Difference between revisions of "Question: How do Mormons believe that legislation regarding the definition of marriage may affect families?"

Revision as of 20:05, 25 February 2012

1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

This article is a draft. FairMormon editors are currently editing it. We welcome your suggestions on improving the content.

Questions

==

How will legislation regarding the definition of marriage effect families?

To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, [[../CriticalSources|click here]]

Detailed Analysis

==

TEXT  ^{[needs work]}

Families are central to Heavenly Father's plan of happiness. The Proclamation to the World on the Family states:

HUSBAND AND WIFE have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalm 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

WE WARN that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

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.

This proclamation teaches that children are entitled to be "reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity". This emphasizes the unique values that only a father and a mother bring to child-raising. This is not to say that children who do not have this blessing, either through death, choice of the parents, or some other circumstances, are inferior or that they do not deserve all the support and protection we can give them. Indeed, it says when children do not have this blessing in their lives, other people should lend support when needed. Many children who are raised in single-parent families, raised by same-sex couples, orphaned, have parents who are absent, abusive or otherwise fail to fulfill their duty as parents, continue to grow up to be happy and successful. By underlining the importance of having a father and a mother, we do not intend to in any way bring disparity to people who are lacking a father or a mother.

This proclamation talks about many important characteristics of good parents, such as the responsibilities to "rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another, observe the commandments of God, and be law-abiding citizens wherever they live." It would be a mistake to focus on one aspect of this proclamation, and ignore the other parts. Ultimately, love and compassion are more important anyway. In many cases, families that lack both a father and a mother are able to accomplish more with love and compassion than families that have both a father and a mother. It would be a shame to diminish a families worth based on one characteristic.

Some people argue because having a father and a mother is not the most important attribute in a family, that it should not be promoted at all. Multiple aspects can be important. We can have laws that protect children from abuse and laws that promote marriages between a man and woman.

Some people argue that laws promoting marriage between a man and a woman are targeted towards people with same-sex attraction. While they might have the greatest direct impact, many people who struggle with opposite-sex attraction also have problems respect the right of their children to be raised by a father and a mother.

Purpose of government involvement in marriage

For many people, marriage is about the celebration of the love that two people feel for each other and the public recognition of their commitment to each other. They see the government's role in marriage to simply distributing rights and privileges designed to help them maintain their relationship. If this were the government's only role in marriage, it would make sense that people would get frustrated if some relationships were privileged above others. However, this is not the only reason the government is involved in marriages. The Divine Institution of Marriage says the following about marriage:

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.

Marriage is about love, public recognition, and distribution of rights, but it also much more than that. Marriage is one of the best ways that the government has to ensure that the rising generation is being raised in homes with a father and a mother who are committed to each other. Viewing marriage as simply a contract between two people degrades it, and it separates it from the important role of child-rearing.

Many people argue that by defining marriage in such a way that excludes same-sex couples, that they make families headed by same-sex couples into second-class families. Following that logic, wouldn't that make families where one of the parents died, where the parents got divorced, where the parents are cohabiting, where the parents were never married, polygamous families, single people who have not found love, and all other families that are not founded on a marriage into second-class families as well? If marriage is about separating first-class families from second-class families, why would the government be involved in marriage at all?

Nor should the government's involvement in marriage simply be about celebrating when people have found love. The Divine Institution of Marriage states:

Societal recognition of same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue fulfillment.

By granting the status of marriage to a man and a woman who are in a committed relationship and willing to be married, it places value on the relationship, not on the people. These relationships are the only relationships that can raise the next generation to have a father and a mother. Many married people may chose not to have kids, but that doesn't change the fact that an opposite-sex marriage is the best guarantee that a child has to be raised in a stable home with a father and a mother. The government grants this special recognition because it hopes to promote the kind of families that will be the best for children. Marriage is a contract with the government. It signifies to the world that if children should enter into such a relationship, they will be raised by a father and a mother who honor their marital vows. If they break their vows, they risk hefty fines. Alimony costs can go up to $2500 per month or 20% of the obligor's average monthly gross income.

