Oh, tis the season!

Well, election season is upon us.  I guess it has been for a while.  Only, what, something like 18 or 20 days left til the big day?  I have been paying attention to all races and issues, but one in particular has been in the forefront for me--us--here in California.  Several years ago, the voters of California passed what was known Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.  This year, the court basically ignored that 61% majority and declared homosexual marriage legal in California.  This year, Proposition 8 is on the ballot as a constitutional amendment (meaning it needs a super majority to pass) stating that in the State of California, only marriage between a man and a woman shall be recognized as legal and valid.  The First Presidency (the executive governing body of our Church) has asked members to contribute time, money and energy to getting this Proposition passed, not to mention their votes.

I have, to this point, not delved into the issue publicly, because I know it is one that tends to stir a lot of strong emotions in people and the last thing the world (or internet) needs is more rancor.  Doug posted a blog yesterday about his response to a letter writer in one of the local papers.  I thought it was a well-thought and well said response.  You can read it here.  There has been much made of this as a "civil rights" issue.  I can see why people would be prone to seeing it that way, particularly if they haven't don't their research.  But the fact of the matter is that, in California, same sex domestic partnerships are awarded all the same personal benefits of the state as married couples:  rights of inheritance, hospital visits, health insurance coverage (with most companies), even adoption from public as well as private, secular adoption agencies, etc. 

The big argument I keep hearing is why we could possibly be opposed to letting people live their lives the way that they want to--what harm is it doing the rest of us?  This is why I do not have any problems with the benefits awarded by the state to same sex domestic partnerships or civil unions.  It allows people who view the morals of sexuality and relationships differently than I do to live as they choose without interfering with my life or my family.  When you start to change the definition of traditional marriage, though, then it does affect my family.  In the only other state where the definition of "marriage" includes gay couples, Massachusetts, second graders are taught that boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls and that that's a good thing.  The courts have told parents there that they have no legal right to object to this lesson or have their children removed from the classroom while it is taught.   No matter what you think about homosexuality, surely you must agree that it is a fundamental right of parents, not a privilege, to decide what their children will be taught?   So, take them out of public school if you don't like what's being taught, people say.  In California, my friends, the legal decree has already come--parents do not have a Constitutional right to homeschool their own children.  There have been no steps taken to take away that ability thus far, but who's to say what will happen in the future if that is the precedent that has been set?

Also in Massachusetts, private adoption agencies were told that they had to place children with gay married couples as a matter of equality, regardless of what the tenets of their faith said about homosexuality.  As a result, Catholic Charities (and several other religious adoption agencies whose size is less noticeable) have pulled out of the state, placing no children there at all.  If this were to happen in California, the results for the LDS church, which both receives and places A LOT of babies and children in the state of California, would be sad indeed.  If our clergy refused to perform homosexual marriages or refused to allow them to be performed in facilities owned by us, we could lose our tax exempt status, forcing the Church to pay a great deal of money in taxes, money that would otherwise be used to feed the poor and give humanitarian aid, as well as build more facilities to serve the needs of our members.

The "wall of separation between Church and state" that liberals are so fond of invoking exists, in the context it was written (which, by the way is not in the Constitution), as a protection of the free exercise of religion.  I have every right, both Constitutionally and God-given, to teach my children what I choose to be necessary and appropriate and to object to others teaching lessons that contradict that.  My faith has every right, if the Constitution is interpreted correctly, to deny marriage within its own walls to those it believes to be outside God's order of marriage, believing that marriage is created and solemnized by God, not the state.  I have no problem with the state granting the state-created benefits of state-authorized partnership to homosexual couples--I have no problem with the state doing this with common law marriages between heterosexual couples.   But it is a huge problem when the state starts telling me that the government can deem what is appropriate for my faith to declare.

Now, having said all this, I realize that there is a better than decent chance that Prop 8 may in fact fail.  If it does, what will this mean for my family?  Well, we may well be leaving the state sooner rather than later, so cie lest vie. But, ultimately, what it has reminded me is that I need to be diligent in teaching my children well--instructing them with accuracy and love, that they need not be "blown about by  every wind of doctrine."  This is really what I had intended to write about, but before I got around to writing it, I actually came across it on another blog.  If you want a few good words about moving forward with hope and protecting your children with the armor of God, read here.