There’s a point here that needs to be seen and understood by all those policy makers and social scientists complacent about the increase in divorce, cohabitation, and gay marriage.  What I see is that it is becoming easier and easier to make family life less secure for children.  Having watched the stability of my own parents’ home crumble, and having been powerless to stop it, I cringe daily when I see households vaguely established and certain to be very temporary.

My husband is one of eight children.  His parents taught good Mormon virtues in their home, but not all their children followed their lead or their teachings.  Of the eight children only my husband and I have not been divorced.  Among the other seven, there have been 13 divorces.  My husband and I have been out of the country for 18 months serving a mission for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (often inadvertently called the Mormon Church), and when we came back, we caught up on all the news of the family, which included the gay marriage of one niece, the cohabitation of one brother, the cohabitation of five nieces and nephews.  I watched one of these nephews with his girlfriend and their new baby.  She had a little boy from a previous relationship, now part of this fragile new “family.”  I wondered how things would shape up for his future, and how often his family structure would morph until he reaches adulthood, and how he would feel about it.

The Unquenchable Yearning

My parents used to argue 24/7.  Mostly my mother screaming at my father.  My dad was psychologically battered by my mother, as were we all.  I think I cried myself to sleep every night for the worst five years of it.  To this day I can’t tolerate the sound of people arguing, not even on TV.  I experienced an unquenchable yearning for happiness and peace in our home, and it almost consumed me.  I was desperate for the answer that would make everything OK.  As things got worse, my parents’ attention to me dwindled.  A star student in junior high, I lost my drive in high school because I couldn’t get their attention.  Not so bad.  I was in the top 10% of my class, but I should have been in the top 2%.  I experienced a role reversal as they each came to me with their grievances, something parents should never do to a child.  That was really awful.  By the time the papers were actually signed, I was nineteen, and I thought I was relieved that they were finally divorced.  But the yearning didn’t go away.  We were broken, all of us.

I experienced that yearning for decades, and it hurts me to think of the millions of other kids having the same experience.  I have never met a child of divorce who wasn’t broken.  What of those whose families dissolve and reform many times over?  Where is the loving, stable foundation they so need?  That anchoring identity and belonging?  The safety of a permanent family?

It is the misguided selfishness of people to think that a household can be formed and dissolved as love waxes and wanes, and to think that mutual attraction is enough to found a household upon.  It is unfathomable blindness for institutions, states, and governments to try to pass laws abetting temporary alliances not based on the solid attributes of traditional marriage.  And it’s the kids who suffer.

I, myself, am OK now, thank you.  My parents passed away some years ago.  Because of the “priesthood” power held by the men of The Church of Jesus Christ, I have had healing blessings through the laying on of hands, and communications from my parents in myriad forms.  From the other side they have reached into mortality and gotten Christ to heal me of my wounds.  They are healing, too, and are together now, on the other side.  This brings me great joy, and that yearning isn’t gnawing at me any more.  But I am driven by pathos to share this, as I see laws passed that will enable more families to be temporary, and the easing of morality so as to watch it all with a yawn.

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?

A coalition of churches—the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Romanian-American Evangelical Alliance of North America, Truth in Action Ministries, and The Church of Jesus Christ (Mormons)—joined together to ask that the Ninth Circuit Court reverse their decision that California’s Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Lawyers for The Church of Jesus Christ drafted the briefs. Von Keetch of the Utah-based Kirton McConkie law firm wrote, “Our theological perspectives, though often differing, converge to support the proposition that the traditional, opposite-sex definition of marriage in the civil law is not only constitutional but essential to the welfare of families, children, and society.”

The passage of Proposition 8 in 2008 banned same-sex marriage in California. The brief defends the state constitutional amendment: “The people of California violated no one’s civil rights when they adopted Proposition 8. Their twice-expressed preference for the traditional definition of marriage over an untested rival conception was thoroughly rational. It is therefore thoroughly constitutional.”

In June 2008, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families” that announced the Church’s participation with a coalition of churches, organizations, and individuals sponsoring a November ballot measure, Proposition 8, that would amend the California state constitution to ensure that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be legally recognized.1 The Church of Jesus Christ and many of its members experienced “violence and intimidation” because of the Church’s support of Proposition 8.2

Although The Church of Jesus Christ insists that marriage is between a man and a woman, they express compassion for those seeking gay rights. They created a website devoted to same-sex attraction that indicates where The Church of Jesus Christ stands on the issue: “The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”3 The website features conversations with members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as well as videos of people sharing their real experiences.

The LDS Church and the coalition churches are not the only groups taking strong stances and filing briefs with the U. S. Supreme Court. Other religious, civic, and private organizations are filing “‘friend of the court’ briefs, weighing in on whether same-sex marriage should be allowed.” Utah Attorney General John Swallow has “joined other states in asking the court to uphold Prop. 8 and DOMA,” and the Utah Pride Center and twenty-six other groups filed a brief expressing support of same-sex marriage. On March 26-27, 2013, the U. S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on legal challenges to California’s Proposition 8 and the Federal Defense of Marriage Act.

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

Paula Hicken was an editor with the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship from 2000 to 2013. She earned her BA degree in English from Brigham Young University. She edited Insights, the Maxwell Institute newsletter, and was the production editor for Faith, Philosophy, Scripture, Hebrew Law in Biblical Times (2nd ed.), Third Nephi: An Incomparable Scripture, and was one of the copy editors for Analysis of the Textual Variants of the Book of Mormon. She also helped manage the Maxwell Institute intellectual property and oversaw rights and permissions. She has published in the Ensign, the Liahona, the LDS Church News, and the FARMS Review.

Notes:

1. The Divine Institution of Marriage

2. Prop 8 Baclash Is “An Outrage That Must Stop,” Goup Says in Support of Church

3. Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction

Additional Resources:

Love One Another: A Discussion on Same-Sex Attraction 

Helping Those Who Struggle with Same-Gender Attraction