Defining Marriage...

Rebecca V informed me of this situation a couple nights ago. In our discussion and in further thinking about it now is the time to fight. Now is the time when it matters most. For some reason I had more discussions in the last week about prop 8/the issue of defining marriage than even the fact that Barack Obama was elected president.



Watch the video above - this is outside of the LDS Temple in Los Angeles. About 1,000 gay, lesbian, and other Californians against proposition 8 gathered at the temple to protest the LDS church because of their support of the prop. As a result - the LDS Temples in CA were evacuated. Normally the church does not take a stand on political issues, but in this case they supported the prop and asked members in CA to volunteer and donate to the cause. Some reports have LDS donations accounting for 40 - 50% of all of the almost 50 million raised in support of the prop. Because the LDS church is such a large, united entity - they protested. There were obviously others who volunteered and took a stand on the issue, but we were largely united and were effective in our efforts.

Thousands more joined in a protest in Salt Lake outside of Temple Square this week as well. The former head of the Salt Lake City Diocese also came to the defense of the LDS Church and their involvement in the ballot measure. To say this is a heated issue is beyond an understatement. The problem is that 1 - the people of California have now voted twice in support of defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The second time was a majority of Californians to change the state Constitution. I understand some people's arguments that it should take more than a basic majority to change the state Constitution, but according to CA state law this is more than adequate. Many other states have passed state constitutional amendments, including Florida and Arizona on Tuesday. My dad got involved a little bit in Arizona, which is exciting to see. He also talks about his experiences in Denmark in the early 1970s in seeing how backwards a country can be in terms of dealing with social issues and the family when they negate the family altogether. Read it - it's good.

With a change to the CA state Constitution - I am waiting for this issue to boil up to the top of our judicial system. Many states have passed amendments and yet this is by no means a battle that is over. Many more states have yet to define the issue and I wouldn't be surprised to see a ruling from the Supreme Court on the issue in the next decade.

In discussions with other friends I have discussed the concept of defining marriage or even government involvement in social issues as a part of the conservative movement. There are obviously two definitions of conservative here - one in which conservative means small government and leans more libertarian the other means the opposite of progressive. The first would obviously apply to fiscal policy and most everything, but for some reason some conservatives in the country don't apply the first meaning to social policy. I am included in this group to some extent. Some things about the past weren't all bad. We have a Constitution that has stood for more than 200 years and protects the rights of the people. We have been grouped into families for centuries to take care of our needs and to learn our purpose for being on this Earth. These are things that go beyond California, beyond countries and civilizations, and go beyond all human life. The Family: A Proclamation to the World says it best:

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.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

The Proclamation on the Family stands clearly on the side of the family. We should also stand to support the familial unit and to support the institution of marriage to protect this unit for our future generations. I understand the argument of not wanting to make this a government issue or to make this a religious issue, but that is a dangerous slope to slide down. Personally, I am not willing to allow the opinions of a few change the traditions of thousands of years. I will not impose my beliefs on them, but that does not mean I will give up the concept of marriage to be redefined as the passing wind dictates. I am taking a stand to fight the tyranny of a minority opinion.

A lot of other people have posted on blogs, on their facebook and myspace pages, and via e-mail in the last month. I'm so glad you have shared your opinion and become energized about a political issue. I changed my picture and added a link on my blog, but largely tried to keep the political discussion to a minimum because of whatever the future consequences to spouting my opinions online would bring. I'm still hesitant, but in this case I know my opinion won't change so I'm posting anyways.

First, I am in favor of our right to protest and speak out for or against our opinions and the fact that we can change and define our government. I love that it is an ever-changing organism, but that does have it's consequences.

Second, I am in favor of families. I love my family and if every kid in the world could have a family as good as mine I think we'd all be better off. The realist inside of me questions the plausibility of such a possibility, but if it were possible - I would support it.

Third, I am a card carrying member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I plan to never change that. I know it to be true and I sustain President Thomas S. Monson as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator on Earth today.

Fourth, I am a small government conservative because I believe in the abilities and the responsibility of the people. We as citizens and as human beings have a right and a responsibility to take care of those around us - not the government.

I'm sure most, if not all, of those opinions will become taboo or unpopular in the coming years, but that doesn't mean I will change my mind on any or all of them. I look forward to being a part of the fight and for finding out how I will stay involved in the coming years. Most people who have taken a stand will be involved in some way, but somehow deep down I feel like I will be more than directly involved in the fight. I work in politics - this isn't so far fetched.

This fight is not going to get easier - in fact - I guarantee it will get harder. I look forward to fighting for something that matters again and to fight for something with eternal consequences. These are the fights that are worth fighting.