Supreme Court Ruling Legalizing Same Sex Marriage

“Sin, even if legalized by man, is still sin in the eyes of God.”

– Russell M. Nelson

Breaking the Rules of Democracy

Reading the summarization of the Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) was very enlightening, and almost frightening.  It is enlightening to me to have a better understanding of the role of judiciary as pointed out he by the dissenting judges; it’s frightening to me that my ignorance, and perhaps the ignorance of many other Americans, let these Justices get away with it.  When I read the dissenting arguments, it is blatantly clear to me that the Supreme Court justices overstepped their legal roles. 

My understanding is that the job of Supreme Court judges is to uphold constitutional rights and interpret the law, as it has been defined by the people, not to impose their own law.  However, in mandating that all states must recognize and legalize same-sex marriages, they have done just that.  They, as an unelected, unaccountable, and partisan minority, have forced the making of a new law for the entire country.  Our government was designed to support a democratic process where states, through legislation, have the right to enact laws according to the votes of the people or those they have chosen to represent them, and this ruling has not followed these guidelines:

“And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, 74).

The ruling of The Supreme Court was anything BUT democratic.  As aforementioned, they are unelected officials; they do not represent the people of the United States.  They are there for their legal expertise to interpret law, not make new laws.  They are also denying the basic freedom our forefathers fought for:  the “freedom to govern” ourselves (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, 70), as no American had the opportunity to vote according to their conscience in this decision.

Threat to Religious Freedom

I’m also disturbed at the court’s decision in its inherent threat of our right to practice our religious beliefs.   If a religious entity, such as BYU-Idaho, chooses to exercise its religion and only permit opposite-sex married couples to live in married housing, they could be penalized for it by the federal government (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, 66-67).  We may even see it in our tithing and other offerings not being recognized as legitimate charitable contributions because The Church, due to refusing to accept same-sex marriages, has lost its standing in the eyes of the federal government.

On the same note, I want to maintain my right to attend a religious school, knowing that I can practice my religion freely there without being forced to concede with socially popular ideas that go against my religious views, such as being able to live in a girls’ dorm with girls only.  

I’m appalled that the Court got away with this act.  They did not have the right to re-define marriage and legalize same-sex marriages in all states.  If our country does not adhere to the divinely-inspired fundamentals of our democratic government, we are at risk of losing even our most basic freedoms.  We must take back our right to govern ourselves.   

This video of Elder Dallin H. Oaks is a great commentary on religious freedom.

What Happens Now?

In the Religious Freedom Annual Review conference, Alexander Dushku says that the outcome depends on us.  “If supporters of traditional marriage retreat; if they are intimidated into silence; if they give up trying to find the right words and arguments to defend their beliefs; if they do not stand as witnesses and living examples of the goodness of their beliefs; and if people of good will do not at least stand up for the rights of others to dissent in good faith and yet still be numbered among us as our fellow citizens, neighbors, colleagues, and friends, then the Supreme Court’s gay marriage decision will indeed become a disaster for religious liberty” (Dushku, 2015, Brigham Young University). 

What Supporters of Traditional Marriage Can Do

All is not lost.  In continuing with Dushku’s advice, we can still help determine the end result:

“But if those who support traditional marriage are indeed examples of what is highest and best about their beliefs, if they, like the pro-lifers, refuse to be silenced; if they find ways to explain and persuade with reason as well as kindness, meekness, and love; and if they cheerfully but resolutely endure the indignities that will indeed be visited upon them without bitterness, asking for only toleration, understanding, and their basic rights as Americans, then I believe that ultimately the great goodness and decency of the American people will rise up, and our culture and law will carve out and protect enough spaces so that people of faith and their institutions who maintain traditional beliefs about marriage, family and sexuality can participate fully in all aspects of American life.  Now that will not happen all at once.  Those of us who hold such beliefs are assuredly in for some difficult and uncertain times.  Sacrifices are going to have to be made.  Carefully chosen lawsuits will have to be filed.  … But I am hopeful that in the end, if we stand firm, both our culture and the law will accord those who believe in traditional marriage with the respect and freedom they deserve” (Dushku, 2015, Brigham Young University).

I love this quote from Elder Russell M. Nelson:

“The day is gone when you can be a quiet and comfortable Christian. Your religion is not just about showing up for church on Sunday. It is about showing up as a true disciple from Sunday morning through Saturday night- 24/7! There is no such thing as a part-time disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Disciples and the Defense of Marriage, August 2015 Ensign).

We must remember that marriage “was not created by lobbyists.  Marriage was created by God! … Man simply cannot make moral what God has declared to be immoral” (Nelson, 2014).  If we are to stand as disciples of Jesus Christ, then we must also “stand as defenders of marriage” as ordained by God:  between one man and one woman.  I believe that if we do so with humility and love, and charity, we can make a difference. 

References:

Dushku, Alexander (July 7, 2015). The religious freedom implications of the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage in Obergefell V. Hodges. Religious Freedom Annual Review (Conference), Brigham Young University.  http://www.iclrs.org/content/events/111/2130.mp4

Nelson, Russell M. (2014, Aug. 14). Disciples of Jesus Christ-Defenders of Marriage. Brigham Young University Commencement.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.

Divorce: Is it worth it?

While reading and watching the materials for class this week, I was struck by a common theme: generally speaking, the benefits of marriage outweigh the consequences of divorce.  

Is divorce really the solution?

