will never change, for those who believe deeply that from the beginning of time - God has determined what marriage is, because it is His plan for the eternal happiness of His children.

Leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints, from the very top - are issuing a letter which will be read in local units of the Church in California.This letter, which is coming from the First Presidency of the Church - will urge members in the State of California to "do all you can", to ensure that the proposed amendment to the Constitution of California, on the November ballot - is passed.

"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal," the letter reads.

"Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the creator's plan for his children.

"Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage."

Mormons and Political Neutrality - Official Statement.

"The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established."

The Church does not:

  • Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
  • Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
  • Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
  • Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

The Church does:

  • Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
  • Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
  • Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
  • Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.

Citizens Who Have Faith-Based Opinions - Have Just As Much A Right To Speak Up In Regards To Moral Issues - As Any Other United States Citizen.

Many are criticizing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other faith-based organizations who are rallying together to defend marriage in California. Some believe that religious entities, should have no input in political matters.

For these Churches - this goes beyond the political arena of running a Country -- this is defending the very fabric of the Nation, and ultimately society, etc... and is a deeply moral issue. This issue of morality, is at the very foundation of the teachings of the Bible for all Christians. When decisions made in the political arena could have deep impact on the ability of Churches to maintain their positions of moral rights and wrongs - lest they be potentially penalized - "Houston, we've got a big big problem"!

This is exactly the point, where the LDS Church has decided to speak out on this issue - along with many other Faiths who hold similar beliefs, values and teachings.

So, as much as those who perpetuate same-sex relationships to be legal and also insist on calling them "marriage" -- morally - there is no similarities. The laws may legalize, but morality must penalize.

There is no alternative available for the definition of Marriage -- only divisiveness if this is forced. As a society, we are much better off building than tearing down. The possibilities to build, have a much greater potential for finding solutions that we can all live with. That is, if solutions are what the majority are looking for, and not division.

I hope, that in some small way - those who do not understand the position of those, whose opinions are considered faith-based - are brought a bit closer to accepting, that it is not our intention to judge or criticize, but to have that which is holy and sacred as explained - remain so.

Live as you choose - but please understand, that we desire to do the same within the bonds of marriage, which as defined - is ordained of God for the progression of families...

tDMg

LDSNana-AskMormon

Defend Marriage Against Courts Forcing Same-Sex Marriage on California Voters

LdsNana-AskMormon Acknowledgements and Request...

If you have found this hub to be helpful and informative, please give it a thumbs-up - DIGG IT - etc...

Please consider emailing this article to a friend and sharing more about what it means to defend marriage, and most important - why? You can use the link at the very bottom of this page...

Thanks:-)

Identical Twin Brothers: One Gay - One Straight - A Dialogue About Same-Sex Marriage and Prop 8

More by this Author


Your respectful comments regarding Marriage will be approved... 52 comments

SweetiePie profile image

SweetiePie 8 years ago from Southern California, USA

That is good people are setting an example, which will help others. Interesting hub.


Eileen Hughes profile image

Eileen Hughes 8 years ago from Northam Western Australia

You have done so much work on this hub. Its a credit to you for all the explanations.

My opinion is that it should be husband and wife in Marriage. We should set the example to our children. I do not believe in any other union. What is the saying to each his own. As long as they leave me alone I will not interfere with anyone else. At the same time I do not have to agree with it. Thanks for sharing this with us.


Shadesbreath profile image

Shadesbreath 8 years ago from California

While I respect your right to carve out certain perspectives on what love and marriage can be based on some books you have faith in; I also respect the fact that other people don't buy into your chosen religion. Quoting from a book that requires by its own declaration that you buy its premises on faith as a means of justifying why others should be subjected to that self-same dogma is to beg the question. "This book is true because this book says it's true."

I confess to being a little grossed out when I see two guys even marginally intimate, but the truth is, it would be arrogant, intrusive and dictatorial for me to believe I had the right to presume to know what is "right" for every other human being just because I get a little oogy. If you really believe in God in all His wrath and power, why not let people believe in and have what love they can find in an angry judgmental world, be happy while they have thier lives on Earth, and then God can, in his mercy, destroy their souls and codemn them to eternal agony and damnation if that's how He wants it to be. Have faith that the God of your faith can handle it and don't impose sanctimonious opinions on other people lives. Not saying you can have sanctimonious opinions, by all means go for it, just don't cram them down other people's throats. Live and let live, let God figure out the rest.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

SweetiePie -

So nice of you to stop by...

It is very good that people are getting out and having this discussion about the importance of defending marriage in California. The more positive dialogue that can be created for us all to understand each others positions on the definition of marriage and why it is imperative that it remain so - can only help, in my opinion.

To not have these respectful discussions about the marriage issue amongst ourselves, is to fall prey to the divisiveness, which is being promoted in our media.

Both sides of this conversation are filled with good people, who care about this issue deeply.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Eileen -

Thank you for sharing your opinions on marriage. I appreciate your position on allowing others to do their own thing, and I agree. On ensuring the definition of marriage not be altered in any way - this still allows all people the equal right to participate in marriage if they meet the necessary requirements.

For those of us who base our opinions in firmly held moral and religious values, it is imperative that the marriage be upheld as the institution by which families are universally perpetuated in society. Yes, we must set the example of what is the right way with our own children, but we must also ensure that right for all children. The benefits are tremendous...

Thanks for visiting.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Shadesbreath -

Well, you certainly do have a way with words. lol But, most people who believe in those books, of which you speak -- have a longstanding tradition which precedes them by millenia - on which to determine the validity of these teachings for the benefit of society universally.

You will note, that morality in general has digressed substantially, say over the past 50 years, in relation to the teachings of such books - and coinciding with this digression of moral teachings, has been the breakdown of the family. That is a fact.

So whether you or anyone else "buys" into these books and their teachings -- one must confess their value to society at large.

Think about it? Just take the Ten Commandments themselves and lets toss them aside... whoa! lol Some may not accept Jesus Christ the man, as their personal Savior, but certainly those who choose to live His teachings, have been historically much happier, healthier and successful peoples.

The moral teachings taught in the Bible, have quite a way of "saving" us from much unhappiness - which are the direct results of living a life contrary to biblical teachings. Discount if you will... but where else and who else has given man such a compass to progress our known world?

