okay, i hope i can do this post justice. one of the current issues that's been bouncing around my head the last few years has to do with same sex marriage. it's definitely been a topic in the news. as a faithful latter-day-saint i adhere to the belief that marriage is a sacred covenant between a man and a woman and god. i do not want to make same sex marriage legal, but i also don't want to make an opposite law - i don't like the idea of laws related to something that to me has always been a spiritual or religious issue. i'd rather church and state stay separate - call me an american. so i've been concerned about the same sex marriage agenda that's going on in a few states, in particular, california. i don't really want a law that says marriage is just between man and woman, but i also don't think that marriages should be recognized as marriages between same sex partners. my sister lives in california and has been involved in canvassing the neighborhoods to discuss the issue and hopefully persuade people to vote for proposition 8. it's been a good experience for her, her husband, and her two teenage children. she shared a link with the rest of us so we could read more about the issue. it's published by the lds church, so it makes sense to me. it's kind of long, but i skimmed and scanned and came across this paragraph which i felt clearly expressed what i'd been struggling with in my head. i don't claim to have thought of this on my own, but when i read this it spoke truth to me and i realized it was the reasoning i was seeking:
"When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family, their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. 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 definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring."
i think what i like best about this paragraph is how it defines the purpose of marriage. marriage is not designed to proclaim your love for another person. people can rent hotair balloons with "i love bob" plastered on the side if they want the world to know how much they care about somebody. marriage is to raise children in a healthy (the best you can) environment. sadly, the sanctity of home and family has been lost by much of society already, and that's probably why same sex marriages seem like a logical option. i also really like the point that government is not supposed to provide legal protection for every form of self fulfillment people might have. that would get crazy messy. anyway, it's also sort of sad that more people haven't discovered the self fulfillment that comes from true self sacrifice. aren't we all struggling with that one?
now that i've posted something possibly controvertial i can only hope that i spoke politely enough. the librarian at school says i'm a great diplomat - here's hoping she's not just being nice.