I've thought a lot about what you're saying because I respect your opinion here in RF. Believe me, I'm really trying to "get it".
I've been thinking about what you've said, too, Starfish, and I don't mean to be critical of your stance. I've come to my present perspective over time and even now am not 100% comfortable with it. I realize that it's uncomfortable for members of the Church to hear me take issue with the leadership of the Church and, believe me, if we were talking doctrine, I wouldn't do so. I just see eternal salvation and civil rights as being two separate things entirely.
I'm going to approach this from a different angle. It's not really just about gay people. It's about families. We know in the gospel that the family unit is vitally important. I believe it is the Church's effort to protect the family, as it is defined by the Lord. Legalized gay marriage, or any other change in the traditional institution, starts to chip away, or distort, what the Lord intended. Civil unions is a step in this direction. Any law that protects the traditional family definition, I believe, is for the best for all. Unfortunately, this will be seen by some as a punishment. I see it as a necessary protection.
I know where you're coming from and, believe me, I too value the institution of marriage. I guess what I'm trying to take into account is that not everyone believes as I do on matters of morality. When I was a child, I remember my father saying, "You can't legislate morality." I didn't understand what he meant then, but I think I do now. You can't force someone to be morally clean by instituting a law that punishes him for his choices. Well, I guess you can, actually, because we've done just that. On the other hand, it hasn't really made a positive difference. It has hurt a lot of people but I don't know that it has really helped anyone. I try to imagine a gay couple moving in next door to me. Whether they had the same rights under the laws of the land as I do would not affect me in any way, but it would certainly affect them.
Gays are still free to choose their lifestyle. No one is forcing anything upon them. There are legal benefits that can be put in place, if they so choose. But the sancitity of marriage and the family is paramount, above anyone's preferences.
I used to think that there were ways around the law, ways in which they could have the same legal rights as anyone else. I argued that point for a long time on RF before I finally realized that I didn't know what I was talking about. I used to say that I was opposed to same-sex marriage, but would be in favor of civil unions. Finally, I came to realize that it's a whole lot more complicated than I had ever known, and that it doesn't work legally the way I had always assumed it did.
At this point, I don't care what it's called; I just believe in equality under the laws of the land and I don't see that equality as existing today. I don't see the sanctity of my own marriage as being compromised by permitting two other people -- regardless of their sexual preference -- from entering into a legal contract whereby their rights are protected. The union between a same-sex couple is not going to be a marriage in the eternal sense of the word, as we understand that sacred union to be part of God's plan, and nothing we can do is going to change that. What we can do is make people's mortal lives as free from discrimination and exclusion as possible. That is something we've been commanded to do.
I'm saying this with the greatest desire to understand both sides. But in the end, I have to go with the Prophet.
I know. I appreciate your effort to see the other side of the issue. If it were two years ago, we probably wouldn't even be having this decision. I've just thought a lot about it since joining RF and talking to so many people who have caused me to reconsider.
Thank You!