Do we really want to toss that away -- based on the few who do?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on marriage.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Chef Jeff profile image

Chef Jeff 8 years ago from Universe, Milky Way, Outer Arm, Sol, Earth, Western Hemisphere, North America, Illinois, Chicago.

Well, LDSNana, you already know from my previous replies that personally I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own lives, but if you can muster a majority then so be it. I believe that these matters are best handled by whatever authority is in charge of making them happen.

If marriage is handled through churches, then churches ought to say whether or not people in the congregation should have or not have the ability to wed. And saying that, then each church needs to make up its own mind.

If they are handled through the state, then the state needs to make the decision. And of course that is where California is right now, with people making decisions either for or against this proposal.

Anyway, that is what I think. Is marriage currently handled by the church or by the state? Which would be better? Which should be in charge????? Can the state hand out civil union status that gives the same rights, for example, to have a say in health care and mortgages and other matters????? Do you consider civil unions to be OK, or is that just another cover for marriage by the sate authorities?????

I know, a lot of questions, but I want to know what opponents of the inclusion of homosexuals in the marriage contract issue think about alternatives to the word marriage being used.


Shadesbreath profile image

Shadesbreath 8 years ago from California

Well to respond to that question, Muslims will say that the Koran provides such a compass, and the Upanishads have informed millions for longer than the Bible has. Beyond even that, any really fascinating oral traditions involving great respect for the Earth as well as for humanity, women's rights and social convention are still around in various pagan forms as well. That is, after all, the point of religion. It preserves social order with the power of the divine serving as the credible foundation for and the muscle behind the rules. But it is all about morality, which ultimately means framework and guidelines for maintain stability in human society.

IF we strip away the various faiths and related doctrine and dogma, ultimatley I agree that there are some fundamental social rules that resonate with humanity's evolved social neurology. Primitive humans who could not adhere to proper social behaviors were ostracized and thereby unable to have there genetic traits passed on with the frequency that civil predispotion was. This is still clearly visible in primate research today, and easily evident in anthropological works. The Ten Commandments are an excellent example of pinning some of these social contracts down into language, and there are examples in other religions as well.

My point was different though. I wasn't saying we should do away with social behaviors in anyway, or the institutions that support them. However, institutions have a tendency to over-interpret or hyper-interpret their langauge contstructs (holy books ect.) and to then presume to possess or command some superior "truth" by which they then want to start telling other people how to live or think. That is the main problem with language, it is not in-and-of itself specific. Ask any good writer what they think about language as a way to convey truth or meaning. If they even suggest it's a good way to do it, they aren't very good writers at all. They should, at best, acknowledge that it is the best method we have as yet. That is all.

The beauty of the Ten Commandments is how brief they are (unlike this response, sorry, lol). But they can be extrapolated outward (and are) and then morality starts to get sticky the more language other people add.

You suggest that morality is in decline. That is completely not the case. Morality is no more or less now than it always has been. An examination of history of any depth will show this. The only difference between the last 50 years and the 50,000 years prior is the availabilty of media that puts stories of miscreant and anti-social behaviors into the public view. What constitutes "miscreant behavior" is defined by faction, sect and culture as may be and done so in language that seeks to interpret language that came before. But the proportion of various behavoirs, social or anti-social, remains constant. Just because people didn't know how many pedophiles there were three hundred years ago doesn't mean there weren't pedophiles doing what they do. Catholic priests didn't just suddenly start molesting children fifty years ago and on. Rape didn't just start 50 years ago. Murder. Etc. And they certainly didn't lay dormant for X number of years and re-emerge after some religious figure or another's influence began to wane.

So, my long-winded point, again, lol, is to say that why dictate happiness onto people. Do your thing, let others do their thing. If your God does what he says he does in your chosen rule book, then let him do it. Let other's live as they choose too. This includes not imposing definitions of marriage. (Sorry this got long, but, well, you said it's important to talk this stuff out in society and I am bored with nothing else to do, heh. The up side is, the religious hubs get lots of traffic, so I hope you do well with this and get some Adsense while the debate goes on.)

/peace


that one girl profile image

that one girl 8 years ago from Washington state

This whole issue confuses me. Seriously. Maybe it's because I'm the daughter of a lawyer, but I see two marraige ceremonies being lumped into one here.

When I got married in my local stakehouse, the bishop performed the ceremony. That was a "church" marriage. After the ceremonial vows were over, he and several others signed a legal document provided by the state. A legal document that, without which, our vows would be null and void in the eyes of the law. Sure, maybe we would be married in God's eyes (not so much, according to the beliefs of the church I was raised in -- that wouldn't come until the temple ceremony a year later) but in the eyes of the land we would not be married.

I don't see why people can't seperate this issue. If certain religions and churchs don't want homosexuals to marry, there is a very simple solution. Don't perform the church ceremony, which is essentially just a commitment ceremony.

We are denying them a legal right -- a right that is accorded to every other man and woman in the United States, but denied them. Do we recognize athiests who choose not to particpate in a church ceremony, but have the legal document signed and witnessed as married? Yes, because it's a legal contract. On the flip side, there are some priests and others who will perform a commitment ceremony (the one that makes you married in the eyes of God) for homosexuals -- yet because they are denied a legal right that should be allowed to all citizens of this country, they are not recognized as married.

As I recall, the LDS church has even acknowledged that homosexuality is not a choice, but a genetic disposition. This being the case, they are discriminating against something that homosexuals can't help or control.

Here's a link from the LDS website: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=f31811...

And another about the proclamation: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20...


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints has NO official position on the nature or nurture issue of homosexuality, and have not made implications either way...

Same-Gender Attraction

"We believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord. "People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gays and lesbians. My response is that we love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. Most people have inclinations of one kind or another at various times. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are. "We want to help these people, to strengthen them, to assist them with their problems and to help them with their difficulties. But we cannot stand idle if they indulge in immoral activity, if they try to uphold and defend and live in a so-called same-sex marriage situation. To permit such would be to make light of the very serious and sacred foundation of God-sanctioned marriage and its very purpose, the rearing of families" (Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov. 1998, 71).

