Both parties—but especially women, given the statistical averages— should be aware that their partner may not be committed to a common future. A long-term cohabiting relationship may prove to be an obstacle, rather than a springboard, to many young people’s goal of getting married and starting a family. [1]

Commitment Before Cohabitation

 Wilcox has a word of caution for young adults who are considering moving in together: Talk about the future and make sure you’re both on the same page. “Defining the commitment in the relationship is a matter best addressed before co-signing a lease,” he wrote. If couples really want to give their relationship a chance to succeed, they have to do the work required. Wilcox wrote:

Couples are more likely to flourish when they share common, clearly communicated goals for their relationship. But given the disparate purposes cohabitation now serves—different people see it variously as a courtship phase, an economical way to save on rent, a venue for convenient sex, a prelude to getting serious, or an alternative to marriage—young adults often end up living with someone who doesn’t share their relational goals. Couples considering living together would be wise to talk through the goals they want to accomplish in that move, and make sure they are on the same page. [1]

Research by psychologists Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades back this up. Citing their research, Wilcox wrote:

Cohabiting couples are in for trouble when they “slide” into cohabitation and then marriage rather than “decide” to take the same steps. …

Women who cohabit prior to engagement are about 40 percent more likely to divorce, compared to those who do not cohabit. By contrast, couples who cohabit after an engagement do not face a higher divorce risk. Those who cohabit only after engagement or marriage also report higher marital quality, not just lower odds of divorce. Stanley and Rhoades think that “sliders” are more likely than “deciders” to cohabit prior to an engagement, and to have trouble in their marriage if they go on to tie the knot. On the other hand, couples who deliberately choose to move in together after a public engagement or wedding are more likely to enjoy the shared commitment that will enable their relationship to last. [1]

Couples who live together without tying the knot are twice as likely to break up compared to those who are married, according to Wilcox. He said, “Marriage is an institution that is surrounded by legal, religious and cultural meanings that people tend to take more seriously.” [2]

Children Suffer in These Unstable Unions

The other dynamic that often comes into play with cohabitating couples is the children produced in these unstable unions. More than half of all births to American women under the age of 30 were to unwed mothers. And two-thirds of all babies born in the United States are to women under 30. Often, the mother is cohabitating at the time she gives birth. [2]

This trend raises serious concerns for the children involved. According to Child Trend’s 2012 report:

There are several reasons to be concerned about the high level of nonmarital childbearing. Couples who have children outside of marriage are younger, less healthy and less educated than are married couples who have children. Children born outside of marriage tend to grow up with limited financial resources, to have less stability in their lives because their parents are more likely to split up and form new unions, and to have cognitive and behavioral problems such as aggression and depression. [2]

Even children living with both unwed biological parents, they are “more likely to be poor and to face multiple risks to their health and development,” the report said. [2]

When biological parents part ways and bring new partners in the picture, this also increases the risks for children, and the statistics are sobering. Citing the Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, minister Wayne Stocks wrote:

In the instance of physical abuse, children living with a single parent are 3.1 times more likely to be abused at a rate of 5.9 per thousand compared to 1.9 per thousand for married biological parents. Children in “Other Married Parent” families are 5.2 times more likely to be physically abused, and those kids living with a single parent and their cohabiting partner are an astounding 10.1 times more likely to be physically abused than children living with married biological parents. [3]

Marriage is Fundamental for Family Stability

Sociologists and other researchers are clear: Children fare the best when raised by two married, biological parents. Nearly 20 years ago, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church—took a stand on marriage and family relations in The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

… Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. … Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ—said:

The family is the most important social unit in time and in eternity. Under God’s great plan of happiness, families can be sealed in temples and be prepared to return to dwell in His holy presence forever. That is eternal life! It fulfills the deepest longings of the human soul—the natural yearning for endless association with beloved members of one’s family. [4]

The late Gordon B. Hinckley, then-president of The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

A nation will rise no higher than the strength of its homes. If you want to reform a nation, you begin with families, with parents who teach their children principles and values that are positive and affirmative and will lead them to worthwhile endeavors. [5]

My husband’s ancestor was an immigrant to the United States from England in the early 1800’s.  Leaving great wealth, societal status and armed with an exemplary, classic education, he left his home to be a sailor and travel the world.  After many adventures in different places, whaling in the Arctic, living in Tahiti and other experiences, he found religion in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often inadvertently called the “Mormon Church”) and eventually became a pioneer and trekked to Utah.

Visiting the museum we saw wonderful photos, objects, and even saw a professional film made about his life.  We were given a private, after-hours tour by a museum guide whom we found out was related to my husband. Her passion and love for this history of her family was evident.  We learned about their daily lives and saw some of their clothing and furniture.  It was amazing to me how much harder it was to live then and the work that the family had to put in to survive.  The beautiful sewing, quilting, and weaving work done by my husband’s great great grandmother especially impressed me.

Leaving the museum, and for many days after, I have pondered my experience there.  Just from my short experience in the home of our antecedent, my heart has burst with pride and belonging.  Though I am not a direct relative, I am fully committed and excited to teach my children about whom they are descended from and who has gone before them.  I realized that in having children with my husband one day, I would be continuing this man and woman’s great work and adding to their huge posterity and family.  It fills my soul with happiness and pride to think of this.  I know I am going to teach my children about the sacrifices their ancestors made, and the contributions they made to the world.

Knowing Our Family History Gives us Belonging

I am excited to teach my children about the skills their ancestors had. I now want to learn how to sew and weave so I can pass that family skill on.  I am learning that family and ancestry is vital to our identity and provides great belonging and purpose in our lives.

Linda and Richard Eyre wrote about this “family belonging” and identity in a recent article in the Deseret News.  They said:

The more transitory and mobile our society and our broader culture become, the less root structure we have as individuals. It used to be that families stayed in one location, and that kids stayed in one school. It used to be that communities had longevity, and long-term family friends helped each other in the raising of their children. Cousins and uncles and aunts were part of the formula, and grandparents were close by, if not in the same house.

