Decisions prompted by selfish feelings are typically shortsighted. I heard a segment from a radio news program describing the quandary of the children of adults who had hyphenated their names at marriage. Jenny Smith-Showerhammer had married Jack Butler-VanDyke. They were befuddled as they attempted to decide what name to pass on to their own children. "Smith-Showerhammer-Butler-VanDyke" is infinitely ridiculous, yet by the nomenclature adopted by the progressive women of the 60s and 70s, this could become the actual surname of a kid begotten by their children. This consequence was unforeseen—no one considered the distant future. Women chose to forgo traditional use of the husband's surname and strike a blow for women's equality (ironically, by keeping their fathers' surnames instead). Perhaps they felt that losing a name implied second-class status in the relationship or society. Perhaps they experienced the sense of satisfaction that comes from taking a stand that lets one stand out, bucking tradition. Trying to be unique is a good feeling. Whatever the original motivation, it did not involve enough consideration of consequences for the next generation.
The modern tendency is to think of the present as an improvement on the past, and to think of our ancestors as naive. "Progress" is the watchword of our age. But too often, we tend to think of any change as being progress. As the above example demonstrates, our ancestors were not as backward and foolish as many of us suppose. Often traditions started when the need for them became obvious, and no one passed along sufficient reason to the later generations as a result. Of course you name the kids after their father—a person's maternity is easy to establish; paternity requires more complicated devices to ascertain and establish. This may not be the reasoning behind the tradition of passing on the father's surname to children in our culture, but this particular advantage of doing so occurred to me after hearing about the unlucky recipients of a break from tradition, left to sort out the confusion in the absence of those who accidentally created it.
Lately the news has been oversimplifying the Supreme Court ruling on Prop 8, announcing proudly that they have confirmed gay marriage as legal in California. After searching a bit deeper, and looking at the ruling itself, my understanding is that INaction, not action, has left the door open to gay marriage.
The two parties presenting their case before the Supreme Court were required to have "Article III standing" in order to bring their case before the highest court. While the party in favor of gay marriage was deemed to have such standing, those in support of Prop 8 and limiting the definition of marriage to one man and one women were not. The case was therefore considered unfit for trial: "That party must also have 'standing,' which requires, among other things, that [they] have suffered a concrete and particularized injury. Because we find that petitioners [pro-traditional marriage] do not have standing, we have no authority to decide this case on the merits, and neither did the Ninth Circuit" (from the Supreme Court ruling on the case, emphasis added).
"Petitioners" lacked "standing," i.e. they had no sufficient, sustained injury to complain about. Will they have "standing" if the law passed by the people is being invalidated and struck down unilaterally by one judge? And who was considered qualified to take the issue before the Supreme Court? I quote from the ruling again, with my own emphasis added:
"Respondents, two same-sex couples who wish to marry, filed suit in federal court, challenging Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The complaint named as defendants California’s Governor, attorney general, and various other state and local officials responsible for enforcing California’s marriage laws. Those officials refused to defend the law, although they have continued to enforce it throughout this litigation. The District Court allowed petitioners—the official proponents of the initiative, see Cal. Elec. Code Ann. §342 (West 2003)—to intervene to defend it. After a 12-day bench trial, the District Court declared Proposition 8 unconstitutional, permanently enjoining the California officials named as defendants from enforcing the law, and ‘directing the official defendants that all persons under their control or supervision’ shall not enforce it. Perry v. Schwarzenegger , 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 1004 (ND Cal. 2010). Those officials elected not to appeal the District Court order. When petitioners did, the Ninth Circuit asked them to address 'why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of Article III standing.' Perry v. Schwarzenegger , Civ. No. 10–16696 (CA9, Aug. 16, 2010), p. 2."
The Governor and other elected officials were the only ones who could represent California in court. But they refused to represent the majority of their constituents by upholding their ballot referendum in court, and de facto annulment of the legislation was the result. Executives would not defend the law in court, and the average, unelected people could not, so the justices of the Supreme Court felt they had no power to hand down an affirmative or negative ruling. Again from the ruling: "This is an essential limit on our power: It ensures that we act as judges, and do not engage in policymaking properly left to elected representatives." Their inaction, whether constitutional or not, has left the judges in California free to do exactly that—engage in policymaking.
