"From their beginning to their most
recent page, the annals of human history reveal the transcendent importance of
marriage. The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility
and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage
is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to
those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to
find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than
just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential
to our most profound hopes and aspirations. The centrality of marriage to the
human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for
millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has
transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together.
Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government. This
wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote,
“The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.” (W.
Miller transl. 1913). There are untold references to the beauty of marriage in
religious and philosophical texts spanning time, cultures and faiths, as well
as in art and literature in all their forms. It is fair and necessary to say
these references were based on the understanding that marriage is a union
between two persons of the opposite sex." From the
In June of 2015 the 9 supreme court judges "ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The ruling meant that all fifty states must lawfully perform and recognize the marriages of same-sex couples on the same terms and conditions as the marriages of opposite-sex couples, with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities".(Wikipedia)
The definition of
marriage has been the subject of heated debate in the
States. Legislatures have repeatedly taken up the matter
on behalf of the People, and 35 States have put the question
to the People themselves. In 32 of those 35 States,
the People have opted to retain the traditional definition
of marriage. Unfortunately in this court decision all were forced to change what was already decided on by the people.
The four judges that dissented gave their reasons why and I totally agree.
Judge Alito said,
"Today’s decision will also have a fundamental effect on
this Court and its ability to uphold the rule of law. If a
bare majority of Justices can invent a new right and impose
that right on the rest of the country, the only real
limit on what future majorities will be able to do is their
own sense of what those with political power and cultural
influence are willing to tolerate. Even enthusiastic supporters
of same-sex marriage should worry about the scope
of the power that today’s majority claims."
Judge Roberts said this "By deciding this question under the Constitution, the Court
removes it from the realm of democratic decision. There will be consequences to
shutting down the political process on an issue of such profound public
significance. Closing debate tends to close minds. People denied a voice are
less likely to accept the ruling of a court on an issue that does not seem to
be the sort of thing courts usually decide. As a thoughtful commentator
observed about another issue, “The political process was moving . . . , not
swiftly enough for advocates of quick, complete change, but majoritarian
institutions were listening and acting. Heavy-handed judicial intervention was
difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” Indeed, however heartened the proponents of
same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they
have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that
comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And
they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs.
Federal courts are blunt instruments when it comes to creating rights. They
have constitutional power only to resolve concrete cases or controversies; they
do not have the flexibility of legislatures to address concerns of parties not
before the court or to anticipate problems that may arise from the exercise of
a new right. Today’s decision, for example, creates serious questions about
religious liberty. Many good and decent people oppose same-sex marriage as a
tenet of faith, and their freedom to exercise religion is—unlike the right
imagined by the majority— actually spelled out in the Constitution."
Judge Thomas added this comment,"Aside from undermining the political processes that protect
our liberty, the majority’s decision threatens the religious liberty our Nation
has long sought to protect. The history of religious liberty in our country is
familiar: Many of the earliest immigrants to America came seeking freedom to
practice their religion without restraint."
We should be worried about this one the most. We need to stand for what we believe. Elder Dallin H. Oaks an apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said this, ""Even as we seek to be meek and to avoid
contentions, we must not compromise or dilute our commitment to the truths we
understand. We must not surrender our positions of our values."
He goes on to remind us how we should interact with
others especially those we don’t agree with.
“On the subject of public discourse, we should all
follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention.
Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should love all people,
be good listeners, and show concern for their sincere beliefs. Though we may
disagree, we should not be disagreeable. Our stands and communications on
controversial topics should not be contentious. We should be wise in explaining
and pursuing our positions and in exercising our influence. In doing so, we ask
that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free
exercise of our religion. We encourage all of us to practice the Savior’s
Golden Rule: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to
them” (Matthew 7:12).”
Elder Oaks reminds us of how we should behave when our
side isn’t the one that comes out on top.
“When our positions do not prevail, we should accept
unfavorable results graciously and practice civility with our adversaries. In
any event, we should be persons of goodwill toward all, rejecting persecution
of any kind, including persecution based on race, ethnicity, religious belief
or nonbelief, and differences in sexual orientation."
Our prophet also gave us this council, "Social and political pressures to change
marriage laws are resulting in practices contrary to God’s will regarding the
eternal nature and purposes of marriage. Man simply cannot make moral what God
has declared to be immoral. Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the
eyes of God.
Brothers and sisters, undergirded by incontrovertible truth, proclaim
your love for God! Proclaim your love for all human beings “with malice toward
none, with charity for all.”20 They as children of God are our brothers and sisters. We value
their rights and feelings. But we cannot condone efforts to change divine
doctrine. It is not for man to change."
A really great speech given by Cathy Ruse that sums all of this up can be hear at this link. https://youtu.be/xVTHhQhFb8M
No comments:
Post a Comment