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=bb...


Wehzo 8 years ago

What a courageous and passionate stand you make. I stand with you in your convictions. While I believe everyone should have the right to practice their beliefs within a free society, it is unreasonable to suggest that the rules that govern us, and the institutions that have borne us this far should be changed because someone/group don't like them. I am not homophobic, but I am a Christian who hold to the values that have been handed down to me from my parents and grandparents. I do not make a case against same sex marriage, but I do make a case 'FOR' marriage between a 'MAN' and a 'WOMAN'. That's my stand.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Chuck: "...I want to know what opponents of the inclusion of homosexuals in the marriage contract issue think about alternatives to the word marriage being used."

Well, since I suppose I am considered an opponent, I shall give it my best shot...

I can only speak from my own position, and yet I feel that it would be similar to many who hold like values.

There is no other definition or name for Marriage.

Marriage is the legal and lawful bond between a man and a woman, for perpetuating families. Genderless "marriage" or any other name that it could be called, could never still be Marriage.

It is not only the word or name "marriage", but it is everything that Marriage implies and ultimately is.

A homosexual relationship, does not have the ability to produce that which Marriage can, and does so naturally.

Babies. Men and woman, through sexual relations produce babies. No other combination of humans can produce the natural offspring that perpetuates the human race... babies, children and then ultimately our next generation.

Protecting the sanctity of marriage, in our society today - requires the use of law to do so today.

There was a time, when this was not necessary, because universal understanding and acceptance for the institute of Marriage was not even questioned. It was honored.

But, today -- the morality of society is failing those with Godly convictions, and therefore we look to the laws of the land to protect the sanctity of marriage for society as a whole.

Personally, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever, if two people of any sex decide that they want to form a legal bond, which would avail to them - all legal rights pertaining to finances, taxes, mortgages, wills, health benefits, etc...

However, the line that must not be crossed, are seeking benefit that are strictly had through the bonds of Marriage and the natural marriage relationship. These of course, are those that would relate to the perpetuating of families... naturally. Some of these would include adoption, endorsing of same-sex parenthood, etc...

If we can separate family issues, with legal practical issues and make it legal for same-sex relationships - then I am fully supportive of their right to seek this type of protection and insurance from the government.

From a moral stand, those with faith-based beliefs and opinions, cannot endorse any relationship made legal, be it called marriage or whatever, that would veer from the traditional family unit being number one for the benefit of all children, and ensuring that that the traditional perpetuation of families is ensured only.

Let me know if I can clarify anymore. Thank you for commenting as always. You are a good thinker and I enjoy and appreciate that.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


solarshingles profile image

solarshingles 8 years ago from london

Family is the basic cell of any society. I have a strong feeling that we are loosing that nice, good, and old fashioned family on the world scale. However, I don't see any legal possibility to stop this whole process, if we agree about basic human rights of each individual human being. If I personally strongly disagree with all this process, that doesn't mean I could 'forcefully/legally/institutionally' interfere into other person's life, who thinks the opposite. (This topic is simply sometimes too much complicated for my understanding. I would like old fashioned values back, yet I see no chances to turn the clock back, again.)


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Shadesbreath -

I guess I did ask the question, eh? lol Don't worry about being long-winded -- for I am good at that myself. I really do appreciate your willingness to have respectful dialogue. I learn so much from others understanding, opinions and feelings.

Now, I must say that I love love your last post... and turn around is always fair play:-) I will do my best to respond to your scholarly response. (one of my son-in-laws is an anthropologist -- perhaps I could turn him on you, but alas -- he might agree) lol

I will try in the simplest of words, to convey my thoughts in response to yours...

I am happy to find, that you do see the value for some point of moral right and wrongs in society being upheld, as a viable means of sustaining mankind as we know it today. In fact, I do believe that you feel it is most needful?

I disagree with your take on the media and our ability to hear about all the ills of society, for the reason it only "seems" that there is a moral decline today. No question that we receive information at lightning speed --non-stop and mostly negative.

I will agree that much of what we did not know in the past, may have enabled some ignorant bliss. But, hello -- there is no question that things have changed and our tolerance for the "immoral" has increased. I will definitely give this to the media -- as more exposure increases our desensitization to this onslaught of immorality.

Regardless of where you believe these moral values originated, I find it interesting that you bring out a Divine bully to be behind this movement... but that is not really relevant, so I am not going there.

Those with faith-based opinions and ultimately how and why we choose our position on the nature of marriage - feel deeply connected to these morals and the reasoning's behind them. Certainly it is not a desire to divide ourselves from others and their desire for happiness.

I do not care to choose or determine anyone Else's lifestyle. I genuinely respect others rights to think, feel and act differently than I. I ask the same in return... and believe that this Country is designed to protect all of us -- as well as ensure each of us our way of life. The important factor in achieving this, is that we truly respect each other and what each hold dear.

I think if we can work toward this understanding, we could actually achieve success versus divisiveness. But hey... I am an idealist:-)

*I was almost done, but then I went and re-read you post... Let me just say this one last thing - perhaps you could be a little right (lol) that immorality has always been rampant. But, the allowance of such has not always been so -- and lines were much more clear, thus consequences, etc...

I think you understand what I am attempting to say with way too many words:-)

Thanks for chatting.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

that one girl -

I hope I can help unravel some of the confusion you are experiencing, with understanding more than the superficiality of the laws of the land, concerning Marriage and what it means to those who feel passionate about defending the true meaning and definition of traditional marriage and why?

When you were married civilly, your marriage was still recognized by God, but only for the space of time, here in this life. Meaning, He would definitely acknowledge the fact that you were in a relationship that honors His teachings of chastity and fidelity. As well as creating a bond which would begin an eternal family.

Temple marriage as Mormons honor, is what we believe is necessary for that same marriage which is recognized and honored by the law, the Church and God temporally, but most importantly... legally by God eternally.

The laws of man, can only perform a marriage that has efficacy in this world temporally, thus "till death do us part".

I'm not certain, but are you suggesting that the civil marriage that was performed for you in your church meetinghouse - was not necessary, except for the laws of man? Because this is not so.

