prop 8
Update on Perry v Schwarzenegger Case
Friends of Utah Voices,
I wanted to share with you this latest update from the Prop 8 campaign. Obviously, UtahVoices.com provides you bloggers from all sides of the political spectrum. This post shows my strong beliefs for keeping the traditional definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. Since it seems I have been the only blogger to share my opinions as of late you definitely are getting a one sided opinion. If you would rather read a post supporting gay marriage, I recommend Crystal’s post, A Liberal LDS Perspective on Prop 8.
I strongly believe that the institute of marriage has never been, and was never intended to be, merely the union of any two adults who have formed a strong emotional bond. Marriage has always been the way society ensures that every child, to the degree possible, is raised by his or her own mother and father. To destroy this bedrock foundation of marriage is to unravel the ties that bind society together across the generations. Andy Pugno makes this case eloquently in his remarks below. If we are to defend marriage we must understand why it exists, and Mr. Pugno is tremendously helpful in this regard. I hope you enjoy his comments.
Keep up the Fight,
Paul
———————————————————————–
Dear Friends,
As you know, we are still in the thick of the Perry v Schwarzenegger trial. Both sides have submitted post-trial briefs to Chief Judge Vaughn Walker for his review. Closing arguments have yet to be scheduled.
Essentially, our post-trial submissions “connect the dots” between our legal arguments and the hard evidence we put forth during the three weeks of courtroom proceedings in January. This email will provide a snapshot of some of those arguments and evidence. Look for more discussion of our legal defense of traditional marriage in coming emails.
A primary foundation of our case is the history of the institution of marriage itself and the central role it has played for centuries in societies all across the globe. Historic marriage has its roots in pairing a man to a woman and has served as the foundation of the family and society as a whole. In fact, across societies, marriage has been defined in both law and language as a union between a man and a woman and acts as the predominate relationship in which to create and support children. As we have noted previously, and one of our expert witnesses spent a great deal of time addressing, the purpose of marriage through the ages has been and continues to be the “guarantee, insofar as possible, that each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world.”
And while it is true that the traditional model of marriage between a man and a woman has been disputed of late in the United States, a set of universal functions of marriage remains:
- Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
- Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible;
- Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
- Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and,
- Providing men with a stake in family and society.
In addition, there are corresponding universal features of the institution of marriage, which include the following:
- High social and legal authority and attractive incentives supporting the institution;
- Maleness and femaleness;
- A definition of eligible partners;
- A public dimension;
- Encouragement of procreation under specific conditions;
- Mutual support between men and women and duties toward children; and
- An emphasis on complementary parental roles and relationships.
Simply put, to change the definition of marriage that has served California, the United States and every other country on Earth to include anything other than one man and one woman would result in such a profound change to the structure and public meaning of marriage as to severely damage society, possibly beyond repair.
As we indicate in our Findings of Fact court brief, “no society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships.”
This is precisely what we are fighting for, what your vote in favor of Proposition 8 was predicated upon, and what we need your support to help preserve. With your support we will continue to put our best legal minds to work throughout this arduous process.
We will continue to share with you, our partners in this epic battle, the core components of our legal case.
Sincerely,
Andy Pugno
General Counsel
Inner Conflict Concerning Gay Marriage
—by Paul
You may have already heard, but the California Supreme Court upheld the decision of its citizens today by not striking down proposition 8. However, they did state that they would still recognize the 18,000+ gay marriages that happened before the amendment took place.
Upon the ruling, the LDS Church issued a press release. Here is a paragraph I particularly liked from the release:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recognizes the deeply held feelings on both sides, but strongly affirms its belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The bedrock institution of marriage between a man and a woman has profound implications for our society. These implications range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.”
I like this statement because it helps feed the debate that rages on within me concering this issue. Often, I have been wondering if it is right or not to restrict people from rights that others have. You can’t make an argument that it is right for someone to murder but not someone else. Either everyone has the right or no one has it.
Also, I look back at the last 100 years with the great power of retrospect and see that there was not a single issue that harmed our society when we gave rights to a minority. For me, I wonder how much gay marriages differ?
Personally, I think homosexuality is not genetically or religiously right. On the scientific angle, when you impede the process of passing on DNA from one generation to the next, you genetically harm the species. Religiously, we can see that all historical religious text (Bible or non-Christian canon) condemn the act of homosexuality.
However, it seems that all these lines become blurry when you talk about people’s rights. Does someone have the right to be an alcoholic? As long as they do not hurt someone else—unequivocally yes.
I guess for me, gay marriage does cross the line of infringing on others rights. As stated by the LDS Church, allowing gay marriage in our society causes problems that “….range from what our children are taught in schools to individual and collective freedom of religious expression and practice.”
I do not agree with homosexuality and do not want my children to be taught that it is okay. I also do not want to be punished by the government because I chose to believe that homosexuality is a grievous sin.
Honestly, I cannot see a resolution that is possible to appease both sides. As I look at all the facts and arguments, I have to wonder if history will see me on the same side as those who fought against women and blacks from having equal rights. I hope this is not the case, but even if it is, my children will know that I fought for them to have the right to not have a loud minority redefine what they believe is right or wrong.