The Purpose and Meaning of Marriage

There is much confusion in the world as to the definition of marriage. Among the voices are those asking, "Why shouldn't I be able to marry the person I love?" That question begs another question, namely whether love alone defines marriage.

The Purpose of Marriage
Marriage has historically involved fidelity, commitment, sacrifice, work, children, love, and yes, intimacy between a man and a woman. What has defined marriage, however, is the stable structure a man and woman create by entering into it—the family—one which is ideal for rearing children. Various studies have shown that children need both a father and a mother to reach their full potential. From a practical perspective, society has always had a vested interest in stable families because children literally are the future. When families fail, we see a range of negative consequences from poor self esteem and scholastic performance issues to gang involvement, none of which represent the best possibilities for the future.

There are, of course, families where a parent or children are absent, marriage itself is absent, or marriage was never a part. That does not make them the ideal or model of either marriage or family, however. Similarly, both marriages and families have their share of problems. Those problems are usually a result of the choices of the individuals involved, not the structure or form of traditional marriage and family.

Maggie Gallagher summarizes the need for traditional marriages and families this way:

"The marriage idea is that children need mothers and fathers, that societies need babies, and that adults have an obligation to shape their sexual behavior so as to give their children stable families in which to grow up."

What About Love?
Love can and does exist without marriage. Consider siblings, parents and their children, and friendships. Love does not require the institution of marriage. Likewise, human intimacy can and does exist outside of and independent of marriage (which arguably causes its own set of problems). What sets marital love apart is the commitment and sacrifice for a common purpose, namely the creation of a family both capable and suited to rearing children. Without sacrifice and service, love is hollow and meaningless. It is true love that motivates the sacrifice of self interest, and the willingness to conform to and adhere to the conditions expected of traditional marriage. That is what makes traditional marriage so well suited to family life.

Why do we so strongly support the preservation of traditional marriage? For the preservation of the family. Again Maggie Gallagher says it best: "Same-sex marriage would enshrine in law a public judgment that the desire of adults for families of choice outweighs the need of children for mothers and fathers." The needs of children outweigh the needs of self-interested individual adults, and children need both a father and a mother.

Every human on the planet has needs and desires. That does not mean we should instantly seek to gratify every one of them. Andrew Tallman: "But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses." The problem with the seemingly-plausible argument that love is enough to justify the redefinition of marriage (and, by extension, family) is that it relies purely on emotion to make life-changing decisions. Love is wonderful and important, but by itself it does not define marriage and is not a reason to erase traditional marriage.

References
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=2939&R=13BAC193F9

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1

Playing Dirty

One of the issues with the battle over Proposition 8—its title—is summarized well by the Modesto Bee. There's another report at Mercury news.

http://www.modbee.com/opinion/state/dan_walters/story/377159.html
Excerpt:

"Brown's action is reminiscent of the misleading and biased title and summary he issued for a February ballot measure to modify legislative term limits that obscured its true impact. And it's likely that Brown altered Proposition 8's title language either at the behest of gay rights groups opposed to Proposition 8 or to curry favor with them, with the likely motivation that Brown wants to run for governor in 2010 and helping defeat Proposition 8 would help him win the Democratic nomination."

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10034736
Excerpt:

"One veteran political observer charged that Brown's possible run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination was a factor in the ballot language.

"It's clear to me that what Jerry Brown is trying to do is deliver for a political group that is crucial to his election for governor," said Tony Quinn, a political analyst with historic ties to Republicans who called Brown's phrasing "unethical." "The title ought to be 'Marriage,' or 'Rules Regarding Marriage,' - something that is clearly neutral in its language," Quinn said. "If you had a very conservative attorney general and he had a title to Proposition 4" - a constitutional amendment that would require a waiting period before the termination of a minor's pregnancy - "that said, 'Saves the Lives of the Unborn,' or something like that, you'd have howling from the liberal side.""

Why failure is not an option

I find it interesting and ironic that opponents of California's Proposition 8 are quick to accuse supporters of traditional marriage of being motivated by "fear and hate" (Fred Karger, Californians Against Hate, quoted various places). And opponents can't figure out why we think that if Prop 8 fails that churches will be in danger? If opponents can accuse "fear and hate" for a proposition that proclaims a basic belief and uses no negative language of any sort, then churches that support traditional marriage—or refuse to perform non-traditional marriages—can also be accused of "fear and hate." Suddenly traditional beliefs are a "hate crime." Don't believe it can get to that point? Check out the story below about the private business—a photographer—that was fined almost $7,000 by the state of New Mexico for declining to take a job photographing a same-sex couple, for just one example. Instead of finding a different photographer, the same-sex couple got the government to violate the photographer's constitutionally-protected rights. Anyone who thinks that "live and let live" is somehow a workable solution needs to reconsider. It seems to me that if the term "hate" is going to be thrown around that we ought to consider this case (among others), where the openly-vindictive same-sex couple has used the courts to forced its will on others, casting aside all concern for the photographer's First Amendment protections—which was created to protect the individual from the government. Fortunately, the Alliance Defense Fund is appealing the case in behalf of the photographer.

