Nov

19

The controversy in California regarding Proposition 8 built to a frenzy in the days leading up to Tuesday’s election and then exploded into anger and violence in the aftermath of Prop 8’s slim passage into law (52.5% to 47.5%). Exit polls showed the proposition was supported by 7 of 10 Black voters, a majority of Latino voters, and by people with children under the age of 18 still at home. Clearly, it was supported by all people who believed marriage is a special and protected institution.

Many supporters of Proposition 8 were members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) and they worked hard to promote their cause – not out of homophobic hatred, but out of a love of Christ and a belief in the sanctity of traditional marriage.

Many of those who opposed Proposition 8 reacted to the defeat by accusing Mormon of hatred. However, Mormons simply believe that marriage was instituted by God and that should be between a man and a woman and used legal means to defend their belief (and they were not the only one, or the only church involved, by the way).

On the other hand, some of the demonstrations against the Church by supporter of gay marriage seem to be motivated by hatred and they single out the Mormon Church.

These are a few pictures taken outside the Mormon temple that illustrate well this point.

Challenges to our faith are not new. Nor are they likely to go away anytime soon. But, as Elder Hales reminds us,

True disciples of Christ see opportunity in the midst of opposition. We can take advantage of such opportunities in many ways: a kind letter to the editor, a conversation with a friend, a comment on a blog, or a reassuring word to one who has made a disparaging comment. We can answer with love those who have been influenced by misinformation and prejudice – who are ‘kept from the truth because they know not where to find it’ (D&C 123:12). I assure you that to answer our accusers in this way is never weakness. It is Christian courage in action.

There are several lessons that can be learned from the current unrest:

Tolerance is not agreement and should not be a one way street. However, we must still remain tolerant of those who are intolerant of us.

Recognize the adversary at work here - making good seem bad and evil seem good.

We can only be disciples of Christ when we respond to adversity in a Christlike manner. To do less opens our actions to the influence of the adversary and hurts us even more.

We should never take for granted the opportunities we have to gather together in worship. We should never put off the opportunity to attend the temple. For these valuable things can be disrupted and possibly even closed to us - if not permanently, then at least on a temporary basis.

Pray. Often. Don’t forget to include those who are set against you.

Nov

6

According to CNN,

Thousands protested California’s same-sex marriage ban in West Hollywood Wednesday night. Californians passed the measure 52.5 percent to 47.5 percent in Tuesday’s general election, countering a state Supreme Court ruling in May that said the state constitution guarantees gay and lesbian couples the right to marry. Passage of Proposition 8 sent protesters into the streets of Los Angeles on Wednesday.

This clearly shows how the election results for these constitutional amendments will not mean an end to the debate over same-sex marriage in the US.

Such an emotionally charged issue concerning the most personal and cherished aspects of life - family, identity, intimacy and equality - stirs fervent and deep feelings.

There is the hope that in the future all parties involved in this issue will act in a spirit of mutual respect and civility. However, I do not expect that this will always happen, unfortunately.

I know that many have criticized the Mormon Church and other organization for supporting Proposition 8. It is important to understand that this issue for the Mormon Church has always been about the sacred and divine institution of marriage - a union between a man and a woman and has nothing to do with bigotry.

It is also important to be clear that the Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage does not mean that the church condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians, including their rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights.

The only ting that the Church is concerned about is that those rights do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

For more information about the position of the Mormon Church on this topic you may read

Church Responds to Same-Sex Marriage Votes

Oct

29

In the debate about proposition 8, (gay rights and the proposed same-sex marriage) there is one point that is of the greatest importance but that is always overlooked by the proponents of same-sex marriage:  children needs.

Research shows that children need two parents and that there are specific benefits coming from having a mother and a father instead than two mothers or two fathers.

In short, we believe that a central question in the so-called same-sex marriage debate is whether or not we collectively and legally want to promote a culture of parenting founded on parents rights or one grounded in children’s needs (Marquardt, 2006; Sugrue, 2006). From our vantage point, just because a parent desires it, does not mean a child needs it. (Carrol, J. and Dollahite, D., 2008, Who’s my daddy? in What’s the Harm? University Press of America).

