Monday, October 27, 2008

Marriage: Between One Man and One Woman

Some hot issues are on state ballots this year. One of those topics is defining marriage. In both California and Arizona stakes have presented special firesides in an effort to motivate members of the LDS Church to vote for such a critical issue.

In California, voters had already cast the majority of their votes to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Yet, judges overturned the voice of the people and allowed homosexual couples to marry. I don’t quite understand why or how judges would have the right to overturn the voice of the people. What is the purpose of voting if a small group of judges can overturn it on their own whim?

A well-publicized story about a school class taking a field trip to witness a homosexual marriage has spurred the debate. States are now struggling to define marriage. Honestly, it’s a definition I never thought we actually needed, but in light of this recent field trip, it’s obvious that our society has denigrated to the point that the very fabric of our society is unraveling. I’d like to point out that if a school field trip included witnessing a Catholic marriage, we’d have the ACLU jumping up and down and screaming that the school had violated church and state and trampled on the rights of students who didn’t want to witness such an event. Interestingly enough, the ACLU has not come to the defense of the students who were offended by a homosexual marriage.

It’s interesting to note also, that when the subject of polygamy is introduced, there’s quite a vehement reaction. In my own experience, many people mock the LDS Church because of its polygamous practice that ended over 100 years ago. People today still talk about polygamy in the early days of the Church and point fingers at the leaders claiming they instituted polygamy for the sole purpose of exploitation and sexual gratification. Today, polygamists can be arrested. After all, it’s legal to have sexual relations with as many partners as possible and to create children, it’s just not legal to marry those partners. While I do not support the practice of polygamy, and those that practice polygamy are not members of the LDS Church, I find it curious that our society is quick to condemn a man if he wants to marry and care for more than one wife, but not if he wants to marry another man. Isn’t there some sort of lop-sided reasoning to that?

Marriage is ordained of God. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Once we change the definition to include a small, very vocal minority, how can we then deny it to any other minority? How can we keep polygamy illegal and allow same-sex marriage? How can we deny marriage between siblings or cousins? We cannot change the definition of marriage and expect that we won’t have to make allowances for other groups.

It’s apparent that Satan’s assault on the family continues to rage. We must fight back. We must define marriage as between one man and one woman. God commanded Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth and that commandment has never been revoked. A same-sex couple cannot keep this commandment. The whole idea of same-sex couples completely opposes God’s plan and defies nature.

I do not hate people who choose to live a homosexual lifestyle, but I do not support that lifestyle. I do not think same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. Our society is only as strong as our families. Each time a family breaks down, it weakens our society. We cannot allow the definition of marriage to change because we must work to strengthen our families and our society. It’s imperative that we vote to retain the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

Return to the neighborhood.

And while you're there, subscribe to our fantastic newsletter. Welcome to the yourLDSneighborhood newsletter. In addition to being able to shop in the new virtual neighborhood, the LDS newsletter brings you LDS articles, LDS products, LDS services, LDS resources and LDS interviews from around the world—all with an LDS focus. Look for issues delivered to your email inbox every week on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. LDS Newsletter Subscriptions are FREE, and joining is easy.


Reuven said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
COOLWHIP said...

Once again, I will agree, and probably link to this post on my blog. Very well spoke. I sometimes have a hard time voicing why something doesn't "feel" right. Thanks for doing that for me. Again.

COOLWHIP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rebecca Talley said...

You're welsome, Coolwhip, thanks for visiting.

JustRandi said...

Very well said.

Great job, Rebecca!

Rebecca Talley said...

Thank you.

Tristi Pinkston said...

I'm keeping very keen eyes on these elections in CA and AZ - the outcome will affect us all, even if we don't live in those states.

Anonymous said...

Why do people call it one man / one woman? We LDS do not believe in that. We believe in the Law of Celestial Marriage that comes from God that was taught to us by the Prophets.
John Brown

Rebecca Talley said...

Actually, Mr. Brown, we LDS do believe in the sanctity of marriage and in sustaining the law which at this time is between one man and one woman.

The Law of Celestial Marriage is not in force in mortality at this time and will only be avaialble to those who inherit the celestial glory.

For now, we uphold the law and if you are LDS, you would know that from the 12th Article of Faith and you would also know that we have not practiced any other kind of marriage for over 100 years. I have not heard President Monson or any other prophet in the last 100 years teach or encourage any of us to practice plural marriage or any other form except between one man and one woman.