The
election in the
This
is a watershed election in the
Critical issues lie before us. As residents of Washington D.C. who live in the shadow of the Pentagon and see electronic signs over the highway in times of high alert saying, “Report any Suspicious Activity,” we know firsthand the threat of terror. Economic and health care concerns scream at us every day.
Yet, when this year’s economic and healthcare issues are only a page in history, after the long, long battle to subdue terrorists seems contained, one issue will have been paramount from these times and will forever profoundly affect the world.
It will be what we have decided about the importance and future of marriage and family in our society. We will have chosen what our children ten years and then hundred years and beyond will be taught about marriage. We will decide what they will learn in school about their identity and their destiny.
We will have affirmed that children deserve to be raised with a mother and father or we will fly in the face of over 2,000 social studies about the healthiest way for children to be raised and redefined marriage until it no longer has the same power in our nation.
If marriage is redefined, there will be not word in the English language that means the committed union of a man and a woman.
No Middle Ground
There
is no middle road here. If you are not actively working to
protect the family at every level of government, you have
worked against the family. Your apathy will have spoken loudly.
Your silence will have been blaring. If you sit home and watch
the election results on television, eating potato chips and
hoping that somebody else was fighting to protect the family,
you will have been part of the unraveling of family life in
No matter what else you had on your calendar for the few days leading up to the election, it will not have the same seismic importance as working to elect candidates who support family and life issues, particularly a Constitutional amendment on marriage. Go to www.anxiouslyengaged.org and join the swelling army of people who care about what you do.
Journalists and candidates come to think, “We don’t need to pay attention to those family-centered people. They don’t care.” Or, despite how clear the polls are that the majority of Americans care about the definition of marriage, they can get away with saying that those who stand for family are on the fringe.
Our Nation on the Line
Yet, it is not only the family itself that is on the line, so is the future of our nation. Economists say a nation’s financial strength is based on its human capital—those people who have grown up strong and able, competent and disciplined who can create businesses and ideas, who are willing and able workers—the kind of people, on the whole, who grow up in strong families.
The political philosophers who inspired the Founding Fathers of our nation believed the only way to have a free nation was to have a moral citizenry—the kind of people who have been taught values in their homes and don’t have to have undue regulation to maintain stability.
Social scientists have accumulated stacks of data demonstrating that the health of a society depends on the health of the home—and where that is lacking bigger government steps in to fill the breach.
Where family fails, society pays. Where family fails, jails fill. Where family fails, government grows to take over the functions.
However convincing these arguments are, something that stands above all the rest for Latter-day Saints are the words of the prophets. In The Family: A Proclamation to the World given to us in 1995 from the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, we hear this chilling line, “We warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
The disintegration of the family begins with the dissolution of marriage.
The First Presidency, as you know, are very prayerful and thoughtful before issuing statements, yet last summer, this brief statement was given:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman.” This was true on both the state and federal level, according to a spokesman from Church Public Affairs.
During the October 1999 conference, President Hinckley said:
Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.
Compelled to Speak Out
Before a meeting in Washington D.C. recently, a reporter from Reuters asked me why I was opposed to same-sex marriage. I decided to simply answer him from my heart, as a mother and grandmother, who has a vested interest in tomorrow. Those children whom I have spent my life on matter more to me than any political discussion. I said that if same-sex marriage became the law of the land, then children at school would be taught this as a norm. Their books would reflect it. Their sex education classes would reflect it. Their sense of the world would be handed over every day to people who had to uphold this radical new value. Their expectations for life would be altered.
The old order with stable marriage at its center would be shaken and gone, and in its place would be jarring questions. In the name of self-esteem, teachers would be encouraged to identify and encourage the children’s possible same-sex attraction. Those with fragile identities (and many children go through such a stage) would wonder whom they were attracted to. Experimentation would emerge. Confusion would reign. Classroom literature would include books like Heather Has Two Mommies and a teenager at school would be told before the big dance to bring the girl or boy of your choice.
Recently, my friend Leslie Butikofer went to the Fairfax County Library with her children. They each gathered the books they wanted and she was horrified when she got home to see they had checked out King and King, the story about the blushing romance between a pageboy and a prince. She complained to the library, saying that this had been among the picture books for the youngest children without warning, and the staff agreed to move it to a different section where children would not accidentally pick such a book up.
If same-sex marriage were the norm of the land, there would be no valid complaints a parent could offer. King and King would be the norm.
We would be actively promoting a lifestyle that is unhealthy and immoral. (For a complete discussion on the unhealthy nature of homosexuality see Sexual Orientation: United Families Guide to Family Issues.)
Religions who adhered to the Biblical teachings that homosexuality is wrong would be marginalized. Citizens who feel strongly on these issues would find themselves in a smaller and smaller corner.
