My take on the subject at hand

Gay marriage has always been a very difficult topic for me.  This is rooted in my philosophical and political views, which have been heavily influenced by stories of the Book or Mormon, the early members of the church, and even modern spiritual giants that I look up to.  I consider myself a very strong libertarian, having decided long ago that the duopoly of our farcical excuse for a political system really only represents two sides of the exact same destructive coin.

As a libertarian, my strongly rooted belief is that we as a people have the right and the liberty to live our lives however we want as long as we don't infringe on that same right for other people.  While that single phrase instantly sums up the central point of libertarianism, the exact application of the idea is of course all but impossible to bring around to universal appeal, even among libertarians.  It comes down to the shades of grey that we associate with the concepts of "liberty", "infringement", etc.

To give a single example, many states have a law that requires motorcyclists to wear a helmet.  In my mind that is a perfect example of a law that directly contradicts libertarian thought, because wether or not I wear a helmet has little to no impact on the liberty or personal safety of other people.  Sure, I will be handing my life into the hands of every driver who passes me in the street and exposing my daughter to the risk of growing up without a father, but my firm belief is that I have the liberty to make this decision on my own rather than have somebody else make that decision for me.

Next in line on a continuum here might be seatbelt laws - there is not a lot of risk to others if I choose not to wear my seatbelt, but if I get in an accident then my not wearing a seatbelt it is definitely a risk to the others in my car.

While on the seatbelt topic, what about the law requiring me to put my child in a car seat?  Is the law requiring me to do so infringing on my liberty, or is my choice to leave a child out of a car seat infringing on the liberty and personal safety of my daughter?

Now that we are on the parenting topic, how much does the government get to mandate about how I raise my child?  Can I take her out of public school and deprive her of the "normal" social experience of suburban America and the government-mandated education system, or is that going to cause her lasting harm that I cannot be allowed to inflict?  Can I hit my child as a parent?  If the answer is yes, what is the difference between a light spanking and a fist to the side of the head?  Is there some measure of foot-pounds of force that CPS will use to determine when I have crossed the line?

I can't really answer all of my own questions in the preceding paragraphs - I don't think the answers about how much governmental control is permissible are very clear cut, and it becomes very hard to draw a line even for me with my own opinions; trying to draw that line for an entire country full of people seems ridiculous.  Nonetheless, that is where the debate on gay marriage centers in my mind.

I do NOT see gay marriage as a debate on morality, as a debate on the definition of marriage, or a debate on anything other than the question of how much influence the legal system can have on our own lives.  If I decide that I want to ride my motorcycle around without a helmet, I think I should be able to do so.  If somebody wants to beat their kids to within an inch of their lives, I believe that the government has a right and a duty to stop them from causing permanent harm to their children.  If somebody wants to rob a bank, I believe that the government has the duty and obligation to stop that infringement on the rights and liberties of other people.  I am not an anarchist that believes everything goes, but I am not a totalitarian who believes that George Orwell had the right idea either.  So - where in this continuum does the governments ability to decide who I marry fit in?

For me the answer is still "I don't know for sure", but I have to confess that I lean towards the side of saying that the government has no business dictating who I marry.

How many members of the LDS church believe that plural marriage should be legal?  I think most of us believe that the government overstepped their bounds when they dictated that plural marriage was not allowed, especially since God explicitly authorizes it time and time again throughout history and had authorized it at the time that it was outlawed in the 1800's.  If this is the case, what is the difference between each of the following "definitions" of marriage?:

1. Marriage between a man and a woman
2. Marriage between a woman and multiple men
3. Marriage between a man and multiple women
4. Marriage between a man and a man
5. Marriage between a man and multiple women, some of them under the age of 12

Interestingly, each time somebody promotes one of these definitions at the expense of one or more of the others, it usually centers around a particular religious perspective (or lack thereof).  If we interpret the separation of church and state to mean that our religious beliefs and the personal choices of how we live our lives should be separate from the mandates we put on others, then I think that most of the reason or motive for legally defining marriage one way or the other disappears.  To return to my earlier point, my opinion is that the debate is not (or shouldn't be) "Which of the above definitions is correct, and which one is not?"; instead the real question is (or at least should be) "Who is allowed to determine which of the above definitions is correct, and force those determinations upon me?"

Let me flip the argument on its head, in what might be seen as an unfair comparison: purely as an intellectual exercise, what if one day the government determined that marriage between a man and a woman was legally invalid, and that all entities would be required to recognize that fact?  We would all consider it an infringement on our rights, and we would all be out picketing and demanding change and doing whatever else we would deem necessary to turn it around.  We would claim persecution, we would lobby to change the law so we could live the way we wanted, and we would do whatever we felt necessary to live according to our beliefs.