Now we move more often, live further from our relatives and are all part of a much more fluid dynamic. Kids often don’t have clear answers for who they are or where they are from, and feelings of insecurity and even isolation can be the result.

But it shouldn’t be that way, and it doesn’t have to be. Parents can create a powerful culture of belonging and of connection and of identity, and the keys to the culture are roots and rituals, family ties and traditions.

Additionally, kids can feel a strong sense of identity through knowing, quite literally and genetically, where they came from…

…In an age when we are all aware of identity theft, we need to also be aware of identity ownership and of the fact that it does not come automatically to children. They need the gift of a strong and personal identity, and parents are the ones who can give it.

Do you know why kids join gangs? It is because they so badly need (in fact, they crave) an identity larger than themselves. They join for the “uniforms,” for the colors, for the tattoos, for the secret handshakes and the symbols. They join for the belonging. They join for the rituals and the traditions.

Our children’s larger-than-self identities, of course, should come from family. The traditions that we develop and the rituals we follow within our homes are the key to that identity, and the glue that holds families together.

Knowing Our Family History Gives Us Identity

Monte J. Brough spoke of finding one’s identity through family in 1995:

Among the magnificent and abundant teachings of President Howard W. Hunter is this assertion, “The greatest search of our time is the search for personal identity and for human dignity.”

This search for personal identity is essentially a search for role models that can become instructive in the conduct of our lifestyles. With only a few exceptions, a young person cannot find adequate role models among those in athletics, entertainment, or commercial music. Not only do these public figures fail to provide positive examples, but they are often the exact inverse of the type of role models that are acceptable to most of us. Access to these contemporary icons is expensive and unproductive. We are almost always disappointed when we come to witness the shallow and murky standards by which the public heaps its praise. No wonder the public areas of so many cities and towns are crowded with young people who are possessed with these same shallow and murky standards of personal behavior.

Yet there is an abundance of role models who can be found much closer and who can have much deeper influence upon each one of us. Most of us, with relatively little effort and much less cost, can provide for our families a veritable list of important role models. This list can be created from a modest search into the lives of our ancestors.

Through my searching of my family history on both sides, I personally have felt a deep kinship to those who have gone before me.  I have found similarities with family that has gone before me and this work has given me great identity and purpose.  I have found that I feel the choices I make in life have greater importance now that I know more about where I came from.  And that is just the point.

We’ve heard “inevitable” language before, particularly from statists of all stripes. History is filled with supposedly “inevitable” causes that turned out not to be so. Nothing in life is inevitable except death and taxes—and at The Heritage Foundation we’re doing what we can about taxes.

So, too, on marriage. Consider some facts about the polls that matter most: elections. Citizens have gone to the polls to vote about marriage in 33 states. The truth about marriage has prevailed 30 of those 33 times. [2]

The Truth about Marriage

What is the truth about marriage? And what is so wrong with redefining it? According to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church—the definition of marriage is defined by God. They write:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. [3]

Marriage is not a man-made institution. It was given to us by God from the very beginning—from the time of Adam and Eve. “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

Anderson wrote:

Marriage is founded on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that the union of a man and woman also creates new life, and the social reality that children need a mom and a dad. For decades, social science has shown that children tend to do best when reared by their married mother and father. Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. [2]

Families provide for, protect and nurture society’s most vulnerable citizens—children. In families, children find stability and love. They learn that they are part of something special. And from there, they learn that they can spread their wings and fly. These children in turn marry and form their own families. Thus, families are the stabilizing foundation upon which societies are built. Marriage is important because it protects the family, providing a stable unit wherein the man and woman are obligated to each other as well as to the children they bring into the world. Same-sex unions need no such protections because they can’t produce children. And any attempts to provide such protections to a union that—by the laws of nature—can’t produce children ultimately weaken the laws protecting those who can.

Why the Optimism?

This does not change the fact, however, that 51% of Americans—just over half—are in favor of same-sex marriage. [1] So how can the Heritage Foundation be so optimistic? Anderson writes:

No one can deny that Americans’ support for marriage is not what it once was. This is largely because we have done an insufficient job of explaining what marriage is, why marriage matters, and what the consequences will be if we redefine marriage. All the polls in the world cannot undo the truth about marriage. But they can obscure the truth and make it less likely that men and women commit to each other permanently and exclusively. This in turn reduces the odds that children will know the love and care of their married mothers and fathers. …

If those on the left really believed that the redefinition of marriage was “inevitable,” they wouldn’t be asking the Supreme Court to do their bidding—they would respect the democratic process. Laws that reflect the truth about marriage are constitutional. And the Court should respect the constitutional authority of citizens and their elected officials to make marriage policy—not issue an activist ruling redefining marriage by judicial fiat. [2]

 

State-by-State Decisions

 The democratic process to which Anderson is referring is the battle waged at the state level. Since 1995—and in some cases earlier—states have taken the initiative to either declare their stance or have voters declare their stance on the same-sex marriage issue. The reason, as Anderson points out, that proponents are taking the fight to the Supreme Court is they are losing at the state level. The Pew Forum compiled a graphic that shows each state’s stance on the issue from 1995 to 2013. The data is both enlightening and encouraging to opponents of marriage redefinition.

