Thursday, July 2, 2015


For the first time in the history of this blog (coming up on 8 long years) I am going to tackle Gay Marriage. That's right, it is the only controversial topic I have NEVER discussed. Abortion, check; marijuana, check; universal health care, check; Glenn Beck being a horrible person, check (not my greatest moment, but it happened and quickly became very controversial).

Gay marriage, silence. Complete and utter silence, and today I break it (in case you are checking me on this, there was one post where I used the term, but it was to demonstrate a different point -- which is actually pretty relevant to this post, so feel free to read it first: Advice from the opinionated about opinions)

Even as I approach this subject, I don't really know what to say. So I'm sticking with truths I know.

First, it was within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction to rule on this matter. The court was set up for this very purpose and it fulfilled its duty by taking up the case and giving a firm yay or nay.

Second, there is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that could have justified a different outcome from the Supreme Court.

And finally, as individuals and a society we owe our children a loving mother and a loving father. I know the issue is much, much more complicated than that (thus the silence), but I cannot deny that truth. It is more than my faith, it is more than social science, it is truth.

Okay, so I found this old gem, in which I state my support for marriage between one man and one woman. And of course there was my "bake you a cake" post, followed by a "religious liberty" post. So maybe I have discussed this topic in round about ways before, and if you have excellent reading comprehension and memory you would know that I both a) support traditional marriage and b) think same sex marriage should be upheld by law. But tonight, I just felt the need to put those two thoughts together as one.  


Dad said...

Liked your post sis. I agree with it for the most part... For me, I choose to think it best that children be raised by a mother and a father. However, I do strongly believe there are some same-sex couples out there who, could and do, a far better job raising children than some hetero-sexual couples. That's precisely why I could never buy the church's defense that children are harmed if they are not raised by a loving father and a loving mother -- how about widows, widowers, divorcees, etc.? Their statement was such a slap in the face and so out of touch, it deserved to be disregarded.
I appreciate you speaking out on this topic. As you can see, I struggle with the issue...

Megan said...

I think that your second point is true if you start with the assumption that marriage is a fundamental right. I personally think that is a shady assumption, at least in terms of the government's involvement in marriage. I've been thinking a lot about my views on the matter, putting religion aside. I think the only valid government interest in marriage is to promote the perpetuation of the citizenry, which is necessary for the continuation of many government programs. Hence, the government give tax breaks on a per kid basis and incentives married couples to have a single earner and the other spouse stay home to raise kids by imposing a higher tax bracket on married income above a certain threshold. I think there's room for debate as to whether these policies are good or bad, but if you want lots of kids raised in homes where they live with both of their biological parents and you have a society where that is the norm, it makes sense. The government and the nation don't really benefit when the government merely puts its stamp of approval on certain relationships. The government honoring same sex marriages elevates sexual relationships over all others, without regard for the benefits those relationships add to society. I don't get it. As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a responsibility, not a right. I acknowledge there are various rights associated with marriage, but I think the underlying expectation has always been that married couples will procreate, thus marriage is more focused on responsibilities than rights. The set-up for the SSM decision has been in the works for decades though, right? Child-bearing and sex are no longer considered tied to marriage by most people, and many people marry and don't expect to have children, nor do they expect to stay married. Lots of people see the government's role in marriage as a stamp of approval on certain relationships. If that's all marriage is, then it seems odd, not only to give heterosexual relationships preference, but to have the government be involved in marriage at all.

Megan said...

I agree with your dad that in today's world some kids are better off being raised by loving homosexual couples than abusive heterosexual couples or single parents who maybe cannot provide for or be present for their children. My family is acutely aware of exceptions to the traditional rule for marriage given that three weeks ago my sister's husband walked out on her unexpectedly, leaving her six months pregnant with her first child. But the solution to all of the exceptions is not to do away with the rule (I'm speaking religiously here). I believe that God knows better than we do how to organize heavenly societies. The family--with a mother, father, and children--is unmatched in its ability for success when each member recognizes and lives up to their responsibilities. We live in a very fallen world, but we should still strive for the ideal. I think the leaders of the church are sad about the Supreme Court decision. I also think they expected it. It wasn't a big surprise that our country was headed down this path. I also think that even if SSM had been ruled illegal, or if it had been left up to the states, we would have continued to hear talks on marriage and family. SSM is only one aspect of a much broader assault on marriage and family, and I think the marginal impact is no where near as devastating as the flood of cultural shifts that came before. I think the church had to say something (again) now because so many church members are advocating that the Lord is going to change his position on marriage and according to the Lord's prophet, that's not true.

Megan said...

I'm on my phone, so sorry for so many comments. My conclusion is, I think the SCOTUS opinion reflects a view of rights-based view of marriage that I disagree with regardless of sexual orientation. I would love to hear more of your thoughts. You are one of the only people I think I could talk to about this and have a meaningful, thought-provoking discussion! Message me.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...