Proposition 8

California has already voted to ban same-sex marriage in 2000. Earlier this year the state supreme court ruled the law unconstitutional by only a 4-3 majority. This new proposition would rewrite the state constitution and prohibit the justices from negating the people’s voice. According to article 4 (full faith and credit) of the U.S. Constitution the marriages initiated on California would then have to be recognized by all other states. Interestingly Alma says to the people of Amonihah: “And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges.” Is it their right to override the voice of the people?
Can morality can be justly legislated. Absolutely, all legislation is morality. Laws against murder, child abuse, rape and theft (even speed limits) are all moral issues meant to restrain evil and protect the innocent. Those who claim to be opposed to moral legislation are deluded. To what source can they base their own opposition to your desire to pass such legislation other than an objective standard outside themselves? So, they are morally opposed to legislating morality? That is circular and erroneous logic. Furthermore, we say we accept gay marriage under the guise of tolerance while enjoying the benefits and reality of a social structure built around traditional marriage. It reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said. “I’ve noticed that all those in favor of abortion are already born.” Can we with certainty predict the consequences good or bad of the steady sterilization of our founding tradition and culture?
Don’t make the mistake of being afraid to advocate “your” morals. You didn’t make them up. If they are true then they are true for everyone. These laws are universal. I didn’t make stealing or murder wrong. This is not a subjective feeling but an objective fact. Others can argue that it’s my interpretation, true, but that doesn’t mean I’m wrong. We are commanded to judge righteously, and I can judge that Gordon B. Hinckley lived more righteously than Adolf Hitler. People can say I’m wrong, but if I’m right, then it applies to everyone, not just me.
Perhaps what worries me the most is the divisive effect this has had on church members. My sister lives in California and it has become a rhetorical battle among certain circles. President Kimball made it clear that the parable of the 10 virgins pertains entirely to church members, and it’s not as simple as a yes or no on prop 8. Those who would spread mean or hateful lies about homosexuals in order to pass such a bill are no better than those who would vote no out of a misguided defense of individual personal rights.
Ok. Here’s the skinny on what I think I think. I both agree and disagree with Alister. If I could vote Yes on proposition 8 I would. The same thing came up in Alaska years ago and I was only 17. I can’t condone any action that would allow moral ambiguity to creep into the most sacred institution God has ever implemented on earth. Perhaps there is even more to this like a test to see where we are. “And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come… Mos. 29:27. However, I believe that while it protects marriage, it may open the door for the creation of civil unions something like what has been done in Massachusetts. This I could possibly support. It would grant civil rights while not violating what is a religious institution in theory.
As to the church’s support, sometimes you just have to pick your battles as they come. Cohabitation and meaningless marriages (i.e. Vegas and those of convenience) are no less sinister, but has anyone ever seen a bill to address the issue? Long winded, I apologize, but this one is personal to me. Someone I have known and loved my whole life is gay, and we both agree and disagree on much of this.