In 1995, Utah became the first state to enact a Defense of Marriage Act. A handful of others had previously enacted statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The majority of states had no constitutional or statutory decisions on the matter. In 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act—which upheld states’ rights to ban same-sex marriage as well as prohibited the federal government from recognizing the unions as marriages. Also, more states enacted statutory bans on gay marriage—bringing the number to roughly half the states in the Union. [4]

The progression of attempts to redefine marriage in U.S. states throughout the years has one overarching consistency: in all but one instance, voters approved legislation banning same-sex marriage. The exception was Arizona in 2006. In most (if not all) of the states where gay marriage is allowed, the state Supreme Courts and other state lawmakers have enacted the laws—in most cases, contrary to the voice of the people. [4]

Human Choice Will Decide the Outcome

 For me, the most chilling aspect of this is the fact that lawmakers seem to be ignoring the voice of the people. Government has the obligation to balance the needs of all its citizens. And this it must do without prejudice to the loudest voices in the public square. This issue cannot be decided without a serious study of the consequences for both sides. Elder Quentin L. Cook, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ, said:

Let me be clear that all voices need to be heard in the public square. Neither religious nor secular voices should be silenced. Furthermore, we should not expect that because some of our views emanate from religious principles, they will automatically be accepted or given preferential status. But it is also clear such views and values are entitled to be reviewed on their merits. [5]

Now is the time for those who oppose same-sex marriage to articulate the reasons for their beliefs. Anderson, of the Heritage Foundation, writes:

A careful look at the polls reveals complex and dynamic trends. But how those polls change will depend on human choice, not blind historical forces. The question is not what will happen but what we should do. [2]

 

Protecting the Family

If the crux of the same-sex marriage debate were equal respect among all citizens— regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation or any other discriminating factor—the choice would be clear. The Savior Himself taught love and respect for everyone. But this debate is not about that. It is an attempt to undermine the basic, fundamental unit of society—the family. President Gordon B. Hinckley, the late president of The Church of Jesus Christ, said, “A nation will rise no higher than the strength of its …families.” [6] Same-sex marriage would weaken the very foundation upon which families are created.

In Defense of Marriage

At issue in the Defense of Marriage Act is the language defining marriage as between a man and a woman for purposes of federal law, such as taxes and inheritance. Margaret Russell, a law professor at Santa Clara University in California, believes that the high court will likely rule that the legislation “creates two separate classes of marriage because some states allow same-sex marriage, leading to unfair treatment from one state to the next.” She said: “If you have legal marriages, then you can’t treat them unequally without adequate justification, and there isn’t adequate justification.” [1]

Trying to redefine marriage is problematic. Attempts to take gender out of marriage create a whole new set of problems. The law can’t just change “between a man and a woman” to “two individuals” without eradicating the basic, fundamental, God-given purpose of marriage as the tie that binds mothers to fathers and parents to their children. W. Brad Wilcox and Elizabeth Marquardt explain:

Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from center stage. [2]

“Genderless” marriages undermine the very purpose of this institution: to create families. The purpose of “genderless” marriages is to unite two individuals who really like each other, not to tie a husband and wife to each other and to their children. Homosexual partnerships have no procreative powers, and therefore have no need of the protections that obligate the mother and father to the children born to the union. The only way to circumvent this issue is to establish so-called “genderless” marriages—but those strip protections from society’s most innocent and vulnerable occupants: children. Our duty as adults is to provide for, protect and nurture our children. The Supreme Court can’t take their interests out of the equation in weighing this issue. It would be a tragic irony to strip innocent children of their rights to parental protection to favor adults who should be looking out for them.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—with the First Presidency, the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church—said:

… For thousands of years the institution of marriage has been between a man and a woman. Until quite recently, in a limited number of countries, there has been no such thing as a marriage between persons of the same gender. Suddenly we are faced with the claim that thousands of years of human experience should be set aside because we should not discriminate in relation to the institution of marriage. When that claim is made, the burden of proving that this step will not undo the wisdom and stability of millennia of experience lies on those who would make the change. Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions. [3]

This is one burden that the Supreme Court must carefully consider. The burden of proof is on those who are challenging the definition of marriage—not on those who would defend it. The court has the duty and obligation to not look at the limited perspective of what a group of people wants to happen. The justices must look at what benefit—or harm—would come from redefining an institution that has stood since the world began.

Why Sidestep California’s Prop 8?

In 2010, a Federal Court overturned California’s Prop 8, and the state itself has declined to defend the law. It is important to note that California voters approved the ban on same-sex marriages. A federal court decided this was unconstitutional and overturned the voters’ decision. So an ad hoc group of supporters is challenging the federal courts’ ruling. The Supreme Court could decide that this ad hoc group has no legal standing (or power) to defend the law. This would give the top court an “out” on deciding this issue. The result of this inaction would be that, by default, the lower court ruling would stand and same-sax marriage would be legal in California. This would not affect the other 35 states that have bans on same-sex marriage. [1]

Why would the top court do this? One glaring fact to which Supreme Court justices are sensitive is that they are not elected officials, they are appointed for life by presidents. And, “despite all the pomp and circumstance and tradition, the court ultimately relies on public opinion to hold power,” writes Richard Davis, a professor of political science at BrighamYoungUniversity. Thus, justices are not eager to make sweeping decisions that would overturn the laws banning same-sex marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states. As Davis points out, “If the public does not believe the justices have exercised good judgment, then the court is powerless to get anyone to pay attention to it.” [4]

How Does Freedom of Religion Fit In?

How does freedom of religion fit into the same-sex marriage issue? Elder Oaks said:

This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach. [3]

Former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt—who knows the conflict between public policy and religious liberty well from his tenure as secretary of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration—agrees that freedom of religion must not be lost in the debate over same-sex marriage. He said:

If through democratic processes our nation recognizes gay marriage and protects sexual orientation as a civil right, it need not and must not do so at the expense of religious freedom. Gay marriage and religious freedom should coexist. [1]

Leavitt also cautions against the Constitutional right to freedom of religion becoming “simply and solely the freedom to believe in the quiet of one’s own conscience, as long as the believer does not act on the belief in public.” He said:

Under this counterfeit definition of free exercise, expressions of faith— or opinions informed by faith— are unwelcome in the public square. [Religious] freedom is increasingly replaced by government restrictions. The list of examples has grown rapidly in recent years. [1]

The Constitutional rights to free exercise of religion as well as freedom of speech are foundational tenets of American society. Those on both sides of the issue should be able to agree to disagree—politely and courteously, with mutual respect for each other as a son or daughter of our Heavenly Father.

