Photo by Emilie Ann Photography

The family is under attack on many fronts in our day. One attack is by muddling the issues of the definition of “marriage” itself and who is able to participate in a legal/civil union. Many issues have surfaced as same-sex couples have desired to be legally recognized and joined. We know that the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to be married and by so doing, they redefined marriage for our country. I do not necessarily oppose their ruling that same-sex couples should be able to be legally joined together if that is their wish, however I struggle with their new definition. I wish that the general public would see a distinction between the terms “civil/legal union” and “marriage”.

Civil union: 

If a couple wants to be viewed in the legal realm as being together, regardless of their sex or sexual attraction, nothing should be questioned or restricted by the government. It is easier to be recognized as a household if there is a legal union. This legal union permits protection to the couple and allows them to share benefits. It simplifies life together. It does not harm anyone else. I believe they should be able to be legally joined if that is their desire. (I am not talking about morals here, just legal acknowledgement that they are unified within the world.)

Marriage: 

This way of life was set by God and has been accepted throughout all time, by societies, cultures and people around the world. Marriage between one man and one woman has been the social ideal since the beginning of time. I love that the Supreme Court case even noted this,

   

“The centrality of marriage to the human condition makes it unsurprising that the institution has existed for millennia and across civilizations. Since the dawn of history, marriage has transformed strangers into relatives, binding families and societies together. Confucius taught that marriage lies at the foundation of government… This wisdom was echoed centuries later and half a world away by Cicero, who wrote, “The first bond of society is marriage; next, children; and then the family.”

To take it a step further, marriage is the sacred union between a husband and a wife and God. It is the foundation of the ideal family. My struggles come into play as government and society try to change what God has defined. They cannot change His definition of marriage or family without serious consequences.

Elder Bruce C. Hafen explains some of the issues that arise as/if same-sex marriages are accepted:

“France, which is not exactly the most conservative country in the world, rejected gay marriage in 2006, because its parliament concluded that these marriages run counter to the best interests of children and the future society.  France was not ready, as a matter of conscious public policy choice, to throw out its babies with the bathwater of gay activism.  They concluded that marriage should serve a child’s right to optimal personal development, rather than primarily serving adult interests that trump children’s interests.”

“ marriage [is viewed] as a social institution. …marriage is inevitably built around children, and every country that has adopted same-gender marriage has soon afterward authorized adoption and surrogate gestation by same-gender couples.  But, they concluded, France could “no longer systematically place [the] aspirations of adults ahead” of children’s needs and rights. “

“Insofar as possible, it said, each child has the right to know and be cared for by — and be bonded to — his or her biological parents.  Biological bonding combined with legal bonding inherently creates the most lasting and stable adult-child relationships, which provides the emotional and legal security required for optimal child development. Occasional adoptions may be necessary in exceptional cases, but there are plenty of stable heterosexual married couples who wish to adopt all available adoptive children.   The French report said that to accept a public policy that consciously places children with homosexual adults increases the risks to children who are already at risk because they feel identity confusion and abandonment by their biological parents. To ignore this need is to discriminate against these children.  Adoption is about a child’s right to a regular family, not merely about an adult’s right to a child.”

“So France rejected same-gender marriage so that children “do not suffer as a result of situations imposed on them by adults.  The interest of the child must outweigh the exercise of freedom by adults, whatever life choices are made by the parents.”  This view takes marriage away from the private, adults-only world of gay and lesbian lifestyles and returns it to its original place as society’s primary social institution.”

(http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/elder-bruce-c-hafen-speaks-on-same-sex-attraction) 

In similar and dissimilar ways to those expressed in connection to  France, our view of “the ideal family” has disintegrated over time. As such, our nation is not as strong as it once was. To build that national strength again, we need to strengthen our smallest units; our families. If that is to be done, society needs to accept an ideal to strive for. The common sayings of “if you aim for nothing, you will hit it every time” and “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will get you there” take on new meaning in this light. Dissolving or changing the cultural definition of marriage the way that it was done with the Supreme Court case greatly affects the ideal and in turn, society.

It is universally accepted that procreation takes one man and one woman. Procreation is the means by which a family is created. A family is established from a marriage. Therefore, marriage between one man and one woman must be our ideal for it was the ideal established by our Creator. We need to help society see that if we are to gain strength, it must start in our home, within our families.

Again, I want to reiterate: My issue lies with the government redefining marriage. The legalization of same gender union is separate in my mind and I wish it would have been more separate in the court case too. I wish we would be better with the distinction between marriage and legal union.

Photo Credit: http://emilieannphotography.com/