Another example of refusing to "live and let live" is a lawsuit against the Methodist Church by a same-sex couple demanding access to private religious property. Yet another is the case of a priest arrested for quoting the Bible in Sweden. A fourth is the story of a same-sex couple demanding in court intrauterine insemination—something not typically covered by insurance and certainly not life-saving in nature—which the court and press are calling "medical treatment." Again, rather than find someone who would comply, they sued, so that they could obtain that which is biologically impossible on their own.

The other problem with opponents of Proposition 8 is one of projection: the faults we see in others are usually our own. Those who immediately jump to emotionally-charged accusations are projecting their own emotions on others. It's far better to exercise self control, restraint, and reason. Oh wait. Those are traditional values.

An interesting—but ultimately specious—argument is that Proposition 8 "takes away" rights. The signature-gathering process started well before the court's decision, Proposition 22 was 8 years ago, and the California Supreme Court agreed that the original intent of the state's constitution was traditional marriage. It was only this most recent ruling that created this new right, and had the court followed the Massachusetts' court lead and stayed its ruling to give the legislative process time, this argument would be a non-starter. There would be no new right to be "taken away."

In one of the links below one of the posters correctly identifies that the People have a government, not vice versa. The court ignored that in its ruling that overturned both the original intent of the state's Constitution and Proposition 22. The government exists to serve the People, and the People are now engaged in a tug-of-war with the judiciary saying, "Yes, we really meant it when we backed traditional marriage." The institution of marriage predates our government. It can be recognized by the government, but is not owned nor created by the government.

If opponents of Proposition 8 (and Prop 22) are so sure that the public wants same-sex marriage, then they should just put it to a vote of the people, instead of having the legislature or the courts impose it. The savvy reader will, of course, point out that Proposition 22 essentially did this back in 2000, and 61% of the voters elected to preserve traditional marriage.

As an introduction to the whole topic of preserving marriage, especially for members of the LDS Church, I would point to the words of Elder Neal A Maxwell from 1979. He makes the important point that we all must be involved and knowledgeable, ready to speak in defense of principles:

"It is important for you to be philosophical defenders as well as practicers of chastity. Articulate advocacy is surely needed now with regard to some of the damaging balderdash we see and hear in the world pertaining to immoral life-styles."

"Austin Farrer warned, "Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned." (Light on C. S. Lewis, Harcourt and Brace: New York, 1965, p. 26.) Peter said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1 Pet. 3:15)."

Regarding the imposition of same-sex marriage by the court, these words seem fitting (also by Neal A Maxwell), both as words of warning and as a description of the same-sex marriage experiment:

"A wise French philosopher, Bainville, warned, "One must want the consequences of what he wants." The lines of another Frenchman, La Rochefoucauld, could have been spoken of this experimentation in non-family life when he said, "There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.""

The good news is that it looks like we only need a simple majority to pass the initiative amendment, per this article.
LINKS OF INTEREST
http://www.cacatholic.org/bishops-statements/a-statement-of-the-catholic-bishops-of-california-in-support-of-proposition-8.html
Catholic Church's official statement about Proposition 8
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
LDS Church's official statement about Proposition 8
http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2004-08-05
Excerpts:

"The Swedish church newspaper Kyrkans Tidning reported that the prosecutor in this case, Kjell Yngvesson, justified the arrest and prosecution of Pastor Green on these grounds: "One may have whatever religion one wishes, but this is an attack on all fronts against homosexuals. Collecting Bible citations on this topic as he does makes this hate speech.""
"The issue of homosexuality has also become a test case for American civil liberties. Where homosexual behavior was once characterized as sodomy and thus criminalized, some now openly call for the criminalizing of all "hate speech" addressed to homosexuals. Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes provision attached to a defense appropriation bill. Sponsored by senators Ted Kennedy [D-MA] and Gordon Smith [R-OR], the law would have levied fines against anyone found to have committed a crime that is "motivated by prejudice based on the race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victim." The provision passed the Senate, but died in the conference process with the House of Representatives. Nevertheless, the fact that the bill passed in the Senate sends the nation an urgent warning, and the logical jump from "hate crimes" legislation to codes against "hate speech" is small indeed."

