Where Were We When Life Needed Defended?

I’ve received a lot of feedback (both here and offline) on yesterday’s marriage vs abortion post. I drafted the following in an effort to address the majority of them at one time. It’s a bit long, but it builds to a heck of a punchline!

Politics is the art of community building. The making of laws is the art of community defining. There are two ways a community will define itself, empirically and subjectively. The first involves natural laws that can be tested, proven or refuted, and are until new evidence proves otherwise. The second is based on values, our own moral compass. It works only as long as a majority of people agree. It works well only if an overwhelming majority agrees and abides by it. Unfortunately, the subjective rule of law is inherently exclusive and will change as the population’s morals change. I certainly feel that we must develop laws that are based on broad, overarching values that most of us can agree on and will pass the test of time. This country was founded by a God who preserved it and directed its formation. Moving away from moral values will have damaging consequences, which is why we must identify the most generally shared values in our community and base our governance on those.

Once values enter the picture, we are faced with the questions, who’s values? Why? What makes their values more right than someone else’s? Subject governance based on might makes right is polarizing. It’s divisive. Instead of finding common ground and working together, we focus on our differences. We deplete our resources on the things that tear us down rather than build us up and ignore the larger issues we face. Certainly our decisions should be based on our values, however, when defining our community, we must support our beliefs with fact.

If you’ve ever bought something you didn’t really need, you’ve seen this principle in action. Think of the last time you bought a car with more features than you needed, a pair of jeans that was more expensive than another, or had desert after a good dinner. Our buying decisions are based on emotions (I want it. I want it. I want it.), and we defend the decision with logic (I need it. I need it. I need it.). Buyer’s remorse is the lack of sound logic to support the emotion that led to the decision. Community defining works the same way. Since our values change in both the short and long term, subjective governance is a volatile way to define our community.

The people of United States define our community in an interesting way. All of our rights are stated in the negative. We have a right until the people use the government to take it away, and our laws are designed to prevent government from usurping our most precious rights. The act of granting rights by a government because of some special status moves us to a strange realm where we are dependent on another to tell us what we can and cannot do, which is decisively un-American. Certainly we restrict rights (e.g., voting, drinking, driving, etc.), however, in each of those cases either there is empirical data to support the values-based decision or our values were shaped by the evidence.

A majority of Americans seem to believe that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. Why? What does “marriage” mean? Is it a legal status used to define that sharing of rights? Is it a moral commitment to another person? Is it a tradition? And why is a priority? Love? Companionship? Convenience? Security? Chemistry? No one person can answer these questions for all of us. These are personal questions. There is no empirical data that shows that homosexual couples benefit less from the marriage than heterosexual couples. And the overwhelming majority of homosexuals choose not to get married. We ought to be amazed that any two people can meet, decide to be in love, commit to supporting each other as helpmeets, and actually stick with it!

If marriage is a civil agreement between two consenting adults, then religion may not set policy. If marriage is a moral commitment between two adults who vow to love, honor, and cherish one another, then the state has no involvement except to record rights and responsibilities. But if you believe that marriage is a religious ceremony, you must also believe that everyone has the right to practice their religion according to their own dictates. If marriage is a religious ceremony, then you may believe that God has set agency as a fundamental principle of His gospel, perhaps it is the most important principle. You may further believe that “no power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the [God], only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned.”

As for my own beliefs, I agree with The Family: A Proclamation to the World issued by the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My religious beliefs lead me to support the definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman. Never-the-less, that is a religious distinction, and all attempts to support this definition empirically don’t hold water. I supported the ban in Oregon out of a sense of obligation to the people I sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators, and the President of the Church who I believe is God’s representative her on the Earth today. (Comparable to an Abraham, Noah, or Elijah.) But for that, I can think of no reason to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

My objection to the grossly disproportionate attention given to 18,000 married homosexual couples in California over the nearly 100,000 babies that will be aborted this year is completely independent on my views of marriage. The Coalition on Marriage took up the easy victory. Ironically enough, if it hadn’t been for the black and Latino vote that came to support Mr. Obama, Prop 8 may have well failed.

Active supporters of Proposition 8 addressed the lower hanging fruit and may have been motivated by revenge against a “liberal” court overturning their 2000 victory. This wasn’t about reaffirming the will of the people. 9% fewer California’s voted for Prop 8 then voted for Proposition 22 in 2000, in spite of the . This was about a religious crusade against a politically weak minority pushed forward on fear of a condemning, angry God, images of little old boys holding hands on the playground, and grown men kissing. This was a campaign of propaganda and when the moral winds shift, it will be repealed.

The amazing amount or resources committed to this one issue will prove to have been misappropriated. If you’re afraid of being condemned for not standing up for the “traditional definition of marriage” and telling two consenting adults that you will not acknowledge their behavior, I ask you to consider the implications of ignoring Proposition 4 and every other piece of legislation like it. Tens of millions of babies have been killed in the United States before they had the chance to take a breath. Tens of thousands of babies will be killed this year in California because we have failed to move the pro-life cause forward in any meaningful way. Minors can’t drive without their parent’s permission. If their outside past curfew, they can be detained. Parents and responsible adults protect children from harm and are involved, especially in their times of dire need. Failing to pass Prop 4 failed to protect our children. It failed by nearly the exact margin by which Prop 8 passed. $2.7 million was spent advocating for parental notification. $6.3 million was spent opposing it. Our grossly negligent absence in this issue puts the blood of those babies partially on our hands.

Marriage and the family are worthwhile causes and worth defending. I do not agree with how our resources were allocated and believe that we sacrificed parental notification for control over homosexuals.