Is There a Compromise?

A democratic society flourishes when groups with differing views and agendas work together for the common good. But there are issues upon which those who value marriage and freedom of religion cannot budge—and that is redefining marriage to anything other than between one man and one woman. Indeed, society as a whole will suffer because its very foundation will be weakened. But there must be a way for both sides to work together for the common good. The Supreme Court rulings will not end the debates nor the legal proceedings. Whatever the decisions, more lawsuits are sure to follow. But that is the beauty of democracy in action. “One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Additional Resource:

Family Is at the Heart of God’s Plan

President Gordon B. Hinckley, then prophet and leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes inadvertently called the Mormon Church, gave an address in October 1998 titled “What are People Asking About Us?” He said:

We cannot stand idle if [people] 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.

The true danger of same-sex unions and the redefinition of marriage is the threat to the family unit. I cringe when I hear the term “modern family,” because the term, for me, has come to symbolize the changing values and attitudes toward the family and its structure.

 The Purpose of Marriage is to Create Families

In “The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles, which is the governing body of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, declared:

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between a man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.

The purpose of marriage is to create a stable, lasting and permanent foundation for families. Mothers, fathers and children benefit from this institution.

In her article, Summerhays writes: “Marriage as an entity is designed to protect those made vulnerable by procreation. First on that list are the infants that are born to women.”

She cites Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse, founder of the Ruth Institute, who said,

The child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him into being. Therefore, the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of his parents’ union. But no child can defend these entitlements himself. Nor is it adequate to make restitution after these rights have been violated. The child’s rights to care and relationship must be supported proactively, before harm is done, for those to be protected at all.

The second on the list, Summerhays writes, is the women who bear the children. Through the marriage contract, women have claim on their husbands for the support of themselves and their children. “Historically, gendered marriage has tied men to their children and to the mothers who sacrificed to create them. This arrangement not only overcomes but also compliments the biological differences of men and women,” Summerhays writes.

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” states:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners.

Lastly, “gendered marriage addresses the rights of fathers. Fatherhood is the most fragile biological relationship in the father-mother-child triangle,” Summerhays writes. “The bond between the mother and child is obvious. The father less so. Marriage closes this gap by legally binding a father to a mother and child, giving him both rights and responsibilities that, by the way, dramatically affects the successful socialization of children.”

Summerhays continued: “I interviewed a lawyer once and asked her to imagine a world without legal marriage. She abruptly responded: ‘It would be chaos. Women and children would be chattel. They could be abandoned without the slightest thought. They would have no legal recourse.’”

Thus, “marriage is the protective sanctuary that allows children to have a relationship with both father and mother. That relationship provides them with the stable and long-term care and nurturance they deserve,” Summerhays writes.

 How Do You Take Gender out of Marriage Relationships?

“The Family: A Proclamation to the World” states:

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.

You cannot remove gender from the marital contract without first extracting the primary function of marriage—to create a family. Same-sex unions cannot procreate; it is a biological impossibility.

…Protections regarding procreation cannot be extended to a homosexual union because that union cannot procreate. The solution to the problem cannot be to add protections to a power that does not exist. The only way these non-procreative unions can become legally equal is to remove several biological protections—protections that the law extends to the procreative unions found in traditional marriage, Summerhays writes.

Thus, the only way to remove gender from marriage is to remove the protection of family bonds—the child to his mother and father. Marriage becomes, in essence, government recognition of an emotional union, Summerhays writes. “States that have ratified homosexual marriage have done so by removing gender from the law, stripping rights from children and fathers and, in some cases, from biological mothers.”

 The Inequality of Equal Marriage

“The invention of genderless marriage has the potential to affect the nature of traditional relationships more than the nature of gay relationships. According to this new definition of equality, court judgments are already being handed down that strip biological distinctions and hence ignore biological rights,” Summerhays writes.

In other words, equal marriage can only be equal by redefining marriage into something less than what it is. The civil rights movement toward equality was about extending God-given rights to every person regardless of race, nationality or color. No freedoms or protections were removed, they were extended to all. “Equalizing” marriage cannot do this. The law can’t give each marriage the same protection without first eliminating the foundational tenets of gender roles and family relationships—the very protections for which marriage was designed.

Trying to redefine marriage into something it isn’t wreaks havoc on family law. “Families with three homosexual parents [listed on the birth certificate]; a loss of father’s rights; children without the right to a mother and a father; adoption policy protecting homosexual adults over defenseless children; and heterosexual marriages being redefined—this all sounds so implausible, but it is now historical fact,” Summerhays writes. “These events are the first tremblings of a tidal wave of familial case-law chaos—that is, if genderless marriage continues unabated.”

Summerhays cites “The Family: A Proclamation,” which states: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

The ideals behind same-sex marriage undermine the very foundational doctrines of marriage, that is the creation of a stable family unit. Children are vulnerable and need the protection of their parents. Mothers and fathers need the stability and commitment of each other as well as the legal safeguards protecting their rights as biological parents. Deconstructing those rights to favor “genderless” roles creates confusion and chaos. Now is the time to stand up and defend “traditional” marriage—that is, between a man and a woman. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render a decision in June on a case about California’s Prop 8 and The Defense of Marriage Act. The ramifications of this decision will have “enormous impact on our future, the stability of family and religious freedom,” Summerhays writes. How will you make your voice heard?

Additional Resource:

What is Eternal Marriage?

You [women] are the guardians of the hearth. You are the bearers of the children. You are they who nurture them and establish within them the habits of their lives. No other work reaches so close to divinity as does the nurturing of the sons and daughters of God, President Gordon B. Hinckley, the past president of the Mormon Church, said in an October 1995 address titled “Stand Strong Against the Wiles of the World.”

