California's Proposition 8

My aunt sent an email with a link to a blog that was passing on information about an interfaith fast today for Proposition 8. The blogger indicated in her post that the Church supported the proposition, and then there were a number of commentators from both sides jabbing each other about the issue. So, I'm going to start off by saying that I don't think I have that many readers who will be prone to comment, but if for whatever reason outsiders or insiders find this and want to comment, I welcome positive thoughts, particularly logical, kind-hearted notes and pieces of factual information. I do allow comments from anyone; however, I moderate them before they show up, so if you have unkind things to say, I might read them, but no one else will in this forum.

What I'd like to do here is explore a few things surrounding the issue and the Church's support (if this is indeed true. Today, as happens every October during political parading season, the bishop read the statement from the First Presidency reminding members of its political neutrality. It even had a line that I hadn't remembered hearing before that indicated members of both political parties had beliefs consistent with the teachings of the Church. That was good to hear.)

So, on to my reasoning:
A number of people both on the blog I read and in general when I've read things regarding this issue, point out the connection of marriage and religion, many trying to emphasize the connection, but without making logical points of connection and separation. The facts are that marriages can be made by religious officials and by state officials. Religions may have their opinions and enforce them about who they may marry, but the binding forces on the marriage are different between state and religion based on the authority of each of these offices.

Let's consider for a moment, how the nation would be affected if marriage were only an institution of religion. Since money is created and governed by the state, the religion could not enforce any monetary obligations on either member of the marriage party. This would mean there would be no such things as alimony, joint tax filings, or marriage-related tax breaks or tax increases. . I don't know enough about child support but it shouldn't be connected to marriage, so hopefully that wouldn't be affected, but otherwise, a wife would not have legal claim on her husband, nor a husband on his wife.

Given this much, it seems as if the state would have much fewer hassles, fewer forms, and monetary trials if they weren't associated with marriage.

Therefore, there must be a benefit to the state if they want to have some governance over the issue. In the case of financial crisis, perhaps the institution benefits them inasmuch as it creates jobs: tax people to handle all the ins and outs mentioned above; family-type lawyers and their associated workers to handle divorces and alimony.

But, well, I kind of think there's probably more to it than that. True enough, some governments might look to create a number of useless institutions just for the sake of jobs, but tax-payers don't like to pay for new institutions the government finances. And yet people haven't fussed about the government having government-paid people to handle the records associated with it--marriage licenses, etc. so the people must also like nor not mind that the state has governance over marriage. Given the above financial reasons, it seems it is in the people's interest to maintain the connection, so inasmuch as it is already an institution, it would be difficult for the government to remove the connection given the potential outcry of its people.

Now, to go back a minute, if there had never been a connection, what would be some benefits for a government to regulate marriage? (Supposing a new country were to form, for example.) Given statistics and study findings from existing countries in which marriage is a common institution (regardless the state vs. religion regulations), it would seem that marriage provides an assurance for the better education of its people. That is, there have been studies to indicate that children who live with married parents perform better in school. Therefore, this would indicate that promoting marriage would be a benefit to the state.

Along with this, although divorce is widespread, inasmuch as studies indicate the greater likelihood of parents to stay together if they are married than if they are not, this would add to the benefit of promoting marriage.

Do these pieces of information, however, indicate that governing marriage would be in their interest? This is a multi-faceted question. First, does governance constitute promotion? Not directly, no. Because government could decide against tax breaks and joint filings and still govern marriage, and in fact create tax increase to married couples, this would indicate that governance does not directly correlate with promoting marriage.

However, government can more effectively promote marriage by governing, or taking jurisdiction over it. Given the benefits to the people indicated earlier, such as the assistance with alimony as needed, and other financial benefits, such as potential tax breaks, some people would be more prone to marry than they would be if the governing of marriage worked against their favor. Therefore, yes, inasmuch as those studies are accurate, it would be in the government's interest not just to regulate marriage but to pass such laws as would promote it.

Questions also arise about the interest in government of regulating marriage for those couples who do not have children whose education they are influencing, but about this, I don't know how to approach an argument in one way or the other. I'm sure there are people out there with significant facts in both directions, but my knowledge is limited. Even what information I have provided I recognize is all looking at things somewhat "logically" only, therefore idealistically, and also with only the perspectives of my limited knowledge of how government affects marriage. Although I am aware of a number of perspectives and have tried and will try to consider them as I continue, I cannot possibly take into account the numerous perspectives and attitudes given the immensity of the voting public.

So, we've come to the point that it seems it is in government's best interest to maintain regulation over marriage and to promote it. But the question on the ballot is not this but rather how to define marriage. So, if the reasoning I have provided were sufficient and complete to the end of the government regulating marriage, looking at this information, which definition of marriage would be more beneficial to the government's scope of influence over marriage? That is, some of have said, as I indicated earlier, that this definition should rest within the realm of religious influence rather than the states. However, inasmuch as the government has jurisdiction over marriage, and all things over which government has influence must be defined, the argument of leaving this definition alone to religion is not possible.

So, the points that make marriage a benefit to government:
1. (within a government in which marriage is already governed) to avoid an outcry from the people whom it benefits.

2. to promote the education of its children/rising generation who will be its workers and leaders in later years.

How would the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman alone respond to number 1?
Since there has already been an outcry regarding this aspect of the definition, and the people have voted in several states, including the state in which the question has arisen, that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, then it would stand in the government's best interest to follow the voice of the people.