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/05/17/constitutional-amendments-only-protection-from-activist-courts/
Excerpt:

The decision is a masterpiece of judicial activism. It is long on public policy preferences, and extremely short on law. Questions like what constitutes marriage are beyond the competence and expertise of judges. Decisions like these weaken the judicial system by causing the electorate to question the legitimacy of judicial decision-making.

http://www.frc.org/marriage/redefining-marriage-will-affect-all-americans
The California Supreme Court's Edict Redefining Marriage Will Affect All Americans, and what may happen in the near future.
http://nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602030805.asp
Excerpt:

"It’s like this. The way to abolish marriage, without seeming to abolish it, is to redefine the institution out of existence. If everything can be marriage, pretty soon nothing will be marriage."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/015/140dikiv.asp?pg=1
Excerpt:

"The 4-3 decision ripped away the presumed middle ground on the issue and (assuming the court grants no stay of implementation before mid-June) all but issues an invitation to out-of-state same-sex couples to migrate to California to be married between now and Election Day, November 4. This in turn makes certain that the federal courts will have the option of reinvolving themselves within a matter of months, regardless of the outcome of California's referendum on a constitutional amendment restoring traditional marriage."

http://www.familyleader.info/archive/documents/2008/07/15/10%20Reason%20In-Depth.pdf
10 Reasons Why Marriage Should be Protected with a Constitutional Amendment
http://www.heritage.org/Research/family/wm1932.cfm
Excerpt:

"The court's decision does not expand marriage; it alters its core meaning. To redefine marriage so that it is not intrinsically related to the relationship between fathers, mothers, and children formally severs the institution from its nature and purpose, remaking the institution into a mere contract between any two individuals."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWYwM2I4NGIzOTk5NTUzYzZkYzFhZjFkYzZiMWQ2NzM=
Excerpt:

"Reasonable people of good will have competing views on whether and how state laws should accommodate same-sex relationships. Our own views on this matter are traditionalist. But in a representative democracy, everyone ought to agree that any changes should result from legislation, not from activist judges who twist and distort constitutional text to their own ends."

http://townhall.com/columnists/AndrewTallman/2008/07/31/five_logical_errors_of_the_born_gay_ideology?page=1
Five Logical Errors of the 'Born Gay' Ideology
Excerpt:

"But strong desires do not justify behavior. Otherwise the study of ethics would be nothing more than the articulation of our impulses."

http://patterico.com/2008/05/15/california-supreme-court-holds-that-gays-have-a-state-constitutional-right-to-marry/
Excerpts:

"It is never a good idea for a branch of government to claim ownership of a foundational social institution of civil society. The majority opinion equated Domestic Partnership with Marriage even though the former is an entirely state-concocted relationship status while the latter is an element of civil society that pre-exists government authority — indeed it pre-exists the state's constitution."

"The constitution provides the framework by which society is self-governed. The People have a government, not the other way around.... Their [the court's] failure reveals that they chose to reject the state constitution AND the will of the People as expressed, constitutionally, in a direct vote on a statutory measure."

"Marriage is a social institution recognized, not owned, by the government. Couples enter the social institution, they do not reinvent it one private choice at-a-time. This institution has public meaning such that couples know what they are getting into or, at least, our marriage culture teaches what threshold these newlyweds have crossed when they walk through the doorway into marriage."

http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/212614-legally-speaking-through-a-lens-darkly
Photographer fined almost $7,000 by State of New Mexico for refusing to photograph gay event.

http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/news/story.aspx?cid=4593
Alliance Defense Fund appeals fine for photographer
Excerpt:

"“The government cannot make people choose between their faith and their livelihood,” said Lorence. “Could the government force a vegetarian videographer to create a commercial for the new butcher shop in town? American business owners do not surrender their constitutional rights at the marketplace gate.”"

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11546874/
Lesbian Couple Wants Access to Religious Property for Civil Union

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-supreme19-2008aug19,0,2388017.story
Excerpt:

"In its second major decision advancing gay rights this year, the state high court ruled that religious physicians must obey a state law that bars businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation."

http://www.nomcalifornia.org/site/c.htJSJaMQIuE/b.4312951/
National Organization for Marriage talking points about Proposition 8.

http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/05/20/california_decision_will_radically_change_society

"Unless California voters amend the California Constitution or Congress amends the U.S. Constitution, four justices of the California Supreme Court will have changed American society more than any four individuals since Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison."

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZGNmODNiMjI0MTQ1MTQwNGM4N2YyNmVhY2UyZTE0OWY=
Excerpt:

"In the meantime, what have we learned about what gay marriage will mean for gays, for marriage, and for the wider society? In just the last few months, a newly confident same-sex-marriage movement is becoming more open and revealing about the answers.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF
Ruling by the California Supreme Court overturning Proposition 22 and imposing same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/26/MNL011V2DR.DTL
Some history behind amending the California Constitution

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/938xpsxy.asp
Excerpts:

"Once the principles of monogamous companionate marriage are breached, even for supposedly stable and committed sexual groups, the slide toward full-fledged promiscuity is difficult to halt."

"There is a rational basis for blocking both gay marriage and polygamy, and it does not depend upon a vague or religiously based disapproval of homosexuality or polygamy. Children need the stable family environment provided by marriage. In our individualist Western society, marriage must be companionate--and therefore monogamous. Monogamy will be undermined by gay marriage itself, and by gay marriage's ushering in of polygamy and polyamory."

"Marriage is a critical social institution. Stable families depend on it. Society depends on stable families. Up to now, with all the changes in marriage, the one thing we've been sure of is that marriage means monogamy. Gay marriage will break that connection. It will do this by itself, and by leading to polygamy and polyamory. What lies beyond gay marriage is no marriage at all."