According to Carroll and Dollahite,

Similar to other aspects of family-wellbeing in the United States (e.g., economic prosperity), father-child relationships today are marked by two contrasting trends that lead to strikingly divergent life experiences for men and their children. On the one hand, many American children are growing up with high levels of connection to their fathers as they benefit from a culture that has historically high expectations for men’s involvement in the everyday lives of their children…

However, despite increased norms for father involvement, the last generation has also witnessed the rise of ambiguous fatherhood in America. Many of the historical supports that have traditionally preserved men’s involvement in their children’s lives have been eroding for a large portion of contemporary families. Historically high rates of non-marital cohabitation, out-of-wedlock childbirth, and marital divorce (McLanahan, 2004) have dramatically altered the landscape of fathering, leaving unprecedented numbers of children growing up with uncertain or non-existent relationships with their fathers. While these demographic trends have changed family life in general within the United States, these contextual changes have been particularly grim for father-child relationships which have been found to be more sensitive than mother-child relationships to contextual forces and supports (Doherty et al., 1998; Hawkins, Amato, & King, 2006).

This negative trend toward ambiguous fatherhood would get a tremendous impulse if same-sex marriage is approved. These are the conclusions from the same book chapter:

1. A change in the definition of marriage will inherently alter the definition of parenthood in our society.
2. Our collective and legal definitions of fatherhood should be based on the generative needs of children. Simply put, our primary concern should be children’s needs, not adults’ rights or desires.
3. The overwhelming conclusion of more than two decades of social science research on father-child relationships is that father involvement is extremely sensitive to contextual factors. In particular, research shows that for most men, marriage and fatherhood are a package deal. Thus, fathering outside of the context of a committed marriage relationship that involves shared residential living with a child is a fragile arrangement at best for fostering generative father-child relationships.
4. As a social institution, marriage has traditionally been defined so as to provide a natural mechanism to provide for the widely held cultural ideal that children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony and to be raised by the father and mother who gave them life. This persistent core value of kin altruism is at the center of our society’s definition of marriage and parenthood.
Grounded in these perspectives, it is our contention that providing legal sanction of same-sex partnerships would increase the number of children raised in settings of ambiguous fatherhood; thus exposing a greater number of children to the risks of poor or non-existent father involvement.

The negative consequences would not only occur in direct ways but also in indirect ways. In fact,

Children raised by same-sex couples will inherently experience ambiguous father-child relationships due to the fact that they, by definition, lack a marriage between a child’s two biological parents. In short, same-sex parenting requires the intentional disregard for kin altruism as the entitlement of children and the best environment to foster the best interests of children.

The above quote refers to direct ways in which same-sex marriage will foster ambiguous parenthood. But even among heterosexual men the legalization of same-sex marriage would foster the rise of ambiguous fatherhood:

Instruction and policy in various public settings (e.g., educational, political, judicial) would be required to advocate the equality of all social arrangements for the rearing of children even though a large body of social science research belies this idea. Altering the legal definition of marriage would further erode the societal recognition that fathers matter to children. As this occurs, two primary mechanisms will increase the ambiguity of fatherhood for children, men and society.

First, the rise of a “self-defined parenting paradigm” that equates single-mothers and lesbian couples with two biological parents in meeting the developmental needs of children threatens to further disenfranchise men from family life and weakens social norms discouraging divorce and non-marital childbearing…

A second way that the legalization of same-sex partnerships would further the rise of ambiguous fatherhood is that it would support a retreat from fatherhood altogether among some American men. One aspect of a self-defined parenting ideology in society is the option of not being a parent at all. If fathering is not a cultural ideal, the potential exists for an increase in men who live outside marriage and parenthood altogether. Given the data on the negative social consequences of a large number of unmarried men (e.g., higher rates of crime and other anti-social behavior), we should be very cautious about a parenting culture that suggests that men can be viewed as “sperm donors” who’s only essential “parenting role” is conception and then women can do it alone, either as single parents or as a lesbian couple. The loss of a cultural ideal for men to become responsible fathers could lead to increased numbers of men and children who live in non-generative contexts.

Oct

14

These are a couple of very good videos about the importance of voting yes for proposition 8.

Young adults from California discuss their involvement in preserving traditional marriage.


Elder David A. Bednar and a group of young adults from California discuss Proposition 8.

