Reaction to Proposition 8

Since the passage of Proposition 8 in California, there has been a strong reaction from its opponents involving protests, vandalism, and in some cases, violence. As has been well-documented by the Media, a number of these protests have been staged at Latter-day Saint places of worship and several groups of protesters have voiced sentiments about Latter-day Saints, condemning their support for Proposition 8 as hate speech. Earlier this week, one example of this type of was brought to our doorstep when an Olympia-based group, Bash Back!, trashed an Olympia LDS Church, then issued a statement saying, "Let this be a warning to the Mormon church: Dissolve completely or be destroyed." (http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/bash-back-olympia-trashes-mormon-church/)

As a member of the LDS Church, and U.S. citizen, I am deeply disturbed that LDS Church is being singled out for speaking up as part of its democratic right in a free election. Colleen and I recognize that there are bound to be strong differences of opinion on an issue that is so difficult and personal. However, we also agree, and feel that violence, vandalism, and intimidation of people have no place in civil discourse, even when it comes to controversial issues. People of faith, like all other people, should have a democratic right to express their views in the public square without fear.

Even the Anti-Defamation League, whom opposed the measure, has condemned these actions, saying in a statement released this week:

"Although we strongly opposed Proposition 8, its passage does not justify the defacement and destruction of property. We urge Californians to channel their frustration and disappointment in productive and responsible ways to work towards full equality for all Americans. To place anyone in fear of threat to their houses of worship or their personal security because they have expressed deeply held religious views is contrary to everything this nation represents. Our Constitution's First Amendment protects freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of religion for all of us."

It's true that like most Latter-day Saints and other people of faith, we supported Proposition 8 and other measures voted on throughout the country this month intended to preserve traditional marriage. In the spirit of civil discourse and mutual understanding, I thought it would be helpful to provide some context for Colleen's and my support by sharing some commentary by LDS Church leadership that reflects our firm beliefs regarding the definition of marriage specific to this issue:

"...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. 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."

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 benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits 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...

...Those 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. 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." 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.

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..."

"...Allegations of bigotry or persecution made against the Church were and are simply wrong. The Church's opposition to same-sex marriage neither constitutes nor condones any kind of hostility toward gays and lesbians. Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples 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 traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.

Some, however, have mistakenly asserted that churches should not ever be involved in politics when moral issues are involved. In fact, churches and religious organizations are well within their constitutional rights to speak out and be engaged in the many moral and ethical problems facing society. While the Church does not endorse candidates or platforms, it does reserve the right to speak out on important issues..."
This can be found in it's full text at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/the-divine-institution-of-marriage.

Colleen's and my support for this issue, as well as that of the LDS Church, is specifically related to same-sex marriage and its consequences. We, nor the Church 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 to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

We honor and hold sacred the freedoms that we enjoy in this country to express and exercise our beliefs, and hope and pray that our nation's people will find ways to peaceful resolution to this, and other issues.