Marriage, Moral Beliefs, and The Rule of Law
I had the opportunity this week to read and ponder the June
26, 2015 Supreme Court decision for Obergerell
et al v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al which dealt
with the inequality of those seeking for and/or currently involved in a
same-sex married relationship. I have long known that this issue was not
something that could easily reconciled. On one hand, you have those that desire
to have the same rights and recognition that heterosexual couples have, both in
society and in the law. This country’s very foundation is one of equality and I
am not sure how anyone can honestly sit by and be comfortable with the
government allowing rights and benefits to be afforded one group of people, but
another group is not given those same rights and benefits. I would point out
here that if this was a subject of race, or even gender, this country would,
and has stood firm and protested this biased and bigoted behavior. So why, when
it is a case of homosexuals wanting equal rights and benefits, that suddenly
this country is so divided? I think the catalyst here is moral and religious
beliefs. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) I
am very clear and comfortable in my convictions that marriage is to be between
a man and a woman. The Family: A Proclamation to the World testifies that, “…marriage
between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to
the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children” and “marriage between
man and woman is essential to His eternal plan” 
Our forefathers were very careful when I came to the moral
beliefs of the people and that of the law, and they made sure that the two
would not be intertwined. However, they are intertwined in the form of voting.
It is every person’s right to vote the way they see fit. They can vote their
heart, beliefs, and morals if they so choose. The problem comes in when, even
with a vote, those beliefs are not upheld and the law becomes the opposite of
the beliefs. At this point in the issue that law is binding in the land,
regardless of belief. The Lord himself taught, “Let no man break the laws of
the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of
the land” (D&C 58:21) . However, let me be
clear here. Just because the temporal world has passed a law that is contrary
to God’s law cannot, and does not, change God’s law or the consequences of
violating that law. So many now a days, believe that if the people pass a law
then it is no longer possible to it to be a sin. This is grossly incorrect. I
believe the answer to what we are to do concerning these issues is really
personal choice. I for one, will continue to believe in the divine sanctity of
marriage being between a man and a woman, and I will freely stand in testimony
to this. However, what I will not do is move to remove some ones God given
right of agency, nor will I judge them. The Lord was clear when he said we are
to “love the Lord they God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with
all thy mind” (Matthew 22:36) and to “love thy
neighbor as thyself” (Matthew 22:39) .
The real troubling thing about this court decision is the
points brought up by the dissenting judges. Judge Roberts immediately points
out that “this court is not a legislature” and “Under the Constitution, judges
have power to say what the law is, not what is should be” (Obergerell et al v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al,
2015) .
This argument clearly points out that the Supreme Court, or any court really,
does not have the authority to ultimately create a law as they have done. This
is what the legislature is for, that is their job, as it is spelled out in the
Constitution. Judge Scalia magnifies Judge Roberts’ concern by voicing his own
concern about who it is that rules in this country. He states, “Today’s decree
says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a
majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court” (Obergerell et al v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al,
2015) .
He goes on to discuss other arguments, such as the definition of “liberties” as
the Constitution uses it. However, the haunting ramifications of his concern as
to who rules this country should be echoed by every citizen in this country.
The government of this country, and every State was specifically set up to
limit the power and rule of the government by putting that authority in the
hands of the people. When we see action such as we saw in this decision we must
ask ourselves, where does this kind of overreach end? When will “we the people”
lose are rights and authority? That time is coming, and one day, probably soon,
this country will become the very kind of place that our forefathers were
fighting to get away from. Where will you stand when that time comes?
Works Cited
D&C 58:21. (n.d.). In Doctrine and Covenants.
Retrieved from
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/58.21-22?lang=eng#20
Hinckley, G. B. (1995, Sep 23). The
Family: A Proclamation to the World. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Retrieved from
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true
Matthew 22:36. (n.d.). In The Bible.
Matthew 22:39. (n.d.). In The Bible.
Obergerell et al v. Hodges, Director,
Ohio Department of Health, et al (Supreme Court of the United States June 26,
2015).
Photo Credit
https://deseretbook.com/p/marble-christus-statue-deseret-book-company-41038?ref=Top%2015%20Bestsellers-1&variant_id=146932-9-inch
Comments
Post a Comment