There you have it. I think their decision is awful, horrible, unconstitutional, and immoral. Why? I know, I have heard the rhetoric out there. "We should be free to marry who we want to", "Marriage equality under the law," "Civil rights for all," one person's sign even read "Our Constitution is a shield against Bible based oppression."
This is so sad to me. Let me see if I can articulate this. I understand other people have different opinions than me and different life styles. I honor their ability to choose. Inherent in that philosophy is that there will be varying and different opinions across the country, around the globe, even. I defend their right to choose, which means I also defend my right to choose, and which means, I have a right to have my voice heard, as well. I shouldn't have to be silent or agree with you.
Marriage has always been a religious ordinance, only recently sanctioned by the government, not the other way around. Marriages, in history have been performed by clergy, various religious officers given the authority by the church to bind their patrons in holy matrimony. It was not government sponsored, nor sanctioned. At some point, the government began to recognize marriages (OK, at this point, I did a little research so as not to lead you all astray). As for what I have been able to surmise, from the internet mind you (so we can all be assured it is correct---wink, blah!) marriage licenses didn't begin to be regularly established and required until 1923 with the Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licenses Act. Before then, marriage licenses were required only by those people who wanted to be married contrary to their states laws, for instance, those married in an interracial relationship. Other than those instances, marriage licenses were not required, i.e. marriage was not regulated by the government, federal or state.
Let's go back even farther.
In the Bible dictionary under Marriage, we read:
Among the Israelites, marriage was usually preceded by a formal act of betrothal, such a contract, when once entered on, being regarded as absolutely binding. On the marriage day, the bride was escorted to her husband’s home by a procession consisting of her own companions and the “friends of the bridegroom,” or “children of the bride-chamber,” some carrying torches and others myrtle branches and chaplets of flowers. When she reached the house, words such as “Take her according to the law of Moses and of Israel” were spoken, the pair were crowned with garlands, and a marriage deed was signed. After the prescribed washing of hands and benediction, the marriage supper was held. For a year after marriage a man was released from all military service. The gospel law of marriage is partially given in Matt. 19:4–9; Mark 10:2–12; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7. Its meaning, as symbolizing the union between Christ and the Church, is explained in Eph. 5:22–32.
It does say they signed a marriage deed, but there is no indication it was regulated by any government. It is recognized as a binding contract. The question then is binding to whom? Looking closer at the wording spoken when the bride arrived, it appears to be according to the Law of Moses and Israel. I am pretty sure that law giver was not any man-made government.
And if we want to go back even further, we can just look at Genesis 2: 24 & 25:
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Adam and Eve were married, by God, because, well, He was the only other one around. I think that makes it His law.
Now, I recognize with all of these varied opinions, that not everyone will agree with me or even the sources I have used to validate my position. That is fine. But I want you to understand why it is so significant to me and why I cannot just throw it out because the Supreme Court said so. In my mind, in my heart, in my place of core beliefs, this 'law,' 'contract,' 'obligation,' it comes from God. He sets the parameters, not me, not you, and certainly not the Supreme Court.
I also understand that the Supreme Court interprets the laws of the land where I live. I will uphold their decision, as theirs and now as the law of the land to which I live. I believe in sustaining and upholding those laws. But I also believe in my right to disagree with them and to fight to change them, if I feel they are not good for our society.
And you guessed it, I do not believe this law is good for our society. I think it is harmful, even to the people who are happy about it. How you ask? Well, here is my biggest beef with it.
I believe marriage was instituted by God for the protection of families and specifically children. I believe what the prophets have said:
"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...."
I believe children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony. It is their right. Each and every child is entitled to have a mother and a father, two parents of differing genders, married, and honoring that contract they made with each other and with God. Homosexual couples, regardless of how committed they are to each other, cannot under any circumstances provide each and every child in their home with a mother and a father. They are violating the rights of those children, the voiceless, non-voting population of our society. They are doing so to fulfill their own selfish purposes, while taking away the rights of the innocent, and trying to tell them it is OK for them to do that and then perpetuate that philosophy down through the generations. That is not OK with me. I will stand as a voice for the innocent, for the children. They deserve and are entitled to two parents of differing gender who are married and committed to those children because each of them participated in bringing that child to earth.
I have enough experience to know that not every child will experience the ideal. I know there are some heterosexual couples who should never be parents. I am not telling you that they are perfect, and yes, there are some very loving and kind homosexual people and couples. However, that doesn't change the fact that no matter how loving and perfect they otherwise are, they cannot ensure the rights of those children are not violated.
I am sure my position is not going to be popular. So be it. I am obviously not here to win a popularity contest. (Have you not read that I have birthed nine children?--Popularity is not on the radar.) But I am here to tell you what I believe and why I believe it. And it is a deep part of me, one that cannot just be changed because someone on the Bench said so. Sorry. There wouldn't be very much to my character if I was willing to change my position just because the winds of popular opinion did (---just ask some of the politicians, they probably aren't sleeping very well at night---).
But you watch. Those who have now won the 'right' to marry, pretty soon they will be more than happy to silence people like me and stomp on the rights of those who do not agree with them. They have already shown they are willing to walk on the rights of the children. Why wouldn't you or I be next?
And if you are curious, here is what the Brethren have said on the subject:
SALT LAKE CITY —The Church issued the following statement Friday:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."
And I agree.