Same-sex Issues and Constitutional Amendments

I saw a post on facebook that led me to an article against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints' position on the Constitutional Amendments about marriage this fall. The Church's position can be found in a document entitled "The Divine Institution of Marriage." I recommend it to anyone who will be voting on this issue this fall.

Here are some points that I found particularly salient (Excerpts follow below):

1. Statistics about degradation of society's morals in the last half century.
2. Tolerance means love the person, but do not condone the behavior.
3. Allowing changes in definition of marriage will have numerous identifiable consequences that will damage society.

1. Statistics
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). [10] 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. [11] 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.

2. Tolerance means love the person, but do not condone the behavior.
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. [13] 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.” [14] 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. [15]


3. Long-term harmful effects of changing the definition of marriage:

It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that, the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term consequences for children?

As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality.

Who's helping Joe more?

Op-Ed Columnist
The Real Plumbers of Ohio
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 20, 2008
John McCain’s strategy, in this final stretch, is based on the belief that Republicans can still pursue plutocratic policies while claiming to be the party of regular guys.

I think it's pretty clear that the majority of Americans will benefit from Obama's tax plan more than from McCain's. In fact, Krugman makes a convincing case that Joe the Plumber will be better off under Obama's plan than McCain's.

What Colin Powell has to say about November:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490