Thoughts on a Controversy

I was reading Angela's blog and read and watched the statements made regarding marriage and proposition 8 in California. I will admit that I am impressed with her stance and glad that she feels entitled to share it. As such, I feel it my brotherly duty to take a different stance on the same position that has had me troubled for some time. This is in no way a rebuttal to her statements just a declaration of my own (and quite a lengthy one at that). I have come to this decision after weighing both sides of the issue and actually changing my opinion after I studied the topic for some time. What position is that you might ask? It is as follows: First of all, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the constitution, however, I still feel that the essence of this statement is very much alive within the document that founded this nation, namely the Constitution. From the first amendment we are given the ability to worship how and where we may and give the others that same right. Indeed the LDS church states this as well as part of the Articles of Faith. The separation of church and state was designed to ensure that this amendment right not be hindered or ever aggrieved by any one person or the goverment itself. Second of all, who defines the institution of marriage? There are obviously differences of opinion which essentially will never be resolved. The first is exactly how Angela eloquently stated "I believe that God meant for men and women to marry and bring children into the world. God intended for us to create families and bring those families back to him". The second is the legal union of individuals recognized by the government and given benefits for that union. I know I grossly downgrade this definition but do so to get to the underlying focus and intention of the legal aspect of marriage. The Justice of the Peace has the legal authority to combine a man and women (except in Massachusetts and California to date) into the institution of marriage but there is nothing about God in this union. There is however, a need for religious institutions to still be registered with the government as "lawfully" wedded. I think that it is a better argument to state that a religion has the right to govern itself so long as it adheres to the laws of the land.(i.e. no sacrificing chicken in the graveyard after 3pm etc) Which mean that if a person feels that the authority of the union of marriage comes from God then let those that speak for God authorize the union and let the government separate itself from that entirely. If there are those that feel that God is not involved let them declare their union through the laws of the land. The true issue at hand is not that whether same-sex couples are imposing or attacking the divine institution of marriage but rather looking for recognition of a union through legal means. Any legal requirement does not change the spiritual nature of marriage as a divine calling because in essence the government has no business in the affairs of God. If then we claim this right to govern marriage for ourselves, having the authority from God to do so, then it would only follow that we allow others (whatever sexual orientation they may have) the same right to claim a union (or marriage if they want to call it that) through legal authority. There is only one small catch. The legal institution of marriage is not protected in anyway or mentioned in anyway in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Why is that? Simply put, a constitution is the declaration of the rules that government's follow in terms of their involvement (or lack there of) and what the people will allow (At least in the United States). Even the government felt that marriage was the business of God and not the laws of man when the Constitution was drafted. Obviously, there is a problem with the fact that the Constitution cannot possibly account for every scenario until the end of the world. As such there is the glaring atrocity of judges who feel that they can make laws whenever they want. This problem is not specific to the gay marriage debate and in fact it happens all the time. Whenever there is not a sufficient law provided for an issue that comes before the judge he is forced to reason out the facts and make a decision. This decision is either upheld or not and often times the legislation to back the decision up is drafted by the judge or his judicial team. This was evident in the Bush administration with the torturing laws(and many other things). This is in direct violation to the constitution and the "checks and balance" system. This should be the only argument before the court in regards to gay marriage as far as I am concerned. As a Christian and a Latter Day Saint I will never allow myself to impose my ideals upon those that feel it is their right to have the same things (I dont use the word "right" because marriage is not considered one by definition) that I have. Isn't THAT part of the first amendment too? To be able to say and think what we want, even though it may hurt. Taking some ones choice away sounds a lot like a plan I voted NO for a long time ago. Some might say that this is in protection to the greater society and that the family is being attacked. But frankly I see it as fighting back fire with fire and eventually everyone gets burned. No law in any country is going to stop or hinder the relationship that I have with God and my family. Someone wanting to make a choice for themselves that is in opposition to that thought does not offend me or threaten my way of life. I am in no way saying that there are not arguments that are worth fighting for and things about this controversy that are inherently wrong. But I think we all need to take a good hard look at what we are really saying when we stand up and shout. I believe that gay marriage is against the will of God but why would I impose a law against someone who doesn't even believe in God? I found myself falling down the slippery slope of condemning those that practiced in same sex marriages but found that at the heart of it all, we are all brothers and sisters that we will be accountable for our choices. Not to each other but to God and God alone. Does the legality of same sex marriage really degrade the divine institution. Can any craft of man destroy the principles of God? "...choose ye this day whom ye will serve...but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"