IntroductionThe California Supreme Court recently ruled that same-sex marriage was
legal in California. Recognizing the importance of marriage to society,
the Church accepted an invitation to participate in ProtectMarriage, 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. (Information about the coalition can
be found at www.protectmarriage.com).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 Latter-day Saints' church services in
California, asked that Church members "do all [they] can to support the
proposed constitutional amendment."Members of the
Church in Arizona and Florida will also be voting on constitutional
amendments regarding marriage in their states, where coalitions similar
to California's are now being formed.
The focus of
the Church's involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its
consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established
in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing
and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not
infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of
churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion
free from government interference.The Church has
a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations
are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of
matrimony. The Churchs opposition to same-sex marriage neither
constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility towards homosexual men
and women. Protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not
affect Church members' Christian obligations of love, kindness and
humanity toward all people.As Church
members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting
marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue
with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility.Intending to
reduce misunderstanding and ill will, the Church has produced the
following document, "The Divine Institution of Marriage," and provided
the accompanying links to other materials, to explain its reasons for
defending marriage between a man and a woman as an issue of moral
imperative.The Divine Institution of MarriageMarriage is sacred, ordained of God from before the foundation of the
world. After creating Adam and Eve, the Lord God pronounced them
husband and wife, of which Adam said, "Therefore shall a man leave his
father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall
be one flesh."[1] Jesus Christ cited Adam's declaration when he affirmed the divine
origins of the marriage covenant: "Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this
cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his
wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more
twain, but one flesh."[2]In 1995, "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" declared the following unchanging truths regarding marriage:We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that
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 ... 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.The
Proclamation also teaches, "Gender is an essential characteristic of
individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." The
account in Genesis of Adam and Eve being created and placed on earth
emphasizes the creation of two distinct genders: "So God created man in
his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female
created he them."[3]Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation.
The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of
procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural
biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation —
to create life and bring God's spirit children into the world — is
sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of
the family and thereby weakens the social fabric.[4]
Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting
to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that
sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
affirms, "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of
society."[5]Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify
their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage
and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them
to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent
marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized
and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social
stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether
marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony,
married couples in almost every culture have been granted special
privileges aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and
promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a
wife do not receive these privileges to elevate them above any other
two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order
to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of
marriage and family.
It is true that
some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or
because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is
nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities
of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders.
Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for
defining new forms of marriage.High rates of
divorce and out-of-wedlock births have resulted in an exceptionally
large number of single parents in American society. Many of these
single parents have raised exemplary children; nevertheless, extensive
studies have shown that in general a husband and wife united in a
loving, committed marriage provide the optimal environment for children
to be protected, nurtured, and raised.[6]
This is not only because of the substantial personal resources that two
parents can bring to bear on raising a child, but because of the
differing strengths that a father and a mother, by virtue of their
gender, bring to the task. As the prominent sociologist David Popenoe
has said: The burden of social science evidence supports the idea that gender
differentiated parenting is important for human development and that
the contribution of fathers to childrearing is unique and irreplaceable.[7]Popenoe explained that:... The complementarity of male and female parenting styles is
striking and of enormous importance to a child's overall development.
It is sometimes said that fathers express more concern for the child's
longer-term development, while mothers focus on the child's immediate
well-being (which, of course, in its own way has everything to do with
a child's long-term well-being). What is clear is that children have
dual needs that must be met: one for independence and the other for
relatedness, one for challenge and the other for support.[8]Social historian David Blankenhorn makes a similar argument in his book Fatherless America.[9] In an ideal society, every child would be raised by both a father and a mother.Challenges to Marriage and FamilyOur modern era has seen traditional marriage and family — defined as a
husband and wife with children in an intact marriage — come
increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity
has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of
wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006).[10]
Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United
States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since
1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents.[11]
At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and
pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims.
Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant,
or transient, thus undermining God's purpose in creating both men and
women.In recent years
in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to
promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This
is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society
tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between
adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement
and recognition.Court decisions
in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex
marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and
family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in
negative consequences for both adults and children.In November
2008, California voters will decide whether to amend their state
constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has joined in a broad
coalition of other denominations, organizations, and individuals to
encourage voter approval of this amendment.The people of
the United States — acting either directly or through their elected
representatives — have recognized the crucial role that traditional
marriage has played and must continue to play in American society if
children and families are to be protected and moral values propagated.Forty-four
states have passed legislation making clear that marriage is between a
man and a woman. More than half of those states, twenty-seven in all,
have done so by constitutional amendments like the ones pending in
California, Arizona, and Florida.[12]In contrast, those who would impose same-sex marriage on American
society have chosen a different course. Advocates have taken their case
to the state courts, asking judges to remake the institution of
marriage that society has accepted and depended upon for millennia.