‘No Other Work Reaches so Close to Divinity’

I love that line: “No other work reaches so close to divinity as does the nurturing of the sons and daughters of God.” The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture in the Mormon Church, another testament of Jesus Christ and a record of the peoples who lived in the ancient Americas. In one story, a group of people had been wicked and bloodthirsty but were taught the gospel and repented. They became the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and covenanted with God that they would never again take up their swords. Years later, their new country was at war. Their friends the Nephites were fighting to protect them and needed help. So the Anti-Nephi-Lehis wanted to take up their weapons and help. Some 2,000 of their sons said, in essence, “Don’t break your covenant. We’ll fight. We didn’t make the oath with God, and we can take your place in the battle.” They had faith that God would take care of them, and He did. Helaman was chosen as the military commander to lead them. In Alma 56:46-48, one of my favorite scriptures, he says:

For as I had ever called them my sons (for they were all of them very young) even so they said unto me: Father, behold our God is with us, and he will not suffer that we should fall. … Now they never had fought, yet they did not fear death; and they did think more upon the liberty of their fathers than they did upon their lives; yea, they had been taught by their mothers, that if they did not doubt, God would deliver them. And they rehearsed unto me the words of their mothers, saying: We do not doubt our mothers knew it.

I also know that my mother knew it. She knew of the importance of her work in the home. She taught us both in words and example to trust in our Heavenly Father and turn to Him always. My sisters and I still talk about how she would go to her closet and plead with the Lord in prayer to help her. We couldn’t hear her words, but we could feel her pleadings with God. We knew she had faith and trust in Heavenly Father.

 ‘Mothers Who Know are Nurturers’

Sister Julie B. Beck, then Relief Society General President of The Church of Jesus Christ, said in an October 2007 address titled “Mothers Who Know”:

Mother who know are nurturers. This is their special assignment and role under the plan of happiness. To nurture means to cultivate, care for, and make grow. Therefore, mothers who know create a climate for spiritual and temporal growth in their homes. Another word for nurturing is homemaking. Homemaking includes cooking, washing clothes and dishes, and keeping an orderly home. Home is where women have the most power and influence; therefore, Latter-day Saint women should be the best homemakers in the world.

My mother took this responsibility very seriously. She loved (and still does) being a mother. She nurtured not only her own 8 children but also several others who were in need of love and care. She loved every one as her own. She set a powerful example of how to love, nurture and care for my own children as well as those around me. I count it one of my highest honors when I hear, “My child won’t go to anyone but me, but she (or he) will go to you.” It doesn’t happen all the time, but when it does, I feel like I’ve accomplished something special. That is the essence of my mother.

When we understand the magnitude of motherhood, it becomes clear why prophets have been so protective of woman’s most sacred role. While we tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord’s language, the word mother has layers of meaning. … Motherhood is more than bearing children, though it is certainly that. It is the essence of who we are as women, Sister Sheri L. Dew, then second counselor in the Relief Society general presidency of the LDS Church, said in an October 2001 address titled “Are We Not All Mothers?” (Relief Society is the women’s organization in the Mormon Church.)

 Honoring Future Mothers

Growing up, my dad would bring my mom a bouquet of flowers for Mother’s Day, and he always had a carnation to give each of his 6 daughters to honor his “future mothers.” When my husband and I were first married, we talked about Mother’s Day and I asked if he was going to get me something. He was surprised and said, “But you aren’t a mother.” And I said, “I am the mother of your future children.” My parents had instilled in me a desire to honor motherhood and womanhood on Mother’s Day, and I wanted to continue that tradition in my home. We have two daughters, and my husband also gets flowers for them on Mother’s Day. I want my children to understand the importance and value of women and mothers, and the girls who will one day be the women and mothers of the world.

Sister Dew said, “President Gordon B. Hinckley stated that ‘God planted within women something divine.’ That something is the gift and the gifts of motherhood.”

I love being a mother and a homemaker. I love having my children around me. I love watching them learn new things and grow and develop in the gospel. My mom used to tell me to cherish every moment with my kids because one day they’ll grow up and move away from home, and I will miss them. I know she’s right. How grateful I am for the divine gift of motherhood, and for a mother, father and Church leaders who taught me to cherish and honor this role in my life.

National Mother of the Year and Young Mother of the Year Awards

Every year, mothers selected from nominees in the United States, are honored by the American Mothers, Inc., an interfaith, nonpolitical, nonprofit organization, as the National Mother of the Year and the Young Mother of the Year. In addition, women from the 50 states and U.S. territories are selected for both titles.  American Mothers Inc.  seeks “to champion women by honoring, educating, and serving mothers at home, at work, and in the world.”  [1]

The honoree for the 2013 National Mother of the Year award was Judy Cook. Cook is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (inadvertently referred to as the Mormon Church by the media and others) from Vineyard, Utah.

LDS women from other states who were also honored include: [1]

Young Mothers of the Year:

Arizona—Tamara Passey

Florida—Rachel Crane

Hawaii—Penny Toilolo

North Dakota—Kendi Chase

Nevada—Montserrat Wadsworth

Utah—Michelle Lehnardt

Mothers of the Year:

Arizona—Judith Alice Nelson Ward

California—Renee Evans Starr

Hawaii—Lynette Serrao

Nevada—Zan Peterson Hyer

Oregon—Vivienne Smith Lewis

Utah—Judy Cook

Washington —Francine Cowie

Additional Resource:

Marriage is an eternal comittment

“Not everyone who opposes marriage redefinition can relate a coherent argument about its problems. Not nearly enough of us can say why this debate matters or analyze if marriage has a chance of surviving these aggressive thrusts at redefinition… Lacking for words, same-sex marriage opponents may merely stumble trying to answer that question, feeling awkward and somewhat embarrassed. (After all, haven’t they heard often enough that if they oppose the redefinition of marriage they are a hater, a bigot?)”

The editorial continues:

“There’s a hazard in not understanding this issue well. Those who can’t articulate their position, often can’t hold on to it. Yet this same-sex marriage policy debate that the Supreme Court has thrust itself into, may have the most far-reaching social implications of any issue of our time.”