In that same October 1999 talk, President Hinckley emphasized:
Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.
Building Public Sentiment
Of course, a constitutional amendment on marriage is not the only public policy concerning family that needs urgent attention. Pornography, abortion, broadcast indecency and bioethical questions must all be addressed. In our promiscuous world, it wasn’t the homosexual agenda that first put marriage on unsteady footing. People who care about family will find, however, that candidates, who care about the prospects for marriage, often stand up for a whole host of concerns including freedom of religion.
President Hinckley said in an article called “In Opposition to Evil” in the September Ensign, “I think the Lord would say to us, “Rise, and stand upon thy feet, and speak up for truth and goodness and decency and virtue.”
Now is the time
to rise and in these last few days before the election work
for candidates who espouse family values. These can be of
either major party. Despite what the pundits say, however,
marriage is the pinnacle issue of this political fight because
how the dust settles on this one could create a new landscape
for
An amendment to the Constitution defining marriage is necessary because activist judges have too often usurped the consent of the governed. Too many judges have become legislators in black. Those who oppose an amendment will say, “Marriage is a matter that should be left to the states.” Would that it could be.
The situation in Louisiana demonstrates the fallacy of that argument in this current judiciary climate. A state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman passed in that state September 18 with a super majority of 78%. This wasn’t just the voice of the people; it was a shout. A Louisiana judge quickly threw out the amendment.
An amendment to the Constitution requires passage by 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures to become the law of the land. Thus it is clear that every race at every level matters to make progress with this issue.
And, of course, having officials who care about family values, life issues and freedom of religion means these are the issues the Congress holds hearings on, takes up for consideration, and moves on. A President who cares about these issues makes them part of his agenda, they are reflected in his domestic and foreign policies and, most important, they are reflected in his choices for the judiciary whose views affect policy long after the President has retired to his armchair. This next President may choose between two and four Supreme Court justices.
Get Up. Volunteer. Go to Work
Please find the time to make a few phone calls for the campaign of your choice on whatever race needs your attention. It can make all the difference for the future of the family. If marriage isn’t defined by the people in a Constitutional amendment, it will be defined by judges. Go to www.anxiouslyengaged.org and volunteer whatever time you can spare before the election to work for family candidates. When you have worked for a candidate, you also have more clout to forward an important issue.
Several report cards showing the candidates’ stands are available online. The Family Research Council has recently published its Voter Scorecard for the 108th Congress available as a pdf download here. You have to register to download the information, but it is worth it. Look for the green box just right of center on the page.
FRC has looked at several key issues concerning family values that came before the House and Senate and show how the Representatives and Senators voted.
These, of course, are only a few of hundreds of votes cast this year, but they have tried to single out those votes most pertinent to family concerns. Included there are those who were sponsors of a marriage amendment, those who voted for the amendment, those who voted to protect “under God” in the pledge of allegiance, and recognition of a second victim in a violent crime against a pregnant woman.
In this scorecard Senators Bill Frist, Orrin Hatch, Rick Santorum and Elizabeth Dole scored 100%. In other words they voted with the Family Research Council’s position 100% of the time. Senators John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, Olympia Snowe and Dianne Feinstein received 0%. Nevada’s Senator Harry Reid was at 17%.
A similar analysis is done on voting on matters in the House. I quickly checked Virginia’s scorecard because it is my home state and found that in our conservative, religious state 6 out of 11 of our Congressman received 100% on family issues. This is, of course, based on the choice of issues of one family organization.
Another list of scorecards is found at www.ivotevalues.org AOL/Time’s candidate comparisons can be found here. This page looks specifically at the candidates for president, lining up several key issues with the candidate’s stands.
Fox News Eye on the Issues can be found here. Again this is a glimpse at the presidential candidates with icons representing the various issues and their contrasting views outlined.
Project Vote Smart can be found here. If you enter your zip code, you can get a list of your national and local candidates and their stands on issues where available. This state is unbiased and nonpartisan, but they do not evaluate candidates on many family issues.
For an overview of those states with a pending marriage amendment check here. This shows an easy-to-read display of the United States with states highlighted that are facing amendment battles.
Conclusion
Too often in the past, people who are concerned about family values have failed to get on the train while it is at the platform. They have been too busy to work for candidates and causes. Then, in a flurry of surprise as the world degenerates, they try to catch up with a train that is already heading the wrong way, picking up steam and out-of-control.
It is simple to get involved working for candidates with other Latter-day Saints and you are needed. Sign up at www.anxiouslyengaged.org Your effort can make a difference. Isn’t it worth spending a few hours to support what you believe and then vote your values?
