The problem I have with now getting in a huff about the institution of marriage is that we’ve already defiled it. Abuse, neglect, divorce, and much more is already rampant and changing the definition on a secular level is hardly a degradation anymore. I believe that any divine punishment will come much swifter and much harsher for that.

The thing is, governmental marriages are largely meaningless except to the government itself. Its reasons for even being involved are sometimes muddied and unclear. Yes, it does provide legal means to enforce deadbeats to uphold their end of the bargain, but there are so many exceptions and other such contradictions, especially in tax code, that the biggest thing a marriage recognized by the government amounts to is a tax break. That’s hardly a noble cause for the institution of marriage.

Another thing to consider is what passing an amendment would mean. For starters, it’s going to give a lot of people another rationalization to hate homosexuals and persecute them. More groups like the church that’s been protesting at military funerals claiming military deaths are God’s punishment for accepting “them” will crop up. There were similar laws banning inter-racial marriage prior to the civil rights movements, also based on religious beliefs that it wasn’t natural or against God’s will, and those laws perpetuated that friction for quite some time.

Additionally, it has been very clear that public support has been waning on the amendment. If an amendment passes, it will be repealed in a matter of years. This does not help our vision on the rule of law and the supremacy of the Constitution if it becomes subject to the whim of public opinion on something like marriage, with us slapping an amendment to it and then ripping it off when it no longer holds our fancy. It will turn out just like prohibition did, only I’d be surprised if it lasted as long.

I’m not making my arguments on a seperation of chuch and state position, but on a religious freedom basis. Even the most unpopular groups in society deserve to have their voice heard and requests considered. Were something like homosexual marriage to infringe on another’s right to marriage or anything like that, making laws with respect to it would be an easy case. I don’t understand why a push for protecting heterosexual marriage because it’s the only union that can produce children, and thus a future for the country is being pursued. Instead, the argument has largely been one of personal religious beliefs.

While something needs to be done to help marriage, I don’t think this is the best route. This avenue alienates a large part of the population (homosexuals and individuals who support them) which will almost inevitably lead to a backlash that will erode marriage worse than simply allowing it would. At this point I think we have the opportunity to talk it out and come to better understand homosexuality and the problem in general. The reason I suggested civil unions is that it’s a way to give the tax breaks and visitation and representation benefits that a marriage license gives (i.e. in the event of hospitalization) and make some concessions there while still preserving traditional marriage as a heterosexual union. It provides an alternative, which I think is especially important because this issue isn’t going to just go away, and an amendment to the Constitution won’t change that.

Is it ironic that this amendment is being voted on on 6/6/06? (Mostly joking. I just finished reading a news article on that date. :D)

That’s clear. And while I still don’t understand all the ramifications of it, I do know that if the First Presidency wants us to support it (and has sent out an urgent letter expressing their position, which as we know rarely occurs), God wants us to fight for it. And that means that legislating it is important. Really important.

As for civil unions being strengthened to make them like marriages, isn’t that opening up a whole big can of worms? I admittedly don’t understand much about it, but it seems to me that it’s not just the word “marriage” that we need to protect — it’s the institution of marriage.

As for the letter read, I’m really not convinced that it says we should support the amendment itself. The First Presidency says “We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate”. The biggest reservation I have is that our country’s government is based on the idea it can be no respecter of beliefs, save when they directly infringe on another person. While I am personally against homosexual marriage, legally my preference has no basis.

I would rather see civil unions strengthened a bit to make them like marriages and allow homosexual unions through that. We can reserve the term marriage for heterosexual unions that way, perhaps. I explored my thoughts on the subject in Homosexuality and Modernism and then further in the entry after that (Modernism and Faith). I personally am still conflicted about what should happen.

We are informed that the United States Senate will on June 6, 2006, vote on an amendment to the Federal constitution designed to protect the traditional institution of marriage.

We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship.

In 1995 we issued a Proclamation to the World on this matter, and have repeatedly reaffirmed that position.

In that proclamation we said: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.”

We urge our members to express themselves on this urgent matter to their elected representatives in the Senate.

And here’s a press release from the Church, issued on the 26th:

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has sent a letter to its congregational leaders throughout the United States, urging members to “express themselves” on a forthcoming vote in the United States Senate relating to the definition of marriage.

The letter, signed by the First Presidency of the Church — the faith’s highest governing body — draws attention to the Senate vote scheduled for 6 June on an amendment to the federal Constitution that would “protect the traditional institution of marriage.” It will be read to congregations at the start of Church services this Sunday.

“We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship,” the letter says.

In addition, you can go to the Religious Coalition for Marriage website to easily show your support for the FMA. Or you can sign the Family Leader Network petition (which I found through Meridian Magazine).

It’s good to see people mobilizing. I only wish I could do more…