The editorial strongly encourages those who may be in this situation to read an article in National Review titled “Marriage and Politics: Why the debate matters; why the conjugal view can prevail.” The article, written by Sherif Girgis, Ryan T. Anderson and Robert P. George—the authors of “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense” — asks and answers some pertinent questions regarding the issues of same-sex marriage and politics:

“Why worry about same-sex marriage in particular? Why worry about marriage policy? If marriage policy does matter, why not ‘broaden the definition’ of marriage to promote family values? How would recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages harm marriage? Isn’t ours a losing cause, or at best a secondary one? And why privilege anyone’s sectarian values at all—doesn’t that compromise freedom of equality?”

The authors of “Marriage and Politics” begin:

“Long before the debate over same-sex marriage, a ‘marriage movement’ was launched to explain why marriage was good for husbands and wives faithful to its demands, for their children, and for society more broadly.”

In 2003, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court handed down a ruling recognizing same-sex partnerships as marriages, leaders of the marriage movement had no choice, according to the article. They had to decide if recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages would strengthen the marriage culture or further weaken it, according to the article.

“They concluded that same-sex marriage was not ultimately about expanding the pool of American couples eligible to marry. It was about cementing a new idea of marriage into the law—the very idea whose baleful effects they had spent years fighting. That idea, that romantic and emotional union is all that makes a marriage, could not explain (as anything other than sentiment or personal preference) or support the stabilizing norms of permanence, monogamy, and sexual exclusivity that make marriage fitting for family life. It could only weaken them.

“Indeed, it had already begun to do so. Disastrous policies such as no-fault divorce were motivated by the idea that a marriage is made by romantic attachment and satisfaction—and comes undone when these fade. The marriage movement’s leaders knew that to keep any footing for rebuilding the marriage culture, they had to fight the formal and final redefinition of marriage as essentially romantic companionship.”

The authors say that we need to “focus both on politics and on culture, because each can only reinforce—or undermine—the other.”

“How much does social regulation matter? History is our lab, and the results are clear. Every political community that has lasted long enough to leave a trace of itself has regulated male-female sexual relationships. Why? These alone produce new human beings— highly dependent little creatures who have the best chance of reaching physical, moral, and cultural maturity and of contributing to the community when reared by their own mothers and fathers in the context of marriage.”

In short, we have a moral obligation to our children— and/or our future children, our children’s children and generations beyond—to do the right thing by them. They come into this world innocent and dependent upon their parents for love, nurturing, protection and guidance. Our society has become more focused on what is politically correct and less focused on what is morally correct and best for our children. The authors of this piece are very clear:  Children have the best chance in life when reared in a home with their own mother and father.

They continue:

“But family stability doesn’t happen by chance. It requires a strong marriage culture: norms and subtle influences designed to guide good people’s choices toward their own long-term interests and the common good.

“Indeed, justice demands as much. By encouraging marital stability, the state vindicates a right—that of a child to know the committed love of his own mother and father for him and for each other. And it limits the impact of negative externalities on innocent parties, because failed marriages and out-of-wedlock births burden us all with a train of social pathologies and a greater demand for policing and state-provided services. The research of sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe on Scandinavian countries shows that as marriage culture declines, the size and scope of state power and spending grow.”

By redefining marriage as a weaker institution based solely on romantic emotions and not the stabilizing force of complete loyalty, fidelity and commitment—till death do you part, as the vows go—our children miss out on the firm foundations they need to become well-balanced adults ready to take on the world.

Indeed, the evidence shows the burdens already placed on the government due to the breakdown of the family, according to the article:

“A study by the left-leaning Brookings Institution finds that $229 billion in welfare spending between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems. A 2008 study found that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year.

“Government is leaner and more effective when it supports marital norms than when it tries to pick up the pieces from a shattered marriage culture. And it can support these norms without banning anything. Libertarians and social conservatives should be allies on marriage.”

President Gordon B. Hinckley, late prophet and leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a 1996 address titled “This Thing Was Not Done in a Corner,”

“A nation will rise no higher than the strength of its homes. If you want to reform a nation, you begin with families, with parents who teach their children principles and values that are positive and affirmative and will lead them to worthwhile endeavors…. Parents have no greater responsibility in this world than the bringing up of their children in the right way, and they will have no greater satisfaction as the years pass than to see those children grow in integrity and honesty and make something of their lives.”

The authors conclude:

“Support for marriage between a man and a woman is no excuse for animus against those with same-sex attractions, or for ignoring the needs of individuals who may never marry, for whatever reason. They are no less worthy than others of concern and respect, and public policy should do what is necessary and proper to help their lives go well. But the same diligent concern for the common good requires protecting and strengthening the marriage culture, by promoting the truth about marriage.”

The editorial and this article provide much food for thought about the same-sex marriage debate. Those who oppose same-sex marriage must take the time to form lucid and coherent arguments to counter the proponents of this issue. As the article states: “To the extent that marriage is misunderstood, it will be harder to see the point of its norms, to live by them, and to encourage their strict observance.”

This article was written by Lisa Montague, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Additional Resource:

Mormon Family

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes called the “Mormon Church,” said in a recent broadcast titled “As He Thinketh in His Heart”:

A powerful and influential modern school of thought is ‘moral relativism,’ the idea that there is no absolute right or wrong. Behind that idea is the assumption that there is no God or, if there is a God, that He has given no commandments that apply to us today. That idea puts its adherents in the same position as the unfortunate people the prophet Mormon [in the Book of Mormon] described as ‘without Christ and God in the world; … driven about as chaff before the wind’ (Mormon 5:16).

Latter-day Saints obviously begin with a different premise: there is a God who is the source of eternal law, and He has given commandments that establish a right and a wrong for many choices. Also, in the third act of His eternal plan, we will be held accountable for the extent to which our mortal deeds and desires have been in harmony with those commandments. We oppose moral relativism, and we must help our youth avoid being deceived and persuaded by reasoning and conclusions based on its false premises.”