The government has a direct interest in making sure the next generation of citizens are being raised by a father and a mother. Elder Oaks explains:

"We believe that we must contend for the kind of mortal families that provide the best conditions for the development and happiness of children—all children...

"There are many political, legal, and social pressures for changes that confuse gender, deemphasize the importance of marriage or change its definition, or homogenize the differences between men and women that are essential to accomplish God’s great plan of happiness.[1]

The legal definition does not impose morality or take away rights, but it does effect how things are discussed in official settings, taught in schools, and ultimately viewed in the public. While people are free to form their families in any way they choose, many are looking for the best way to form their families. By understanding that having both a father and a mother makes a difference for children, many people will chose to form families in a way that would give that benefit to their children. However, the way things are going, few people think about the effects on their kids when they engage in sexual activity. They view it as a personal choice, and kids are simply the byproduct.

Effects on people with opposite-sex attraction

Over the last several years, society has seen a change in the purpose of marriage. The Divine Institution of Marriage gives the following description:

Our modern era has seen traditional marriage and family – defined as a husband and wife with children in an intact marriage – come increasingly under assault. Sexual morality has declined and infidelity has increased. Since 1960, the proportion of children born out of wedlock has soared from 5.3 percent to 38.5 percent (2006). Divorce has become much more common and accepted, with the United States having one of the highest divorce rates in the world. Since 1973, abortion has taken the lives of over 45 million innocents. At the same time, entertainment standards continue to plummet, and pornography has become a scourge afflicting and addicting many victims. Gender differences increasingly are dismissed as trivial, irrelevant, or transient, thus undermining God’s purpose in creating both men and women.

All of this has been happening before same-sex marriage was ever legalized. Same-sex marriage cannot be blamed for these changes. Marriage has been gradually changing in our culture for a long time. However, same-sex marriage is the first time that the government has ever endorsed this new definition of marriage. Just because society is going in a direction that we disagree with, doesn't mean we should encourage such a change.

Legalizing same-sex marriage reenforces the idea that marriage is a choice people make, and loses sight of the original purpose of marriage, to protect society's most vulnerable.

If people see marriage as simply a celebration of their love, people may wonder why they need the government to solemnize their love. They may wait longer to get married, or not get married at all. If their love wanes, they may be less inclined to put effort into the marriage, since it no longer is serving the purpose of celebrating love. If marriage officially loses all connection to child bearing, less people will associate their sexual actions with having children. They may be more willing to bring children into the world without worrying about getting married first. More and more children will be simply the byproduct of whatever sexual relationships suit the parent's fancy.

Straight people will also be heirs of the notion that sexual appetites are essential aspects of who you are to be embraced without constraint. Overcoming the natural man will be seen as repressive rather than liberating. This will play out in other aspects of their lives as well.

Effects on people with same-sex attraction

According to the Straight Spouse Network, there are approximately 2 million opposite-sex marriages in the United States where one of the partners has same-sex attraction. According to the US Census, there 646,464 same-sex couples.[2] These are probably the couples that are effected most by the legal definition of marriage. On top of that, there are many people with same-sex attraction who are celibate or who are having sexual relationships without commitment. It is important to look at the effect same-sex marriage has on these people.

Much of the rhetoric around same-sex marriage has been about the ability of gay people to form fulfilling relationships with people of the opposite-sex. For example, Judge Walker, who overturned Prop 8, determined that:

"Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

The California Supreme Court made the following statement:

"California law does not literally prohibit gays and lesbians from marrying; however, it requires those who do to marry someone of the opposite sex. As a practical matter, of course, this requirement renders marriage unavailable to gay and lesbian individuals, whose choice of a life partner will, by definition, be a person of the same sex."

In legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that:

"Viewed in the complete context of marriage, including intimacy, civil marriage with a person of the opposite sex is as unappealing to a gay or lesbian person as civil marriage with a person of the same sex is to a heterosexual. Thus, the right of a gay or lesbian person under the marriage statute to enter into a civil marriage only with a person of the opposite sex is no right at all. Under such a law, gay or lesbian individuals cannot simultaneously fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship, as influenced by their sexual orientation, and gain the civil status and attendant benefits granted by the statute. Instead, a gay or lesbian person can only gain the same rights under the 31 statute as a heterosexual person by negating the very trait that defines gay and lesbian people as a class - their sexual orientation."

While people with same-sex attraction should feel free to pursue whatever relationship they want, they should not be expected to form same-sex relationships. Saying that people with same-sex attraction cannot "fulfill their deeply felt need for a committed personal relationship" without same-sex relationship, denies the reality of people who have. While it would be unwise to say everyone can, to say no one can is equally naive.

If people in an opposite-sex marriage come to believe it is impossible for them to fully embrace who they are and find fulfillment in an opposite-sex marriage, they may less hope in their own relationships. This is particularly critical as they are coming to terms with their sexuality and readjusting their expectations of marriage. One study has shown that two-thirds of men leave their spouse when they come out as gay. Leaving your spouse as a natural byproduct of coming out is a very strong notion in our society, and the rhetoric around same-sex marriage only reenforces that. Those who did try to stay in their marriage seemed to have success rates on par with other couples, but fewer people may be willing to give that a chance.

Many of these families involve children. As more gay people break up their opposite-sex marriages in favor of same-sex marriages, these children who were once being raised by a father and a mother, will lose that privilege and instead be raised without a father or without a mother. According to the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, "most children of same-sex couples are biological children of one of the parents". (This does not include donor insemination.) [3] Dr. Gary Gates, research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households, estimates that "only 6 percent of same-sex parents have an adopted child, and a sizable number appear to be living in some kind of step-family arrangement, in which parents come out later and have children from an earlier heterosexual marriage or relationship,"[4] This does not include children who stayed with the straight parent. For many gay people, same-sex marriage works in direct competition to traditional marriage.

As mentioned earlier, having both a father and a mother is not the most important thing. There are other factors that are much more important. It may be that the previous marriages were abusive, or otherwise undesirable for the raising of the children. It may be that the new situation is better for the children. While there are a few occasions where divorce is warranted, the number of divorces is too high. Several studies show that in general children do best being raised by their biological father and mother. Too many children are being deprived of having both a father and a mother so that one of their parents can pursue a same-sex marriage.

This is not an insignificant number of people. Homosexual men account for 3.0% of all divorced men and homosexual women account for 6.2% of all divorced women.[5] The Family Pride Coalition estimates that 20% of gay men and 40% of lesbian women are currently in an opposite-sex marriage, and 50% of gay men and 75% of lesbians have ever had children with an opposite-sex partner.

Many of these families are wonderful families who are doing their best for their children. We include these statistics to show that this is not an isolated phenomenon. While the church teaches that children have a right to be raised by a father and a mother, the church also teaches that parents must love their children, be faithful to each other, teach their children to be kind and honest, and many other things. It would be a shame to judge a whole family based on one characteristic. However, that does not mean that the one characteristic has no value. We still believe that fathers are important, and bring a unique value that cannot be simply replaced by a second mother. Likewise, we believe that mothers are important, and bring a unique value that cannot be replaced by a second father. While we feel it is important to recognize the distinct values of fathers and mothers, there are obviously many people who are orphaned, raised by single parents, by same-sex parents, or even abusive parents who turn out to be wonderful human beings.

Answer

==

Preserving the definition of marriage recognizes the benefit that a union between a man and a woman has for society that a union between two men or two women cannot offer, particularly in child-raising. This recognition does not take away rights from other couples.

== Notes == None

Further reading

FairMormon Answers articles

Template:SSA wiki

FairMormon web site

Template:SSA FAIR

External links

Template:SSA links

Printed material

Template:SSA print