The government currently takes part in ensuring the uniformity of marriages both inside and outside of the church. Because marriage is a contractual arrangement and agreement, it became necessary for the law to become involved with the solemnizing of marriages to ensure the benefits for those involved were ensured by law.

I don't really know the complete history of exactly how government took control of the Institution of Marriage, but I do know that this move was in support of marriage at the time...

It is of the utmost benefit to society that marriages are committed and strong, and this is for the reason of perpetuating strong families, thus strong generations for the future. A very important commodity for any thriving culture.

Today, there are many asking the questions about the need to separate marriage from civil unions and only have the Church perform what is known as Marriage for their members. Apparently, this was not working and thus it is not the way things are any longer.

Marriage is responsibility and today, the laws of the land only - have the power to ensure that these commitments are taken seriously.

When a marriage ends in divorce, etc... it is thankfully the laws of the land that protect both individuals in the marriage.

What has also become important about this legal protection of Marriage, is the hope of protecting the Institution of Marriage and what it has always been - only.

Think of it... if we were to revert back to churches performing religious marriages, and the courts performing civil marriages -- there would be absolutely no continuity to what is Marriage?

In generations past, the Church was traditional and supported the true definition of Marriage. Today, churches are whatever suits their congregation. Church is no longer traditional with traditional morals and values being taught.

There are churches that claim belief in the Bible and its teachings, and yet find some way to say it is okay to endorse same-sex relationships. Go figure?

So today, we must utilize the voice of the people through due process of law - and maintain traditional marriage upheld by the laws of land.

Yes, sometimes government takes too much power from the people... but on the other hand, government and laws can and do protect those things which are most important in society.

I am hoping, that the voice of the people in California -- is still "one" that desire to confirm that marriage is only between a man and a woman, whether inside or outside of a church.

In this way, we can ensure that sacred institution that is the utmost benefit to not only individuals, but also society as a whole.

This is not meant in any way to take the equal rights of any other citizen away from their enjoying the benefits of marriage. Any man and woman who qualify to marry each other, are most welcome to do so, regardless of race, religion, etc...

Fortunately the States are willing to allow Churches to perform these civil marriages in the Church, along side of the courts ability to do so as well.

I hope that this gives a bit more insight and helps dissipate your confusion on the issue of the necessity of civil marriage, regardless of who performs the ceremony.

tDMg,

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Whezo -

Thank you so much for the clarity that you make in your comment about traditional marriage and the importance of upholding this sacred institution for our future...

I too, choose to defend and uphold the case for marriage, and refrain from making a case against same-sex marriage. As you have said - people may choose to live however they choose within the laws of the land.

I have no problems with this position either, which I firmly believe. But I will stand and defend the long-held understanding of Marriage, as the core foundation of society.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

SolarShingles -

I am so happy that you have stopped by for a visit. I appreciate your support for the importance of this basic unit of society... the family.

I too, like you - prefer the old fashion way of things, but also feel that traditional marriage and family are still as valuable and worth standing for -- as they ever were.

Fortunately, in the United States - the voice of the majority will most often be that which guides our Country. So, we vote! Californians will vote again and those who support Marriage as it has always been - will have an opportunity to ensure that this voice is still the voice of the people.

Many believe that the whole of society is not unified on this matter? We shall see. But it is important to speak up and out -- and make sure that people understand what is at stake if we do decide as a majority to turn away from traditional marriage in California.

Honestly, I really don't believe that most people are thinking much, beyond the attitude of "live and let live" and seriously considering why it is so important that we defend the Institution of Marriage and the benefit for all of society. This is not simply an act of bigotry -- that is much too simple of an argument.

The more we discuss the practical reasons for all of us to ensure traditional marriage, the more I believe more will come to understand the importance of the overall issue. It is not about keeping a few from what they believe they have a right to... not at all. This is why we must have conversation.

Chin up:-) Retro is in. lol

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Shadesbreath profile image

Shadesbreath 8 years ago from California

Well, I reckon we'll never agree all the way on this, but the discourse has been fun. For what it's worth, I did not use the term "Divine Bully" and I certainly never meant to imply that any religion's god goes around picking on people for amusement. I re-read what I wrote and can't find where I did, but if somehow that was conveyed, I assure that was not my intent. My purpose of the use of the term "muscle" was to articulate the notion that fear of divine reprecussions (Punishment, Damnation, reincarnation at a lower life form, spirit doomed to wander etc...). That is the "strength" behind religion that helps enforce social-behaviors that aren't completely reflexive in this species we've become.

Anyway, I see your points, I respectfully disagree on the grounds I have stated, and I appreciate the level of mind and maturity you display in representing your point of view.


amy jane profile image

amy jane 8 years ago from Connecticut

Thank you for sharing your views so openly. This is a very interesting conversation. I appreciate hearing everyone's opinion. While I too value the traditional family, I agree that it may not be something that personal opinions can maintain fairly.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Shadesbreath:-)

On your behalf, and just for the record ... no - you did not use the term "Divine Bully".

That was my interpretation of your comments, of which through inference - were very easy to imagine such a meaning. I hope that you are not offended with my description of your words, any more than I was at imagining such a guy. lol

The point is, that many people see the church, as that organization that uses hell, fire and brimstone - in order to whoop their congregations into moral shape. I personally, have never known such a God.

I love the words of Joseph Smith. I will paraphrase.

"Teach them correct principles, and let them govern themselves".

Isn't that great? I raised five children... actually on the fifth one now (16) and have found that the closer I adhere to this principle, the better choices that my son is making everyday.

So, that is kind of my philosophy is sharing my beliefs with others. I think Mormonism is so very practical, in what and how they teach the doctrines of God. I also believe that there are a handful of things worth standing for in this world. Marriage, home and family are among the very top of these stand for subjects, IMHO.

Committed marriage, as Christians in general believe to be God ordained - when practiced properly and with integrity... is clearly the greatest Institution known for the benefit of mankind.

I hope that we are agreeable with at least this one very obvious truth... recognizing that there can most certainly be exceptions in some cases.

