Popular Vote versus the U.S. Supreme Court. – Mormon response to Prop 8 supreme court rulings.

Over the past 5 years there has been a growing divide between what is appropriate to call traditional marriage. Is it the union of a man and a woman, or can it also include the union of two individuals of the same gender? This has been debated intensely back and forth in the state of California specifically. The people of California voted in favor of prop 8 in 2008 that amended the California Constitution to reflect “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This amendment would be challenged numerous times and ultimately be declared unconstitutional by California’s supreme court in 2010. Pending lawsuits forced the hand of the U.S. Supreme court to take action and decide on behalf of the case. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ultimately left the 2010 district court ruling to stand. On June 28, 2013, the ninth court lifted its stay on the ruling, which now enables same-sex marriages to resume.

As this intensely emotional issue unfolds one of the most persuasive aspect that impacted this discussion was the Mormon Church, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They were proponents for the original Prop 8, and have continued to voice their opinions about the issue of marriage. In fact, recently, they released a campaign to continue their support for traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

Here is the response to the recent Supreme Court rulings from the Mormon Church: Response

                  "By ruling that supporters of Proposition 8 lacked standing to bring this case to court, the                  Supreme Court has highlighted troubling questions about how our democratic and judicial system operates. Many Californians will wonder if there is something fundamentally wrong when their government will not defend or protect a popular vote that reflects the views of a majority of their citizens.

  
 


                  "In addition, the effect of the ruling is to raise further complex jurisdictional issues that will need to be resolved. 




                  "Regardless of the court decision, the Church remains irrevocably committed to strengthening traditional marriage between a man and a woman, which for thousands of years has proven to be the best environment for nurturing children. Notably, the court decision does not change the definition of marriage in nearly three-fourths of the states."

This campaign response from the Mormon Church provides a level of conviction and faith based knowledge to confirm the belief of its members. The statement is also intended to draw a clear line in the sand about the churches stance on marriage and the unpopularity of this court decision within a majority of the remaining states. 

When any religion begins to express it's religious views on a subject as controversial as this one, it is on the basis of truth, conviction, and beliefs that a campaign is presented. This is the case with the Mormon Church in this campaign to define what true marriage is. It is only recognized between a man and a woman. The idea of having two people come together that are of the same gender and call it "marriage" is not what the church supports. If the recognition of the same-sex union were somewhat equal, but not referred to as "marriage" it is likely the Mormon Churches stance would be of acceptance. 

This campaign is all based on the idea of calling what has been traditionally a bond between a man and a woman since the beginning (Adam and Eve) and now suddenly proponents want the same recognition of that high status of "marriage." Let us call a spade a spade and realize that this recent push to call two people of the same gender a "marriage," cannot simply be redefined so suddenly. This high status of marriage has existed for thousands of years and to change it now to effect a small minority of the population seems to be insane. 

I believe that minorities should be represented, however, using the same name to represent a same-sex marriage is not moral nor ethical, especially when it has held such a high regard for thousands of years. If this minority group wants the same benefits, then create a definition of a same-sex relationship so that is can receive the same benefits, but do not change the definition of marriage to appease a minority group that only wants equality. 

Bottom line: If same-sex relationships could qualify for the same benefits by referring to their union as a Rainbow Alliance, and not a "marriage," then all will be well in Zion.