I am troubled by the actions of activist legislators, religious leaders and even the President of the United States, all of whom are trying to codify marriage for political reasons.
An amendment to the constitution is a very serious matter and should never be used for social engineering, just because of a disagreement with a minority population seeking equal protection under the constitution.
Marriages can be made stronger, not by an amendment, but when two individuals who are committed to being life partners make it stronger. Marriages now, even between heterosexuals, are weakened in many ways, including arranged marriages to get citizenship or to obtain marriage-related benefits and even divorce. This would not change with an amendment.
If individuals are so concerned with the word 'marriage,' then perhaps a marriage should be reserved for religious ceremonies and civil unions for any secular marriage. In some parts of the world, members of the LDS Church must have a civil marriage prior to being sealed in the temple. Thus, our church for years has had a civil union requirement prior to a religious marriage in some countries.
Another aspect that concerns me with the proposed Musgrave legislation is that it would effectively take away any rights and benefits that domestic partners (or civil unions) have acquired in several states. For example, in California, where I now teach, all public employees can share health benefits, for example, with their domestic partner. Since these are benefits similar to those derived from marriages, these would be forbidden under the proposed amendment. Certainly this is a step backwards for a civilized society. Regardless of whether we agree with a particular lifestyle or not, we live in a pluralistic society. Not everyone has the same set of religious ideas and that is fine.
On the Larry King show the other night, a religious leader was so determined to make his point that same-sex relationships were sinful, he argued an amendment was required. Well, Mr. Reverend, not everyone has your narrow point of view and the United States has historically supported laws which promote separation of church and state.
I believe that so many involved in the current debate are trying to force religious views on a country and our constitution does not allow us to mingle church and state in this fashion. An amendment to do this is especially troublesome.
I realize that everyone is entitled to an opinion. I learned at an early age in the Mormon Church, that my agency stops where someone else's body begins. One of our Articles of Faith says, 'We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.'
While we might not agree with every point of view, we must, as church members, and as members of a diverse society, afford all men the same right to their beliefs. In fact, the Mormons practiced polygamy in the 1800's and did not feel that to be inappropriate, although most of the nation did.
An amendment will not make marriages stronger, which can only be achieved by loving and committed individuals. Two individuals, regardless of gender, should be allowed to have the benefits of marriage. Whether it is called marriage or civil unions matters not, except no one can be discriminated against.
An amendment is not the answer. An amendment would only polarize and divide a nation that needs to be united. Let's maintain a separation of church and state and make committed relationships stronger by allowing everyone the right to these unions, whether it is called a marriage, or a civil union.
Dr. Donald Robertson
Vista, Calif.