Defending Marriage

Words have power.

This week I read the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage (Obergefell V. Hodges, 2015). In studying the words of the majority opinion, I could almost understand why people have such strong feelings in favor of same sex-marriage. The majority used the personal examples of three of the petitioners to tug at our heart strings: a dying partner, mother's of special needs children, and a U.S.military sergeant. They recognize the history of marriage between a man and a woman but argue that "rights come not from ancient sources alone. They rise, too, from a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty in our own era." They declare that the right of same-sex couples to marry is a liberty promised in the 14th amendment and they used past cases like Loving V. Virginia (right to interracial marriage) to persuasively argue that the same rights should apply to all couples. They used words like "disrespect" and "subordinate" to describe the harm caused to same-sex couples who have had to deal with such a long history of disapproval. They went to great lengths to point out that not only does a same-sex couple have any bearing on anyone else and couldn't possibly harm the institution of traditional marriage, but they even claimed that it would strengthen the institution because those couples are creating families, and since children do better in families where the parents are married, it would be a positive outcome for the institution of marriage and family life. As someone who knows and loves some same-sex individuals, I found these arguments very persuasive and can completely understand where many supporters are coming from when they feel that this is a great step forward for our nation.

The dissenting judges also used  powerful words.

Their main focus was on the unconstitutionality of the ruling--that in making this ruling, five judges were effectively stealing the right for the states to decide from the people. Justice Roberts states: "When decisions are reached through democratic means, some people will be disappointed with the results. But those whose views do not prevail at least know that they have had their say, and accordingly are--in the tradition of our political culture--reconciled to the result of a fair and honest debate. . . .Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging that they have lost, and lost forever; the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause"(Roberts, 2015). This really resonates with me. During our last state election, there were several issues on the ballot, including the legalization of recreational marijuana. There were a lot of pretty intense debates and argument from people on both sides of the issue. As someone who vehemently voted "NO", I was very disappointed that the measure passed by a narrow margin. However, I recognize that it was the people in my state who had that choice and the majority used their right to vote to make that change. In the Supreme Court case, we were stripped of that right even though as Justice Thomas pointed out in his dissent, that of the 35 states to put same sex marriage on their ballots, 32 voted to keep the traditional definition of marriage.

The dissenting judges expressed their apprehension about how this ruling would affect religious liberty. That was one of the things that caused me grave concern as well. In the majority ruling of the Supreme Court, they pointed out that those who oppose same-sex marriage would still have that right and that under the protection of the 1st Amendment, religions could still "teach" and "advocate" the religious principles that are central to their faith and that they can continue to live their lives as they always have.  Justice Roberts points out that the 1st Amendment allows citizens to "exercise" their religious beliefs but that word was "ominously absent" in the majority statement. Justice Alito says: "We will soon see whether this [religious rights being unaffected] proves to be true. I assume that those who cling to old beliefs will be able to whisper their thoughts in the recesses of their homes, but if they repeat those vows in public, they will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers and schools."

Unfortunately, my husband is experiencing this firsthand at the small college that employs him. Theoretically, his job is protected by tenure. However, if his behavior as a professor demonstrates what is deemed intolerance or harassment, he could face losing his job. Because there are a very high number of ultra-liberal employees on campus, if he were to so much as insinuate a belief in marriage between a man and a woman, he could be labeled a bigot, face serious backlash and condemnation, and his employment could be on the line. The very small number of employees with more conservative and religious views at the school are not being allowed to "exercise" their right to their beliefs. It seems it's only fine to believe as they do if they keep their mouths shut. (To be clear, we actually really love where we live and my husband loves his job. And chances are if he shares his beliefs from time to time on campus, he probably won't be fired. It has just been tricky to navigate things in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling and he often feels that he has to walk on eggshells to not say or do something that would provoke controversy. And that makes him feel like he can't say anything.)

Our Church leaders also have power in their words.

President Russell M. Nelson, the president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, proclaimed in a 2014 BYU commencement address, "God is the Father of all men and women. They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It wasn't created by think tanks or by popular vote or by oft quoted bloggers or by pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God." He taught that we must step up boldly but compassionately as full disciples of Christ in defending marriage as God defined it, as between one man and one woman.

I remember as a newlywed in 1995 when the family proclamation was first read by President Gordon B. Hinckley in a women's session of conference. I loved it. I ascribed to the statements it contained. But I had no idea then how prophetic it would prove and how much more relevant it would be 20 years later when the Supreme Court made its ruling mandating same-sex marriage as a right and a law in all 50 states.

Sister Bonnie L. Oscarson, past Young Women General President also issued a call for us to be defenders of marriage and family. She said "we need to boldly defend the Lord’s revealed doctrines describing marriage, families, the divine roles of men and women, and the importance of homes as sacred places—even when the world is shouting in our ears that these principles are outdated, limiting, or no longer relevant."

We face an uphill battle. It will not be easy to remain steadfast in the face of such immense opposition to our religious beliefs, but we have to be firm and we have to keep trying. It won't be easy to speak up over the volume of the world, but we have to make our voices heard. Our government, the media, and same-sex marriage supporters' words have power.

But so do ours.

References

Nelson, Russell M. (2014, Aug. 14). Disciples of Jesus Christ-Defenders of Marriage. Brigham Young University Commencement. 

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Supreme Court of the  United States.https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf 

Oscarson Bonnie, L. ("Defenders of the Family Proclamation", Ensign, May 2015).  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/defenders-of-the-family-proclamation?lang=eng