Nevertheless, we can all still disagree - and remain civil... even friends:-)

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


that one girl profile image

that one girl 8 years ago from Washington state

I'm aware that my marriage was only for the term of my earthly existence prior to my temple sealing. What I meant by that was that, without a temple sealing you cannot achieve the highest blessings of available in our faith. Therefore, my marriage was as good as not recognized by God, as it was only for the term of my earthly life.

What questions this brings up are: if we are looking at marriage as a blessing granted by God, then it is up to the churchs to choose who they deem worthy of marriage. If the LDS or Catholic churches are so against a homosexual union and believe so strongly in what happens after death, then what happens here as far as them marrying should not matter. Every soul is responsible for his own welfare above all. Neither the LDS or any other church are required to perform those ceremonies that will grant eternal marriage.

If you are looking at it as a basic human and legal right, then it should exist regardless of sexuality. Even those homosexuals who are able to marry (in certain states) do not have their union recognized by federal law. This means that they don't get the same rights within their partnership that straights do -- simple things that we take for granted, like being able to speak for our loved one in a medical emergency, are kept from them.

I suppose it is true that through various legal documents, homosexuals might attain a semblence of the legal aspect of marriage -- but they are not granted the same rights through taxes and spousal benefits through workplaces. They are treated as essentially different, and being punished for that difference. No matter how much people say, "I don't mind them and I allow that they can live their own lives," you are inhibiting their quality of life. You are punishing them.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

amy jane -

Thank you for taking a moment to chime in on this sensitive topic - that of defending marriage in California.

I understand your words of concern on this subject. But, it is through due process of law, where the voice of the people must do their very best in seeing that traditional family is upheld throughout the United States.

We have this responsibility as citizens, to answer this contradiction being presented today - to traditional marriage.

Churches, etc... are merely responding in the only way that is available to them, in response to this contrary movement of the day. This is their moral responsibility in society to do so...

We are far from being a perfect society by any means. But, I believe it is still very important that we vigorously support the traditional Institution of Marriage - as it has always been known, versus taking off on an unknown road to satisfy the few.

Children deserve the very best that society can ensure, and as they have not a voice as yet... they depend on mom and dad to make things right for their future happiness.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Hi that one girl -

Thanks for returning and continuing this conversation. As I stated in my previous post to you, I do believe that your civil marriage, performed by an LDS leader - was recognized by God and you were honored for entering into that temporal marriage, even if only for "time".

Just as I also believe that God honors all those outside of what Mormons believe, who have civil marriages - as honoring Gods teachings of morality and the importance of family, in society today. I understand that many who are not Christian, and still marry - are in someway doing so, because inherently they know, that is some way, this is "right".

Hence, this may very well be one the reasons, that homosexuals desire marriage as well? Certainly homosexuals are perfectly aware, that their choice for a relationship, is still not considered mainstream in society. It seems natural then, that they would desire something that would in some way say - you are okay:-)

In regards to "Marriage" being a blessing from God, and that Churches should then decide who qualifies???

From a Mormon perspective, it is the member who qualifies themselves and not the Church, for the privilege of entering the Holy Temples, and then to be sealed therein. This is based on LDS doctirne, standards and teachings. Members know precisely, how to qualify to receive a temple recommend.

There are no qualifications whatsoever, other than a state issued marriage liscense, in order for an LDS Bishop to marry a man and a woman within his eccslesiastical jurisdiction.

When you rest on only these facts, and do not take into account the reasons for traditional marriage and defending this vital Institution - beyond the initial joining of the man and the woman in marriage "temporally" -- it is very easy to miss completely the "why" of Marriage at all?

The reason that Marriage is to only be between a man and a woman has everything to do with "babies". The making of babies, is how the human race perpetuates itself, and ultimately how God perpetuates families... and ultimately "eternal" families.

From the Mormon perspective, families are eternal and at the very heart of the Plan of Salvation. It is also within the family, and through the marriage and family relationships - that we are most likely to learn how to become more Christlike. For a Christian, this is the work of a lifetime, to even come close to "being like Jesus". Nonetheless, this is our call to discipleship.

Even before a temple marriage, from a Mormon perspective -- all good people are on the road to returning to God. All Christians believe that a good life - patterned after the teachings of Jesus Christ, lead back to God.

For those with faith-based beliefs and opinions, you can then see - just why Marriage, must be defended in the traditional sense... Through Marriage, properly defined and upheld - the children of God will best progress here upon the earth.

Every marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to become eternal, as Mormons understand. Every marriage between a man and a woman, is the God ordained pattern of eternal families.

Mormon Temple marriage aside, marriage between a man and a woman is the beginning of perpetuating eternal families here upon the earth. This is vital to maintain, so that every child has the best opportunity to be a part of the family, as ordained of God.

The cause for defending traditional marriage, is not a cause against gay rights, or same-sex relationships. This is where the divisiveness begins - when we allow this confusion.

The LDS Church has never supported any movement that would undermind any progress for the gay movement in obtaining rights. Defending traditional marriage, is simply meant to ensure that the family, as God ordained - continues to be such. This is a moral issue for Churches, which they must stand for and defend.

Gay people are free to seek all the rights that they feel are theirs, but from the Churches position - not within the bonds of a Marriage.

Certainly gay-rights, can be obtained by working through other channels, and not coming in through the backdoor and calling same-sex relationships a "Marriage".


that one girl profile image

that one girl 8 years ago from Washington state

"The reason that Marriage is to only be between a man and a woman has everything to do with "babies". The making of babies, is how the human race perpetuates itself, and ultimately how God perpetuates families... and ultimately "eternal" families."

While I agree that the having of children is important and essential to what some percieve as God's plan, this is a terrible premise for defending traditional marriage. If traditional marriage is all about the children, what about the infertile straight couples? Should they dissolve their marriages? What about those straight couples who opt not to have children -- who voluntarily undergo medical procedures in order to never have children? Should their marriages be terminated, as well? Wait -- lesbians can take advantage of a sperm bank or a male friend. So lesbians can actually have children; therfore lesbians should be allowed to marry, but not gays.

A marriage, first and foremost, is about the relationship and communication between two people. If you define a marriage by the children or lack thereof, you are invalidating the core relationship. Children add to a family -- they are not the initial impetus of it.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

"The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal," the letter reads."Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the creator's plan for his children.

"Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage."

So Yes, this one girl - babies and families. Defending the only definition of "Marriage" has everything to do with "babies" and very little to do with what two independent adults want. As crazy as this sounds to you, this is how God views marriage.

You bring up situations that are either unfortunate, and/or those circumstances that are exceptions, and not the natural process of perpetuating the family according to God. The LDS Church once again, takes no position on fertility issues and intervention for couples who cannot conceive.

Again, the Church has not lobbied against any issues where gay people think they have rights... even these being some of them. They have remained neutral in the public arena. But, when it comes to marriage, who is involved in a marriage and the reason for marriage... it all boils down to children and families, which are eternal bonds.

Note that the letter said nothing about the rights of couples, any kind of couple. The letter is emphatic on defending ultimately - that every child, if possible - has the parentage of a mother and a father. This is also the basis of the Proclamation on the Family.

http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,161-1-11...

Excerpts:

"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."

This is what Mormonism teaches, and boldy I might add. I would re-submit to you, that from a faith-based position this is basically backwards...

"A marriage, first and foremost, is about the relationship and communication between two people. If you define a marriage by the children or lack thereof, you are invalidating the core relationship. Children add to a family -- they are not the initial impetus of it"

This arguement, is a good example of "man's ways are not God's ways... God's ways are much higher". (paraphrased) This is not meant in any way to offend, but to point out the very important difference in the definition and purpose of what "marriage" means.

There is positive counsel to those, who are unable to have children in this life - for reasons that are out of their control - from Mormon teaching and perspective. Because life as we know it here, is temporary, but continues in the next - parenthood is also seen as the most important part of that eternity. Mormonism teaches the eternal progress of the family.

You pose many questions, that have eternal significance and lend themselves to much more complex discussions, but I do understand how you relate them to the intial forming of a marriage.

I have provided some text links within the above article, that would most likely be of some assistance to you in addressing more of your questions. For those of you who would like to know some of the responses of the Church on these issues -- please follow these links.

Also, http://mormons.org is another good resource for understanding what Mormons believe and teach.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


that one girl profile image

that one girl 8 years ago from Washington state

Thank you for the links to the church information. I'm already familiar with them, but I appreciate the thought.

I do not think this discussion will be able to proceed much beyond our stated viewpoints; you are as committed to yours as I am to mine, and I find it incomprehensible that while most major religions preach understanding and respect with one breath, in the next they add, "But you can't marry." A family is many things, and adopted children or children attained through other means (a surrogate mother, a sperm bank) can still complete the family by your definition. By saying that homosexual parents are somehow "less" or "unqualified" is a circular argument. First you say the couple doesn't matter, the children do. Then, when ways and means of having children are presented, the couple does matter. It's incomprehensible.

I thank you for reiterating the precepts of the LDS faith to me.


stephhicks68 profile image

stephhicks68 8 years ago from Bend, Oregon

Great research on this sensitive topic, LDSNana. You are very courageous to publish this Hub and also to moderate the comments as you are. In my lawyer opinion, there are really 2 issues, which are actually very separate going on here. The first being: (1) what is marriage and who gets to decide; and the second being (2) did the California Supreme Court have a legal basis to overturn the will of the popular vote of the people of the state? In our country, we have an executive branch, judicial branch and legislative branch. Courts are not to "legislate from the bench." But there is a real fear that it is what the California Supreme Court did here. Of course, people are particularly upset because the topic is so controversial, but we should be equally concerned whether the court tells us what is or is not marriage, or at what rate our property should be taxed. I will be interested to see where this goes from here.


MrMarmalade profile image

MrMarmalade 8 years ago from Sydney

Nana, Since i have been reading your many sometime wonderful hubs, Ihave grown to admire you for standing firm in your beliefs.

"I believe that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. We believe that marriage may be eternal through exercise of the power of the everlasting priesthood in the house of the Lord.

For the record i stand in line with that belief you are giving.

Lat week we had the Sheik of some where stating we must allow the world of men to have more than one wife. His feeling was that it would give a lot more strength to the female gender.

Some one in are many non conformists of our thoughts, sateded tht we should let God deal with this aspect.

We have the powere to make a choice. We are told what the Bible has to say about the matter. Our choice is do what is right.

Are we to condone what we believe is right.

So the next person who murders someone, will we say that is alight he believed he (the murderer believed he was in the right.

God will punish who does the wrong in all cases. in his own good time. He gave the choice to us to make the correct decision. His will be the punishment.

Again I do not belive in same sex marriages. If the want to live together, I can not change that area of their life. I do not lelieve they should change our fundamentals thoughts of family, in their mixed conceptions.

Great hub


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

that one girl -

Just a quick "thank you" for participating here with me, on this hub.

I am confident that you understand Mormonism quite well. My placing particular links, and re-iterating the teachings of the Church, were so that those following our dialogue would have a better understanding of what we were discussing, and why -- as well as some added resources.

Hope you will visit in the future.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

stephhicks68 -

Thank you. I appreciate your outlining - with such clarity - the two very separate issues that are being discussed right now relating to marriage in in the State of California.

I published a different Hub, in response to the California State Supreme Court - and their recent overturn of the ban on gay-marriage. This was done, in my opinion - against the voice of the people's majority vote on this issue. Every U.S. Citizen, needs to consider what has happened in California, with the voice of the people's vote - and what this could mean in the future...

http://hubpages.com/politics/CaliforniaOverturnsGa...

Whereas this Hub, is addressing specifically - defending the traditional definition of Marriage in the State of California, by that very same voice that has been ignored - once again.

I do have concerns, that those who feel that a battle has been won, currently - in the State of California - might be willing to turn the other way and ignore what the Highest Court in California has pulled off for their cause.

Members of the Church, in 2000 - spent a great deal of effort, along with many other faiths - to pass Prop. 22 - which states that marriage in California is only between a man and a woman. This has been clearly defined in California previously, through the proper use of due process.

Because of the undoing of that 61-39% vote of the people, just recently - LDS Leaders have once again - asked local members in California to work for the very same definition being established, but now we are supporting an amendment to the California Constitution, which would make the decision final.