Yet, even in this context, a broad majority of courts — six out of
eight state supreme courts — have upheld traditional marriage laws.
Only two, Massachusetts and now California, have gone in the other
direction, and then, only by the slimmest of margins — 4 to 3 in both
cases.In sum, there
is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. As the
people of California themselves recognized when they voted on this
issue just eight years ago, traditional marriage is essential to
society as a whole, and especially to its children. Because this
question strikes at the very heart of the family, because it is one of
the great moral issues of our time, and because it has the potential
for great impact upon the family, the Church is speaking out on this
issue, and asking members to get involved.Tolerance, Same-Sex Marriage and Religious FreedomThose who favor homosexual marriage contend that "tolerance" demands
that they be given the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. But
this appeal for "tolerance" advocates a very different meaning and
outcome than that word has meant throughout most of American history
and a different meaning than is found in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
The Savior taught a much higher concept, that of love. "Love thy
neighbor," He admonished.[13]
Jesus loved the sinner even while decrying the sin, as evidenced in the
case of the woman taken in adultery: treating her kindly, but exhorting
her to "sin no more."[14] Tolerance as a gospel principle means love and forgiveness of one another, not "tolerating" transgression.In today's secular world, the idea of tolerance has come to mean
something entirely different. Instead of love, it has come to mean condone — acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship. Jesus
taught that we love and care for one another without condoning
transgression. But today's politically palatable definition insists
that unless one accepts the sin he does not tolerate the sinner.As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained,Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating
toward one another's differences. But tolerance does not require
abandoning one's standards or one's opinions on political or public
policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a
command to insulate it from examination.[15]
The Church does not condone abusive treatment of others and encourages
its members to treat all people with respect. However, speaking out
against practices with which the Church disagrees on moral grounds —
including same-sex marriage — does not constitute abuse or the
frequently misused term "hate speech." We can express genuine love and
friendship for the homosexual family member or friend without accepting
the practice of homosexuality or any re-definition of marriage.Legalizing
same-sex marriage will affect a wide spectrum of government activities
and policies. Once a state government declares that same-sex unions are
a civil right, those governments almost certainly will enforce a wide
variety of other policies intended to ensure that there is no
discrimination against same-sex couples. This may well place "church
and state on a collision course."[16]The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions
with the rights of free speech and of action based on religious
beliefs. For example, advocates and government officials in certain
states already are challenging the long-held right of religious
adoption agencies to follow their religious beliefs and only place
children in homes with both a mother and a father. As a result,
Catholic Charities in Boston has stopped offering adoption
services.Other advocates
of same-sex marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be
withdrawn from any religious organization that does not embrace
same-sex unions.[17]
Public accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an
attempt to force religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations
or receptions in religious facilities that are otherwise open to the
public. Accrediting organizations in some instances are asserting
pressure on religious schools and universities to provide married
housing for same-sex couples. Student religious organizations are being
told by some universities that they may lose their campus recognition
and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club membership.[18]Many of these examples have already become the legal reality in several
nations of the European Union, and the European Parliament has
recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting the rights of
same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU.[19]
Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right, there will
be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some important
areas, religious freedom may be diminished.How Would Same-Sex Marriage Affect Society?Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal
implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common
argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is
essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional
heterosexual marriage in any way. "It wont affect you, so why should
you care?" is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing
single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing
marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time,
including the rising generation and future generations. The experience
of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex
marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of
marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages
and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the
traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for
society.
Aside from the
very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the sacred nature
of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical
implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep
concern to parents and society as a whole. These are critical to
understanding the seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex
marriage.When a man and
a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success
in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the
single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time
and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is
fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male
and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of
children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to
provide. Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified
simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its
partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal
protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue
fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two
individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never
form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.It is true that
some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children — through
prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where
this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the
all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is
best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage
provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It
increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender
identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation.