Oct

13

Until 1977, California did not explicitly define marriage as being between a man and a woman, but court decisions, and some statutes assumed as much. In 1977, the legislature amended Civil Code section 4100  to read that marriage is “a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman”. In 2000, voters passed with 61% of the vote, ballot initiative Proposition 22, which changed the California Family Code to formally define marriage in California between a man and a woman. However, other laws have been passed by the legislature (since 1999) which recognize domestic partnerships and afford them some of the rights of marriage.

However, earlier this year, four activist judges in San Francisco wrongly overturned the people’s vote, legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, Californians will vote on an amendment to the state constitution that says “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” These are the same 14 words that were previously approved in 2000.

Because this is a moral issue, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) is encouraging all Californians to vote for Proposition 8.

Members of the many churches and organizations that are participating in the Protect Marriage Coalition, including members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are calling friends, family and fellow citizens in California to urge support of Proposition 8 to defend traditional marriage.

On June 20, 2008, the First Presidency of the Church distributed a letter about “Preserving Traditional Marriage and Strengthening Families,” announcing the Church’s participation with the coalition. The letter, which was read in sacrament meetings in California, asked that Church members “do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment.”

This video is from Next Gingrich:

There are two great videos and more information at:

LDS Media Talk

In the first video young adults from California discuss their involvement in preserving traditional marriage.

In the second video there are segments from a Church broadcast to Californian Church members addressing the Church’s doctrine of marriage and the Protect Marriage Coalition.

Finally these are two good videos from Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council:

Aug

21

I know that this is a very difficult topic.  Mormons by principle should love all men, but loving does not mean to give up correct principles. God loves the world but it does not give us all that we ask for.

Presidente Gordon B. Hinckley said:

“People inquire about our position on those who consider themselves so-called gay and lesbians…We love them as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be very difficult to control…If they do not act on these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. If they violate the law of chastity and the moral standards of the Church, then they are subject to the discipline of the Church, just as others are.” (See Ensign, November 1998: 70).

I learn several things from this statement.

1) There are people who consider themselves gays or lesbians but it is not correct to say that “they are gays and lesbians” as if their situation was immutable or if they were something different from other people.

2) They are worthy of love and help like any other son or daughter of God.

3) The Church recognizes that they may be struggling.

4) Their inclinations do not determine their actions, and therefore they are responsible as any other person (who may have other inclinations that are not in harmony with Church standards).

I was reading yesterday a book by A. Dean Bird, Mormons & Homosexuality and it is clear from his book that an important point is to decide if homosexuality is inborn or not, because when people think that homosexuals are that way, they are more likely to support gay rights.

He says,

Though there is no science to support the notion that homosexuality is inborn, the gay activists in the mental health organizations as well as in the media still continue to trumpet the “born that way” notion.

Dr. Bird explains how gay activists in 1973 were able to pressure the American Psychiatric Association to the point that

By a vote of 5,854 to 3,810, homosexuality was eliminated as a diagnostic category from the psychiatric manual, making it the first time in the history of the healthcare that a diagnosis was decided by popular vote rather than by scientific evidence.

Very interesting! The consequence is that

American Psychiatric Association had established precedents that medical and psycological diagnoses are subject to political fiat.

Similarly, many proclamations by national organizations

are simply activism masquerading as science (p.22-23).

Now this activism is pushing to a point that is illustrated by this email I received today,

The California Supreme Court, which recently legalized same-sex marriage, has ruled by a 7-0 vote that homosexual rights trump religious freedom. The ruling barred doctors, because of their Christian beliefs, from withholding unnecessary medical care to gays and lesbians. The ruling says that under state law sexual orientation rights trump religious freedom.

Justice Joyce Kennard wrote in the ruling that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian have neither a free speech right nor a religious exemption from the state’s law, which “imposes on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations.”

Doctors at the Christian clinic referred the lesbian to another clinic, but the lesbian refused their referral - demanding that the Christian clinic perform the procedure. When the Christian doctors refused to violate their religious convictions, the lesbian sued and the Supreme Court gave her the victory.

Why do they have to force those doctors to perform a procedure that they do not approve? Are there not enough other doctors who could do it?  It seems to me that gay activists are eager to defend their rights but they easily dismiss or trump other people rights.

There would be a lot more to say, but this is enough. Mormons try to love every son or daughter of God, including those who have homosexual tendencies. However, Mormons believe that to act on those tendency is wrong. Finally, since we live in a democratic society, Mormons believe that if gays has the right to promote their cause, everybody else also has the same right.

Blogroll

WP Themes