Yes, two different issue... although very intertwined in a very passionate debate, where the lines can become blurred if we do stay above the fray and recognize the distinct differences.

Thanks for taking the time to comment.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


stephhicks68 profile image

stephhicks68 8 years ago from Bend, Oregon

Yes, and I am glad that you posted the link to your original Hub here too. As a lawyer, I just think in this way, so that was my default comment mode to the Hub! LOL! You have gotten so many great comments here, and it sounds more like a church-state debate in this Hub. Lawyers have less to say about that (or at least I do), but still, I laud your strong will and voice with regard to this issue. I agree with many other commenters above - in that I agree 100% that family is important and that marriage has been intended to be between a man and a woman. Things definitely appear to be changing in society in the past 10-15 years, but we will see where things end up, right?


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

MrM -

Thank you, for taking the time to comment and share your personal thoughts, and support for traditional marriage. I like very much that you bring up the ability that we each have to choose and make choices as to what is right and what is wrong. I too, believe that God expects us to do what is right, here and now.

I am very grateful that personally, I have the privilege as a U.S. Citizen, to speak my choice - through my responsible vote. Many are concerned that this issue about Marriage, and what a Marriage is - will ultimately be defeated. The only way that Marriage will be defeated, is if people do not use the power of choice and choose to speak up this November for traditional marriage.

I often hear, that there is no way to prevent same-sex marriages from happening, and eventually - everywhere. The interesting thing here, is that most people still hold dear the traditional Institute of Marriage as important, but feel they are fighting a losing battle in attempting to maintain it.

Those promoting the movement of same-sex marriage, are very clever in their marketing. What is happening, and why so many are falling for it - is that the gay movement is purporting that a vote for traditional marriage, is a vote against gay people.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The gay movement has brought this issue to the public forum - and now, we are being put in a position to create a declaration, that has always been previously held, without question.

Although most people are not comfortable with the gay movement, the media is good at persuading the general public - that "gay" is trendy and that everyone is cool with this. If you are not - you are considered homophobic. This is ridiculous, but many are pursuaded by this arguement and are buying into it.

Of course, no one wants to be considered a party pooper, right? So I believe, more are willing to accept same-sex marraige - on the grounds of being accepted by others around them, whom they think, also think it is okay.

There cannot be two definitions of marriage -- it is impossible. Sociologist do not disagree with the fact that if same-sex marriages are made legal, and become mainstream - traditional marriage will lose completely all validity. There is only room for one definition of marriage -- and of course, this now needs to be taken to the people and then respected by the law.

Grown-ups cannot teach some children that marriage is between a man and a woman, while other grown-ups are teaching children that marriage is genderless. The outcome here, will be that marriage is genderless. Or, that it is not important how a child is conceived - or that both a mother and a father are not necessary, etc.... are what grown-ups would be teaching children in the future.

When we choose to defend traditional marriage against a definition that is not what we really want and what marriage is not - we are not choosing to keep others from having the same thing we have. It is impossible for marriage to remain marriage and also be same-sex marriage.

Maintaining traditional marriage, is much more important on the larger scale, than the accusation that gay people are being kept from having equal rights. What is not right - is a small sect in society who want to take away literally, that institution which society has built its foundation upon for millenia.

Choice is powerful, and we must choose to defend traditional marriage because it is the best thing for our society as a whole - and has nothing to do, with an anti-gay movement.

Well MrM - this is probably much more than you were commenting about. lol

Thanks for visiting.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Ama 8 years ago

You're post reminds me of something my cousin emailed me the other day. Here it goes:

(A Scene at City Hall in San Francisco)

"Next"

"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married!!"

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest? No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jan loves me and June. June loves Robert and JUane and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbisan couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that , well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"WEll, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

"All right, allright. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!!"

www.graceforgrace.com


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Ama -

Well, one could almost laugh... "if" the reality in this little scenario were not so possible to conceive.

Thanks for posting this, as it definitely helps illustrate a very real path that we are headed on, if we do not work together in defending the traditional definition of Marriage, and understand that there is no other definition of this critical Institution -- and what it was ordained to accomplish. All other attempts to define marriage, literally destroy and disregard Marriage.

Thanks for taking the time to contribute to this discussion.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

stephhicks68

I appreciate the "lawyer" perspective in this discussion and the good ability that you have to see clearly, these two separate issues. I also am glad to know, that you too - feel that marriage and family are important, and that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

I really appreciate your support on this issue:-)

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


In The Doghouse profile image

In The Doghouse 8 years ago from California

Nana,

Although I want to add my comment of support on this issue, I feel you have said what needs to be said very beautifully. I agree that it is necessary for those who would desire to do so to speak in defense of traditional marriage. Voting is also an absolute must even though we may face discouragement because of the fact that we have voted and the voice of the people has not been heard. Still we must press forward with the understanding that this is the best system we have and must continuing in faith to express our opinions, that the people will be heard.

I enjoyed reading the comments almost as much as the Hub itself. Some have really sparked some food for thought, especially Ama. What are we really doing by redefining traditional marriage? This is certainly a can of worms.

Once again you have expressed your insights on a topic of extreme controversy and have done so with dignity and compassion. I applaud you for your efforts to make the thoughts of the LDS church known to the Internet world.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Doghouse -

Thank you for your kind words. I also believe that we must press forward as a people and support traditional marriage through our vote, yet again.

Standard Newswire released this just today -

Most Californians want the Amendment. A poll conducted on May 30, 2008, by ccAdvertising shows that 56% of California residents support marriage as one man and one woman. Another poll by the Los Angeles Times similarly revealed that 54% of those polled supported the Amendment and only 35% opposed it.

http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/724082966.htm...

This is very good news for advocates of Marriage only between a man and a woman. I am confident that the more that we discuss this issue, respectfully - more and more Californians will feel more confident about continuing their support for traditional marriage.

