A Difficult Issue (Lesson 3)

I have some family members whom I love dearly who are gay. My heart goes out to anyone who has this cross to bear, so my thoughts on the ruling of the Supreme Court regarding same-sex marriage have nothing to do with my feelings towards gay people. As I read through the majority reasoning I thought it made a lot of sense.  I took a page and a half of notes. I was pulled into the argument that all persons have the right to claim their 14th amendment rights. I was thinking that even though morally I don't agree with same-sex marriage, I couldn't argue with the legal side of things. But as I read through the arguments of the Dissenters I realized I had fallen to the "cunning plan of the evil one" that they that are "learned they think they are wise and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves. . . to be learned is good if they hearken unto the counsels of God." (2 Nephi 9: 28,29)

I had forgotten (as had the majority), that the Supreme Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea or not is no concern to the court. Under the constitution, judges have the right to say what the law is, not what it should be, "neither force, nor will, but merely judgment." Laws regarding relationships are a state matter and each state has the right to make this decision on their own. This ruling invalidated the laws of more than half the states. Whether people agree with same-sex or not is irrelevant, this should never have been decided by five judges whose responsibility is to interpret the law, not create it. This was very concerning to me. If five judges can make this ruling what will be next? Can five people (who are not even close to a cross-section of Americans), make any law they want simply because it is their opinion? 

Justice Roberts ended his remarks with this powerful comment, "If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it."

It's also a concern because although the majority says that those who disagree with same-sex marriage are still free to "advocate and teach" their beliefs, there is no protection for them to "act" on their beliefs. Many private schools and adoption agencies will lose their tax-free status if they choose to practice their religious beliefs (not housing same-sex couples, not adopting to same-sex couples). Our constitution is to protect our freedom of religion but this ruling is at odds with that freedom.

I believe that every same-sex couple should have the same benefits as far as medical rights, housing, and more. I do not think of gay people as anything less, on the contrary, I think they are so much more than just their sexual orientation. But I also believe in the traditional definition of marriage. I believe marriage was ordained of God with the primary purpose to procreate and create an organization in which to raise children. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed, “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.”

I hope I can follow Pres. Nelson's direction to, "not be afraid to speak up kindly, but firmly about our belief in traditional marriage."