Why Traditional Marriage?

The Roberts Court, 2010 Back row (left to right): Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, and Elena Kagan. Front row (left to right): Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

First of all, what is traditional marriage? To put it succinctly, it is the marriage between a man and a woman. To elaborate, it is a marriage that combines attributes of gender and character into a well-rounded bundle, supplying the tools and knowledge necessary to raise children conceived through this union. It serves as the fundamental unit of society, the best place to instill values and raise successful adults to contribute to the common good. Mormon Apostle Russell M. Nelson, in Disciples of Jesus Christ–Defenders of Marriage, describes traditional marriage as follows: 

“Male and female are created for what they can do and become, together. It takes a man and a woman to bring a child into the world. Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable. Men and women are distinct and complementary. Children deserve a chance to grow up with both a mom and a dad.”

Second of all, as instructed by Russell M. Nelson in, I ask for tolerance. I proclaim my love for all human beings, with malice toward none and charity for all. You are all my brothers and sisters as children of God. I value your rights and feelings. But I cannot condone efforts to change divine doctrine.

This week I read the entire 103 page text of Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015) Supreme Court of the United States. You may recognize this as the case that legalized same-sex marriage. I studied each argument, both of the majority of five and of each of the four dissenting arguments. I would highly suggest that you read it too so that you can see all sides of the argument. At first I was annoyed that I had to read such a lengthy document; then I was irritated at many of the claims of the majority. Finally, I was enlightened as the dissenting judges explained their reasoning. Again, let me say that I am all for tolerance, but I now have a more educated understanding as to what this ruling really means for our American society. 

One of the dissenters, Judge Alito, argues that the majority’s “decision usurps the constitutional right of the people to decide whether to keep or alter the traditional understanding of marriage.” Judge Roberts continues that “allowing unelected federal judges to select which unenumerated rights rank as ‘fundamental’—and to strike down state laws on the basis of that determination—raises obvious concerns about the judicial role.” 

To me this means that the rights of the people were infringed upon. How can we democratically vote on issues that should be a State matter when a group of non-elected individuals ruled on this issue, in a dictator-like fashion, for us? If the matter were left to the States then everyone could be more free to express themselves through liberty. Liberty is the freedom from government oppression in our lives. If the government takes away our right to vote on the issue of traditional marriage and to elect the officials that legislate these issues for us, what is next? Does this set a precedent? What does this do to religious freedom? Alas, I digress. I will let your imagination do the rest.

Judge Alito makes a compelling argument for traditional marriage with this quote: “If [the] traditional understanding of the purpose of marriage does not ring true to all ears today, that is probably because the tie between marriage and procreation has frayed. Today, for instance, more than 40% of all children in this country are born to unmarried women. While, for many, the attributes of marriage in 21st- century America have changed, those States that do not want to recognize same-sex marriage have not yet given up on the traditional understanding. They worry that by officially abandoning the older understanding, they may contribute to marriage’s further decay. It is far beyond the outer reaches of [the Supreme] Court’s authority to say that a State may not adhere to the understanding of marriage that has long prevailed, not just in this country and others with similar cultural roots, but also in a great variety of countries and cultures all around the globe.”

 

I may not be able to express myself as well as Russell M. Nelson does, so I quote him again saying that “God is the Father of all men and women. They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It was not created by think tanks or by popular vote or by oft-quoted bloggers or by pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God!”

I am all for the various beliefs and expression of the agency of every individual, even and especially if they differ from my own. This is the spirit of tolerance. That is what has made our country so wonderful. We can all respectfully agree to disagree on certain points, but deep down we are all supporting the same cause of liberty and freedom. You may not believe as I do on the subject of traditional marriage, but I hope that you believe in treating everyone with the dignity and respect we all deserve as fellow human beings. If you are unclear on anything that I am talking about, I encourage you to do your research and form an informed understanding and opinion. The following links will get you started:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/russell-m-nelson_disciples-jesus-christ-defenders-marriage/

I will end with another quote from Russell M. Nelson:

“The greatest guardians of any and all virtues are marriage and family.” 

I encourage you to place great value in traditional marriage. Just because man has legalized sin does not make it right or moral. I encourage you to stand up for what is right: our liberty, our freedom, and traditional marriage. Traditionally, there is no better way to create a society of upstanding individuals in league for the greater good.