If we claim that we can dictate how somebody lives because of our religious perspectives, what stops somebody else from doing the same with a different set of religious beliefs?  This is about infringing liberty, not about following a particular belief set - our ability to practice our beliefs is defined by our adherence to the principals of liberty, not the other way around; religion and defining marriage and everything else just gets pulled in to justify or explain ones placement of the line defining what a government is allowed to do in our lives and what they are not allowed to do.  If we believe that it was wrong for people to use religious motives to outlaw polygamous marriage 150 years ago, why is it OK for us to outlaw homosexual marriage today because of our religious beliefs?

To be perfectly clear, I believe that marriage was ordained of God, and that it is between man and woman.  I believe that people who contradict that ordination are in violation of Gods law, and will be held accountable for it.  However, just as I would not want somebody to legally define marriage in a way contrary to my beliefs, so I do not think it is my right to legally define it according to my beliefs if they contradict somebody else's or if they infringe on their liberty.

I believe that religion has no place in defining what I am legally allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do.  I believe that I, just like the rest of Gods children on this earth, have certain inalienable rights - among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  I also believe in the rights of others to worship how, where, or what they may.  I think that this extends beyond which building we all enter into each Sunday, and defines all aspects our our worship or lack thereof.  Otherwise we have to acknowledge a middle-eastern style supposed theocracy, just one that happens to subscribe to our beliefs rather than those of the Muslim religion.

To conclude this long, rambling, and probably incoherent post: someday the church may come out and officially state that to be in good standing with the church we must not only oppose the idea of homosexual marriage on a personal and spiritual level, but that we must oppose it on a secular, legal level as well.  If and when that day comes then I will follow Gods will, and do what I am asked to do.  I may have some struggles then just as I do now with what I see as some conflicting ideologies, but there are many mighty men who have gone before me with similar struggles.

My ideas expressed here might not be shared or even understood by all who will read it, but I find this a very conflicting topic and have not been able to find any easy answers.  Some of my deepest beliefs and my most dearly held values seem to be pitted directly against each other, and I am still working to define  harmony between them.  For now, this post represents my views and the perspectives that I understand from Gods teachings.  While I realize that I may receive clarity at some time in the future that will influence a change in this perspective, I see life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as the defining characteristics of our country, the purpose of our government, and one of the central points in Gods plan of happiness.  Allowing the government to dictate how I live or who I marry contradicts that belief, and I do not want to impose that contradiction on anybody else any more than I want to have it imposed on me.

Another Thing

One very public thing in the gay marriage debate recently was the announcement by President Obama that he supported gay marriage.

One point he made in his interview was interesting. He mentioned his daughters and how facing the prospect of explaining to them why their friends parents couldn't be married prompted a rethink of his "position". When I first heard that I took it to mean that because it was going to be hard to explain that he then changed his position. What a sad world we live in if that is how are president would approach a situation. After thinking it over however I came to a much more optimistic conclusion that when faced with explaining the situation to his daughters he reflected and then "admitted" that he had a different position on the topic.

If we can't explain something or aren't able to try there is a good chance we don't believe it and we are simply being honest with ourselves and others when we acknowledge that. It is good that he has been honest but sad that he has that position. Because there are valid reasons to think as he did before that civil unions can be brought to an equitable point with the proper time and effort.

Laws and Discrimination

Good references I have to say that both were interesting in their scope. I particularly like the treatment of the purpose of marriage being family and taking care of children.

I have found myself wondering about same-sex unions previously when I had multiple discussions with a coworker at a previous job. I have been opposed to the desire for "gay marriage" on moral grounds definitely but for a long time I didn't have a non-religious argument for a long time. Thomas Sowell an economist and columnist treats the matter well in several columns this is an example. Others can be found at this listing of columns. One thing I ask people when they argue for "gay marriage" is what end goal they are trying to accomplish, and what there argument is for going this route.

I have seen multiple reasons for applying marriage to gay unions primarily centering around the benefits afforded the couples such as visitation rights in hospitals, beneficiary rights on death, and many other connective "rights". However, marriage is not only about rights it is also about responsibilities and the laws centering around marriage rights and responsibilities have been growing up and establishing precedents for hundreds of years under the structure of a man/woman union. To take all of those legal decisions and precedents and apply them to something fundamentally different wholesale is a poor practice. If homosexual people want all of the rights then I think they are afforded the opportunity to build those from the foundation and legally I wouldn't oppose the procedure. The actual relationships aren't something I would legally oppose under our current form of government, but taking something established and trying to get all of the "benefits" in a fell swoop is dangerous for our form of law.

One other thing I like to hear is people try to argue that gays not being able to marry is some form of discrimination. The reality is that a homosexual man has the exact same right that I do and that is to marry a woman. I can't marry a man any more than he can. The argument then could go, "you can marry the person you love". I can marry a woman I love true, but I can marry a woman I do not love. The fundamental action is forming a contract between two human beings in this case the contract has developed and grown between man and woman and there is no discrimination in maintaining the integrity of such contracts.

Well this isn't all that complete, but it will do for now.