By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode
the social identity, gender development, and moral character of
children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical
experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for
children?As just one
example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment
of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory
changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions
are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public
schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary
school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a
relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations
are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in
secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with
heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes
between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of
parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.Finally,
throughout history the family has served as an essential bulwark of
individual liberty. The walls of a home provide a defense against
detrimental social influences and the sometimes overreaching powers of
government. In the absence of abuse or neglect, government does not
have the right to intervene in the rearing and moral education of
children in the home. Strong families are thus vital for political
freedom. But when governments presume to redefine the nature of
marriage, issuing regulations to ensure public acceptance of
non-traditional unions, they have moved a step closer to intervening in
the sacred sphere of domestic life. The consequences of crossing this
line are many and unpredictable, but likely would include an increase
in the power and reach of the state toward whatever ends it seeks to
pursue.The Sanctity of MarriageStrong, stable families, headed by a father and mother, are the anchor
of civilized society. When marriage is undermined by gender confusion
and by distortions of its God-given meaning, the rising generation of
children and youth will find it increasingly difficult to develop their
natural identity as a man or a woman. Some will find it more difficult
to engage in wholesome courtships, form stable marriages, and raise yet
another generation imbued with moral strength and purpose.The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has chosen to become involved, along
with many other churches, organizations, and individuals, in defending
the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman because it is a
compelling moral issue of profound importance to our religion and to
the future of our society.The final line
in the Proclamation on the Family is an admonition to the world from
the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve: "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." This is the course charted by Church
leaders, and it is the only course of safety for the Church and for the
nation.
[1] Genesis 2:24. [2] Matthew 19:4-6.
[3] Genesis 1:27.
[4] M. Russell Ballard, What Matters Most is What Lasts Longest, Ensign, November 2005, p. 41.
[5] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, General
Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), 10 December 1948.
[6] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (New York: Basic Books, 1995); Barbara Schneider, Allison Atteberry, and Ann Owens, Family Matters: Family Structure and Child Outcomes
(Birmingham AL: Alabama Policy Institute: June 2005); David Popenoe,
Life Without Father (New York: Martin Kessler Books, 1996); David
Popenoe and Barbara Defoe Whitehead, The State of Our Unions 2007: The Social Health of Marriage in America
(Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers University): The National Marriage Project,
July 2007 ) pp. 21-25; and Maggie Gallagher and Joshua K. Baker, Do
Moms and Dads Matter? Evidence from the Social Sciences on Family
Structure and the Best Interests of the Child, Margins Law Journal 4:161 (2004).
[7] David Popenoe, Life Without Father (New York: The Free Press, 1996) p. 146.
[8] Ibid., p. 145. See also Spencer W. Kimball, The Role of Righteous Women, Ensign, November 1979, pp. 102-104.
[9] David Blankenhorn, Fatherless America, pp. 219-220.
[10] Stephanie J. Ventura and Christine A. Bachrach, Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-99, National Vital Statistics Reports
48:16 (18 October 2000); and Brady E. Hamilton, Joyce A. Martin, and
Stephanie J. Ventura, Births: Preliminary Data for 2006, National Vital Statistics Reports 56:7 (5 December 2007).
[11] Alan Guttmacher Institute, Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States, In Brief, July 2008.
[12]
Christine Vestal, California Gay Marriage Ruling Sparks New Debate,
stateline.org, 16 May 2008, updated 12 June 2008. Stateline.org is
funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.
[13] Matt. 19:19.
[14] John 8:11.
[15] Elder Dallin H. Oaks, Weightier Matters, BYU Devotional speech, 9 February 1999.
[16] Maggie Gallagher, Banned in Boston: The Coming Conflict Between Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty, The Weekly Standard, 15 May 2006.
[17]
Jonathan Turley, An Unholy Union: Same-Sex Marriage and the Use of
Governmental Programs to Penalize Religious Groups with Unpopular
Practices, in Douglas Laycock, Jr., et al., eds., Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2008, forthcoming).
[18]
Marc D. Stern, Gay Marriage and the Churches, paper delivered at the
Scholars Conference on Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty,
sponsored by the The Beckett Fund, 4 May 2006.
[19] European Parliament Resolution on homophobia in Europe, adopted 18 January 2006.
The commentary was posted on newsroom.lds.org, and can be viewed here.