It is also my hope, that people will not accept the lie, that a vote for traditional marriage is a vote against gay people. Gay people have every right to seek out legal protection for their relationships and benefits for partners.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Tyhill27 profile image

Tyhill27 8 years ago from Red Deer, Alberta

Hi Nada, I hope that's your name. It's encouraging to see people stand for good morals and values in the family! I agree and support this 100%. This is what the Apostle Paul said about it in the book of Romans 1:18-32... I have a picture in my dinning room that serves as a reminder to me of God's wrath against mankind. It's a picture of a large storm over top of a city with thunder and lighting. What a tragedy it will be when God's wrath is displayed in the book of Revelation; which has not yet happened yet. I am a firm believer in Jesus Christ the Son of God is the only way to be saved! I also believe the body of Christ should be united to take a stand against issues like this on a grand scale, that's my mission.

.


Bocadike 8 years ago

Hi Nana,

Thanks for the hub. You are right on!! I agree with it 100%. Keep up the good work and "RIGHT" will prevail.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Tyhill27 -

Thank you for standing with me on this issue of defending marriage. Yes, we have our religious perspectives, that differ even amongst those who have faith-based opinions. No doubt, if you are a Christian - you will have some very deeply held beliefs that direct your views on the topic of traditional marriage.

I stand with you, with the firm belief that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. I also believe deeply, that when we follow His teaching - we are blessed.

I am very happy to stand with other faiths and together defend marriage as The God ordained institute for the betterment and happiness of mankind.

Thank you for commenting.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Bocadike -

I really appreciate your enthusiastic cheer of support - for defending traditional marriage in California. As a Mormon, I feel committed, like many of other faiths - to speak up about this very important issue affecting the family.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


AEvans profile image

AEvans 8 years ago from SomeWhere Out There

First and Foremost I respect that you wrote this article as this subject is very controversial below is my opinion and only my opinion and with due respect here is my comment.

After reviewing so many comments and have friends both Straight ,Gay and Lesbian , I cannot be judgemental as only GOD can do this. "Judge and ye to should be Judged". I pray and God has to take care of those issues as I cannot form or place my opinions on others as I live strongly by the judgement rule. I am a person of Peace and Forgiveness. I do not involve myself with Idol Gossip nor do I or can I judge as we all have fallen short of the glory of God. I realize it is placed upon your heart to speak of it and I give you credit on a subject that is so touchy with others however many of us know what is happening and in Revelations it clearly tells the story. We have to just work on ourselves and get right let GOD deal with the circumstance which we have no control. We should be trying to SAVE souls and let God do the rest, we know what is happening with the World and we know who is coming , we just don't know what time, what day or what hour. As I have explained to my friends who are Gay and Lesbian , it is hard for me to accept it however I am not going to judge it, I can't as God won't allow it and only he can do it. I love them all for who they are , not there lifestyles or what they have asked for. They clearly value my opinions and with respect I do the same. I have a friend I have known since elementary school she ws born Lesbian, she never understood why she always liked girls and she was more boy then girl, she thought for years something was wrong with her after countless hours with a Psych Doctor and many tests she was missing a chromosome . After 20 years of being with the samelife partner she was married and those were tears of joy not tears of pain. She knew I didn't agree with it but she was one of my best friends and I was not going to lose a friendship of 36 years over my opinion, she knows only God can be the judge as I cannot push my beliefs or opinions or how would anyone ever get to GOD? I want to try and save souls , not lose them. I just simply love people for who they are.


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 8 years ago from North America

The more choices are offered, the more varied choices people will make, incuding outside 1-man-1-woman -- that is what is meant by assault on marriage. However, people will continue to be free to make choices or follow the love they believe is right. We can stand up for 1-man-1-woman, but others will stand up for other choices. Society is progressing in a way which increasingly makes any relationship among any number of people available for definition as marriage. Some people are for that, but I'm glad that some stand up for one-man-one-woman AND that America is a place where anyone may stand up for any definition. **Without that quality in America, Chrisitanity might be gone.**


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Patty -

I value this opinion of yours, and understand your position regarding standing up for and defending traditional marriage.

Most certainly, what we need are other ways for individuals, outside of traditional "Marraige" to not only identify their relationships as loving and committed, but also afford these individuals legal rights, that are similar to those who are married.

But, just as others have a right to want a binding relationship of some sort - it cannot be marriage, if it is not marriage. There is not a court in this Country - that has that ability to rule in such a way - and have mainstream society accept such a decision.

As a people, there are most surely ways that will allow for the desires of all - to be made acceptable, legal and binding -- while showing forth mutual respect for one another.

Thank you for such a thoughtful comment and for stopping by...

tMDg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 8 years ago from North America

Thanks Nana - It is the changing and broadening definition of marriage to the extreme ends possibilities that is disconcerting to me - seems that the US is headed towarded recognizing too many definitions, perhaps.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Patty -

Perhaps? But with some good education, hopefully ciitizens in the U.S. will realize just how very important it is, that we maintain the Universal Institution of Marriage in the way it has always been regarded.

There is no doubt, nor argument really, that marriage as it has always been understood - is the optimum circumstances for children. It is also their birthright...

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 8 years ago from North America

If this should be the devil's plan to bring down traditional marriage, then we would need to use more than education - prayer & fasting, standing on the Word and standing agaisnt the the enemy.


LdsNana-AskMormon profile image

LdsNana-AskMormon 8 years ago from Southern California Author

Patty -

Most definitely... Some things are very personal, but education is very public. Therefore, we must each do both in the proper arena. Above all these things -- there is faith in Someone great than us all.

After we have done all that We can, then we are left with Trust.

tDMg

LdsNana-AskMormon


Patty Inglish, MS profile image

Patty Inglish, MS 8 years ago from North America

Sounds like a fruitful plan.


Claudia Goldstein 8 years ago

Thank you for this hub & this discussion. This is conversation was interesting. I value the traditional family, it's too bad the 10 commandment have been removed off of government buildings.


Willis Whitlock 8 years ago

In California, registered domestic partners have the same rights as married partners. The legal definition of the word is the question on the ballot. No one loses any rights with a Yes on 8 vote.

Conversly, a no on 8 vote endagers the rights of all married people. If marriage doesn't mean 1 man 1 woman, what does it mean.

The intrests behind no on 8 have an idea what that would mean, but they are not sharing it. No on 8 is buying sight unseen.


Geena 6 years ago

Presidet Hinkley was a great prophet and even better man. I will remember him always and what he has done for the world.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working