Moral relativism often comes into play in response to a moral dilemma or question. If moral relativism is a fallacy, then where can one look to find what God said was right and wrong?

Elder Oaks continued:

“Where do we look for the premises with which we begin our reasoning on the truth or acceptability of various proposals? We anchor ourselves to the word of God, contained in the scriptures and in the teachings of modern prophets. Unless we are anchored to these truths as our major premises and assumptions, we cannot be sure that our conclusions are true. Being anchored to eternal truth will not protect us from the tribulation and persecution Jesus predicted (see Matthew 13:21), but it will give us the peace that comes from faith in Jesus Christ and the knowledge that we are on the pathway to eternal life.”

The laws of God are eternal and are found in the scriptures.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:41 says, “He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.”

Doctrine and Covenants 1:38 says, “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.”

The scriptures also contain warnings about following false teachings.

Hebrews 13:8-9 says, “Jesus Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. Be not carried about with divers and strange doctrines.”

Colossians 2:8 says, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

Elder Oaks concludes his address with this counsel:

“The world in which we live is like the field described by the Savior in the Gospel of Matthew. Until the time of harvest, the wholesome and desirable wheat is growing side by side with the tares sown by the enemy, who is the devil (see Matthew 13:24–30, 39). In the parable of the sower, Jesus described the result: When the sower’s word falls on stony places, where a hearer has ‘not root in himself,’ he will be offended when ‘tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word’ (see Matthew 13:20–21). Other seeds fall ‘among thorns’ and, as Mark describes, ‘the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful’ (Mark 4:18–19). This parable describes the reaction of any of us who are offended when we suffer tribulation or persecution or otherwise become unfruitful because of ‘the cares of this world’ or our ‘lusts of other things.’

“We should apply the caution Jesus gave to His disciples to ‘beware of the … doctrine of the Pharisees’ (Matthew 16:12). We cannot escape the conclusions, teachings, and advocacy of modern Pharisees. We must live in the world. But the teaching that we not be ‘of the world’ (John 15:19;17:14, 16) requires us to identify error and exclude it from our thinking, our desires, and our actions. In this way, through faith and trust in Jesus Christ and our knowledge of our Heavenly Father’s plan, we can press forward with confidence in these troubled times.”

Moral relativism is the world’s answer for tough questions. But followers of Christ need to hold their ground with love and kindness. The Savior was always loving and kind to those around him. When faced with the tough question of what to do with the woman who was taken in adultery, the Savior showed kindness and mercy. (See John 8:1-11.) The scribes and Pharisees wanted to stone her, as required by the Law of Moses. But the Savior said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). And, seeing that her accusers left her unharmed, He said, “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (See John 8:10.) And then He said, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” Followers of Christ must stand firm in the faith for what they know to be true: morality is never relative, it is always found in following the Savior.

This article was written by Lisa Montague, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Lord Jesus Christ in Mormonism

A few years ago, my husband started bringing me breakfast in bed every morning because I was struggling with health issues. Not cereal. But eggs and toast, or pancakes and hash browns. He has continued this routine, even though I am feeling better, to show his love for me. Last year, he went out of town. The morning after he left, my oldest woke me up. My then 11-year-old son had a breakfast tray with eggs, toast and orange juice in his hands and said, “Mom, I didn’t want you to miss out on having breakfast in bed while Dad is gone.”

“Parents, especially fathers, can set a standard of respect [for the opposite sex] through their behavior, language, media choices and a number of other examples,” according to a recent Deseret News article titled “Teaching Children by How You Treat Your Spouse.”

“In large measure, true manhood is defined in our relationship to women,” Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormon Church, said in his October 2006 General Conference address, according to the article.

In his address, he told a story that illustrated how his father treated his mother.

Years ago, when my brothers and I were boys, our mother had radical cancer surgery. She came very close to death. Much of the tissue in her neck and shoulder had to be removed, and for a long time it was very painful for her to use her right arm.

 

One morning about a year after the surgery, my father took Mother to an appliance store and asked the manager to show her how to use a machine he had for ironing clothes. The machine was called an Ironrite. It was operated from a chair by pressing pedals with one’s knees to lower a padded roller against a heated metal surface and turn the roller, feeding in shirts, pants, dresses, and other articles. You can see that this would make ironing (of which there was a great deal in our family of five boys) much easier, especially for a woman with limited use of her arm. Mother was shocked when Dad told the manager they would buy the machine and then paid cash for it. Despite my father’s good income as a veterinarian, Mother’s surgery and medications had left them in a difficult financial situation.

 

On the way home, my mother was upset: ‘How can we afford it? Where did the money come from? How will we get along now?’ Finally Dad told her that he had gone without lunches for nearly a year to save enough money. ‘Now when you iron,’ he said, ‘you won’t have to stop and go into the bedroom and cry until the pain in your arm stops.’ She didn’t know he knew about that. I was not aware of my father’s sacrifice and act of love for my mother at the time, but now that I know, I say to myself, ‘There is a man.’”

 

The standard of respect begins with the way the children see their father treat their mother, and vice versa.

Jill C. Manning, a licensed marriage and family therapist in Denver, said in the article that genuine love between a husband and wife can have a “powerfully positive effect on the climate in a home.”

She said, according to the article, “Modeling respect for others hinges on being aware of what we are modeling. All who desire to have a more respectful community, society or family, step back and think, where have my attitudes and beliefs come from? Who has had the biggest impact on shaping how I feel? … We cannot give something we do not have.”

The article also quotes Sister Elaine S. Dalton, Young Women General President of the LDS Church, from her October 2011 General Conference address: “The most important thing a father can do for his (daughter) is to love (her) mother.”

Manning agrees, according to the article. “(Genuine love between parents) increases a sense of security and stability for children. It gives them a foundation upon which to understand the potential of a positive relationship.”

In contrast, she said, in the article, “When a father and mother are not respectful to one another, it sets up a template and framework for those children to be hindered in how they see marriage and relationships.”