How would the definition of marriage as being the union of two people regardless their gender respond to number 1?
Given that government has instituted benefits for marriage, those who are not able to participate in these benefits feel they are being unfairly treated and therefore they are crying out for change so they can participate in these benefits. The question then is, are these benefits rights of the governed people, or privileges? Do all people have a right to these benefits simply because they love another person? This leads to the reasons for the benefits being established, which, within my limited knowledge, seems to hinge more directly on number 2.

So, no. 2. How would the definition of marriage as being a union between a man and a woman alone respond to no. 2?
Studies would have to indicate that the marriage between a man and a woman significantly impacted their children's productivity and that the children of another union did not or even impacted the children negatively. Given the number of factors that contribute to such a study, this would be difficult.

How would the definition of marriage as being a union between two people of whatever gender respond to no. 2?
Studies would have to indicate that the children of such a union were negatively impacted being raised by parents of the same gender. The studies could not focus on single parenthood and therefore not of one gender or the other, but specifically of the raising of a child with two parental units of the same gender.

While the reasoning has led me in interesting directions, I have to say that even as I write about the idea of two parents of the same gender, I feel bothered enough to removes "logic" from the picture. But it does make me wonder about the definition of another word that seems to be involved in this equation: parent. BioLogically, the parents of any child consist of a man and a woman. No scientific experimentation has ever produced a child with the uniting reproductive cells of two men or of two women. Therefore, any meddling with this definition is artificial. Does the state have the right, then, to govern the definition of parent?

In some instances, it seems to have taken this within its jurisdiction--inasmuch as children or parents can be "disowned"--removed from financial obligations, and inasmuch as companies/agencies are allowed to give children to a single parent in an adoption circumstance. The very nature of giving a child up for adoption seems to indicate a legal removal of the title "parent" thereby leaving some children without parents of either gender. And I would not argue against adoption. It is good that some biological parents do not have legal rights to parent their children. So there is good reason for the state to have some say about this definition. But as far as defining what kind of parents a child can be given to, it seems natural laws would indicate a better circumstance consists in the unity of two people of opposite sexes parenting a child.

So, all of this also reminds me of a significant point I've left out--the constitution argument about people's right to the pursuit of happiness--the argument that seems to have led to this second time around of this vote on the California ballot. The point the judges made was that by denying marriage to homosexual couples, the state was discriminating against their right to the pursuit of happiness. So, the question is begged that the marriage between two homosexuals constitutes a step in the direction of their pursuing happiness. And yet, we have no factual data to indicate that the unnatural union of two people constitutes movement in the direction of happiness. With this, there would have to be studies to indicate a few things, actually--that homosexual people are actually happier when they are married than when they are not (which would be impossible given the illegality of this), and that they are happier being homosexual than pursuing a direction of trying to become heterosexual.

Of course proving that any activity contributes to the pursuit of happiness would be a rather difficult course to pursue, including many of the rights we enjoy. Perhaps, though, embedded in this statement in the constitution is the realization that sometimes the pursuit of happiness entails allowing people to pursue whatever they will, even if it leads to unhappiness, because from their unhappy course they are essentially learning how to find the happy course, which brings the whole thing full circle to indicate that any activity at all can constitute pursuit of happiness and the statement really means only that people need to be allowed their agency. And yet we know that absolute agency does not promote the happiness of everyone. For example, if murder were not illegal, because we had to allow the murdered their agency, few people would agree this promoted the pursuit of happiness sufficiently.

Therefore, the argument of allowing gay marriage with the reason of allowing pursuit of happiness would also have to indicate that the people whose lives their union would influence, such as children they would be permitted to adopt (including the other in a party in which one was the biological parent), were also permitted a greater chance at pursuing happiness than they would be if they were placed in homes with parents of both genders. And I don't think any study has indicated this. But again, we come full circle because we don't know what would constitute the pursuing of happiness for these children.

So, I'm not sure exactly what my logic has led to, but these last points do bring up another point that I had hoped to explore, that of agency as it relates to the Church's position on things. Because the Church promotes free agency--recognizing that this is one of the greatest gifts of God--in most cases, the Church would not support laws that took away from others' agency. In the Book of Mormon, in one of the stories, there's a passage that indicates there were no laws in the particular government at that time that could bind a man to believe in God, so although such a man was trying to influence others not to believe in God, the government could do nothing to restrain him. And because the laws were originally established by people who wanted to follow God, we are led to recognize that man's agency is of utmost importance, until it leads to terrible things, such as murder (which happened in this case I think).

So, if the Church is indeed in favor of this proposition, it must be because it will actually lead to the removal of agency. It seems hard to see this because it initially promotes agency, but on the blog that I read originally, one of the commentators actually indicated that indeed the passing of such definition of non-gender-defined marriage had impacted others rights to religious freedom and other rights of agency, with one example regarding adoption. I don't remember the specifics, but the person's logic and facts seemed to be sound, and it was also interesting that the person indicate he was himself gay and in favor of this proposition for those reasons.

Well, so there are my thoughts. I guess my conclusion has to rest on my own feelings because logic without sufficient information, which it seems there cannot even be given the nature of the issues, won't lead me to any conclusion. And so, although this isn't an issue on my current ballot, I have to say I still believe I voted well when it was on the ballot in Virginia a couple years ago. Best of luck to you in your thinking.