The picture created here is one of omission—the Supreme Court passed the onus of ruling on the case like a hot potato, and the governor would not move to support the legislation in court. The Supreme Court contends that they have no authority to rule on a case not properly presented. While a few officials sit on their hands and choose to do nothing to enforce the law or stand against its detractors in court, their inaction has left the door open in favor of same-sex marriage, and whatever other variation happens to be presented to a favorably disposed justice of the peace for his consideration.
The ruling discusses the issue of "standing" as follows: "One essential aspect of this requirement is that any person invoking the power of a federal court must demonstrate standing to do so. This requires the litigant to prove that he has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct..." Are not the Governor and judges creating an injury by refusing to enforce the will of the majority enacted via ballot initiative?
Little wonder Captain Moroni was so vehemently opposed to the passive inactivity and crawling pace of his own government: "And now behold, we desire to know the cause of this exceedingly great neglect; yea, we desire to know the cause of your thoughtless state...Yea, will ye sit in idleness...?" (Alma 60:6, 22). Silence betokens consent, as the old legal maxim says.
The Book of Mormon speaks to our present situation as if it were adapted to our current headlines: "And now behold, I say unto you, that the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges" (Alma 10:27).
I do not believe that any mortal responsible for rendering Prop 8 void (by direct action or passive inaction) intends to destroy America. But I do suggest that the ultimate outcomes of redefining what organizations are qualified to raise children will have a massive impact on our future as a nation. Those determined to effect that change have neglected to discuss, or consider publicly, the potential consequences.
What good will come from establishing families in which one or both of the children's biological parents are necessarily absent by definition? A diminished sense of reproductive responsibility will come to those men and women who are begetting children. As for the effects on the children, who knows? Nowhere do we read in any studies or literature that children generally fare better when raised by someone other than their biological parents. We will probably learn the answers to these, and other unconsidered questions, long after the people promoting the redefinition of marriage have shuffled off this mortal coil. Others will be left behind to deal with their shortsighted decisions. Since few, if any, are willing to get out the binoculars of imagination and look down the road to the consequences of changing the fundamental nature of marriage and family at a legal level, I will do a little of that here.
When procreation and the well being of children cease to be the driving force behind a definition of marriage, all sorts of strange avenues of inquiry open up.
Why should corporations like GE and GM not be allowed to adopt? If any two adults can raise adopted children effectively, who is to say a thousand devoted employees of a financially solvent and long-standing institution could not do a better job? Are polygamy and polyamory now considered valid bases for a family? Why should parents not be allowed to marry their own children? Will a Utah marriage license be considered valid in California anymore? Will California licenses be valid in Utah? Will that effect interstate commerce?
Once the door is opened to redefining marriage, bizarre and uncomfortable questions immediately present themselves. If they seem unrealistic, recall that twenty years ago, "gay marriage" was essentially an invisible non-issue, also considered unrealistic. What other questions will disregarding traditional marriage require us to answer? In any case, we will not have the option of answering them as comfortable hypotheticals. They will be real life scenarios playing out before us with far-reaching social consequences hard on their heels, and adequate answers may elude even the most Solomonic wisdoms.
The tangles formed by shortsighted and selfish decisions (made under the adamant assertion that such things were "no ones else's business") are already ensaring us as a nation. Social ills are devouring our time and resources as we combat the foliage of consequence, when a solution could have been offered at the roots of personal choices.
Elder Oaks explains some statistical data about America: "Most of the children born to unmarried mothers—58 percent—were born to couples who were cohabitating. Whatever we may say about these couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant comparative disadvantages. For children, the relative stability of marriage matters.
"We should assume the same disadvantages for children raised by couples of the same gender. The social science literature is controversial and politically charged on the long-term effect of this on children, principally because, as a New York Times writer observed, 'same-sex marriage is a social experiment, and like most experiments it will take time to understand its consequences'" (Protect the Children, October 2012 General Conference). That we are willing to experiment with our children's well being and development is evidence that selfishness is driving the call for abandoning the old definition of marriage.
The gospel is a message of love and hope, an invitation not just to repent, but to reap the benefits that only come through repentance. I hope that we as a nation will look down the road and consider the consequences our actions may have, rather than limiting the scope of our vision to the ends of our noses, and constantly marching to the drumbeat of "me, me, me."