Geoff Steurer, a licensed marriage and family therapist, said in the article that “it’s important to let children see that mother has a voice in the home. Defer to her, counsel with her and show gratitude for what she does for the family. Let them see you valuing and appreciating the ideas and thoughtful suggestions that she contributes to the family matters.”

Steurer also said, according to the article, that he advocates being “old-fashioned,” where women eat first and the men open doors for women. “We do things to elevate the women in our lives, to let them know these girls are…special. It’s our job to make sure they are taken care of first. Those are things a father can model with his wife on an ongoing basis, and I think children pick up on that more than anything.”

Brad Wilcox – an author, BYU professor and former LDS Mission President – said he believes in openly showing affection for his wife in front of their children, according to the article. “I want them to see how important it is to communicate love, to hug, to kiss. Physical love is not bad. Teenagers think it is embarrassing if Mom and Dad kiss, but they like it. …They can learn from a movie with a couple that is not married, or they will learn it at home with a couple that is married. They will see the difference that one is wholesome, pure and good, while the other is degrading and dehumanizing.”

The media are sending strong messages to our youth about gender roles and how to interact with the opposite sex, Manning said, according to the article.

“Do we show tolerance of any kind to violence or immoral themes that denigrate and show disrespect toward men or women?” Manning said in the article. “When we teach them that’s not a show, magazine or website I will support … that’s a powerful message.”

Children take note of the media their parents watch and read – and don’t, Steurer said in the article. Are parents, especially fathers, changing the channel when something inappropriate comes on? Is the father discussing it with his children or going silently, implying he is OK with it? Or does he have the courage to express his values?

“To me, that is an opportunity missed way too often by dads,” Steurer said in the article. “He doesn’t have to be preachy or self-righteous, he just needs to let [them] know where his values stand. I think those things say a lot about how he feels about women.”

Respect and love in families – and the happiness they bring – are frequent topics addressed by LDS Church leaders.

The article cites the April 2011 General Conference address of Elder Richard D. Scott, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the LDS Church, where he describes the joy that comes from a marriage where mutual love and respect exist. “Pure love is an incomparable, potent power for good. Righteous love is the foundation of a successful marriage. It is the primary cause of contented, well-developed children. It is so rewarding to be married.”

The article also quoted Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who said: “You young men need to know that you can hardly achieve your highest potential without the influence of good women, particularly your mother, and, in a few years, a good wife.”

Thomas S. Monson, then second counselor in the First Presidency of the LDS Church, said in his October 1992 address “An Example of the Believers”:

“Happiness abounds when there is genuine respect one for another. Wives draw closer to their husbands, and husbands are more appreciative of their wives, and children are happy, as children are meant to be.”

This article was written by Lisa Montague, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Worship with Mormons

http://youtu.be/UKWDR_y6HT0

A recent Florida adoption made headlines when a judge allowed the child’s birth certificate to list three parents—a lesbian couple and a gay man who contributed the sperm, according to a Yahoo! News article published Feb. 7. The 22-month-old girl was born to one of the women.

The decision ends a two-year paternity fight between the couple and the father, who is a friend of the women, the article states. The father initially agreed to donate his sperm but later decided he wanted a larger role in the girl’s life, according to the article. The two-year paternity fight ended with the judge allowing the biological father and both of the women on the birth certificate, according to the article.

According to Webster’s New World College Dictionary, a birth certificate is “an official document issued upon a person’s birth, attesting to the date and place of birth, parentage, etc.” Biology dictates that a child has two parents: a mother and a father. Any other combination is genetically, humanly impossible. So the judge’s ruling seeks to circumvent the point—attempting to pacify humans by defying the laws of nature.

The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sometimes called the Mormon Church, issued The Family: A Proclamation to the World in 1995. It reads:

“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.

“The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and its importance in God’s eternal plan.”

Marriage offers a stable foundation upon which to build a family. Mothers and fathers have distinct roles and strengths that complement each other.

“By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed,” The Family: A Proclamation to the World reads.

President James E. Faust, former Second Counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said in a 2004 address titled “Fathers, Mothers, Marriage”:

“It is useless to debate which parent is most important. No one would doubt that a mother’s influence is paramount with newborns and in the first years of a child’s life. The father’s influence increases as the child grows older. However, each parent is necessary at various times in a child’s development. Both fathers and mothers do many intrinsically different things for their children. Both are equipped to nurture children, but their approaches are different. Mothers seem to take a dominant role in preparing children to live within their families, present and future. Fathers seem best equipped to prepare children to function in the environment outside the family.

“One authority states: ‘Studies show that fathers also have a special role to play in building a child’s [self-respect]. They are important too, in ways we don’t really understand, in developing internal limits and control in children.’ He continues: ‘Research also shows that fathers are critical in the establishment of gender in children. Interestingly, fatherly involvement produces stronger sexual identity and character in both boys and girls. It’s well established that the masculinity of sons and the femininity of daughters are each greater when fathers are active in family life’ (Karl Zinsmeister, ‘Fathers: Who Needs Them?’ – address delivered to the Family Research Council, 19 June 1992).”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave a talk in October 2012 titled, “Protect the Children.” He cited studies that showed children whose parents chose to forgo marriage suffered significant comparative disadvantages. He said:

“For children, the relative stability of marriage matters. We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, ‘Same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences’ (Douthat, ‘Gay Parents and the Marriage Debate).”

“Children are an heritage unto the Lord,” Psalms 127:3 reads. Mothers and fathers have the solemn and sacred obligation to set aside their own needs and wants for the welfare of their children. President Faust said, “The family relationship of father, mother, and child is the oldest and most enduring institution in the world. It has survived vast differences of geography and culture. This is because marriage between man and woman is a natural state and is ordained of God. It is a moral imperative.”

This article was written by Lisa Montague, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Additional Resources:

Mormon Marriage

Mormon Temples

Meet Mormons