For many people in the world today, divorce is deemed as the best solution to marital discord, challenges, or “lack of fulfillment” from a marriage relationship.  They surmise that they would be happier and better off without their spouse.  However, the research findings presented in State of Our Unions (2012) remind us that those who stay married benefit emotionally and socially, as well as economically:

“The available empirical evidence… consistently indicates the personal as well as social benefits of being married compared to being single or just living with someone” (97).  

Regarding the notion that happiness will be found after divorce, Elder Dallin H. Oaks has taught that “divorce is not an all-purpose solution, and it often creates long-term heartache. A broad-based international study of the levels of happiness before and after “major life events” found that, on average, persons are far more successful in recovering their level of happiness after the death of a spouse than after a divorce” (Divorce, 2007).  

In my other family-relations studies I have come to learn that conflict in a relationship usually has more to do with dysfunctional communication patterns rather that what the conflict is about and who the conflict is with.  It is very likely that, unless a person is able to change these dysfunctional patterns before entering into another relationship, the same problems will arise with a new partner.  

Also, if you attest that you and your spouse just aren’t compatible, consider this teaching from Elder Oaks as well:  “I strongly urge you and those who advise you to face up to the reality that for most marriage problems, the remedy is not divorce but repentance. Often the cause is not incompatibility but selfishness” (2007, 71).  Ouch.  I’ve experienced that in my marriage, and I’ve found that conflicts can be quickly resolved if I turn my energies away from insisting things go “my way”, and instead consider my spouse’s point of view.   

Consider the Impact of Divorce on Children

It is highly likely that the dissolution of a marriage is going to involve children.  Many spouses are so caught up in their personal feelings regarding marriage conflicts that they fail to see the impact it has on their children.   The research findings of Paul R. Amato was an eye-opener to me.  In reading this I was reminded that “Interparental conflict is a stressor for children, and it can interfere with their attachments to parents, resulting in feelings of emotional insecurity” (2005, 84).  Regardless of whether the parents choose to divorce or not, they need to consider Elder Faust’s counsel: “Parents in any marital situation have a duty to set aside personal differences and encourage each other’s righteous influence in the lives of their children” ("Father, Come Home," Ensign, May 1993, 35).  I believe that no parent has the right to ask a child to take a side, choose one parent over another, or to disparage a child’s mother or father in front of them.  

Also, the research findings from Amato indicate that “children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely than other children to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood, but also in adulthood.… This distinction is even stronger if we focus on children growing up with two happily married biological parents” (2005, 89).

Sometimes, divorce benefits children.

That being said, I believe happily married is a key component to this statement.  It seems evident to me that a high-conflict, yet intact, marriage is not going to benefit children as much as a loving, secure marriage.  In fact, some studies showed that “children in high-conflict households experience many of the same problems as do children with divorced parents, … [and that] children with discordant married parents are worse off than children with divorced parents”(Amato, 2005, 80). 

Children of divorce are not doomed to repeat their parents’ mistakes.

In an article for the August 2002 Ensign, Elaine Walton taught:

“Research shows that children of divorced parents suffer in numerous ways, but one of the most profound effects is the impact on a child’s later marriage. What children see and experience during the failing marriage of their parents can become part of their view of themselves and of society. As a divorced parent, I watched my children suffer and wondered at their chances for a happy marriage and family life. As a professional counselor and social work educator, I watch others struggle with this painful issue. Yet my testimony and my personal and professional experience teach me that the gospel can help children prevent the bitter experience of their parents from determining the outcome of their own lives. These children have great potential for happiness. 

Often, however, children of divorced parents will have to overcome negative attitudes or behaviors they have developed in trying to cope with their parents’ divorce” (Children of Divorce, August 2002 Ensign).

When is divorce the best option?

There are many good people who have been divorced. Everyone has their agency and we cannot control our spouses.  I believe that determining when divorce is the best option must be done prayerfully and on an individual basis.  James E. Faust taught that “only the parties to the marriage can determine” whether there is “just cause” for a divorce because it is they who will be responsible for the various consequences that will follow it.  Faust also admonished that the reasons for divorce “should be nothing less serious than a prolonged and apparently irredeemable relationship which is destructive of a person’s dignity as a human being” (1993, 35).  Only our Savior knows the desires of a person’s heart or what they have had to go through; it is not our place to judge those that are divorced.  

What can couples do to revive a dying marriage?

What if you may not necessarily be contemplating divorce, but can see that your marriage is becoming a union in “name only”?  Dallin H. Oaks counsels that just as a human life, our marriage is a “precious, living thing” and that “if we seek Him, the Lord will help us and heal us” (2007, 72).  In this same article he gives some great counsel for strengthening our marriages:

• Do everything in your power to preserve your marriage.
• Don’t treasure up past wrongs.  Festering is destructive, forgiving is divine (see D&C 64:9-10).  Leave the baggage of the past behind and move on.
• Be best friends, kind and considerate, sensitive to each other’s needs, always seeking to make each other happy.
• Be partners in family finances.
• Join hands, and kneel together in prayer for the power of Christ’s Atonement to heal your marriage.
• Stay true to your covenants.

He also advised that we follow the “marriage enrichment counsel" in the The First Presidency's message  in the April 2007 Ensign and Liahona.

I know that marriage is ordained of God, and a covenant that should not be taken lightly.  By following Christ’s example, our marriages can bring the happiness and fulfillment God intends for his children.  We do not need to be perfect, but we must be committed.  

References:

Amato, P. (Fall 2005). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75-96.

Faust, Elder James E. (May 1993). Father, Come Home. Ensign, 35.

Oaks, Elder Dallin H. (May 2007).  Divorce.  Ensign. 

Walton, Elaine. (August 2002).  Children of Divorce. Ensign.