The end and the beginning

So it’s essentially over. Good, it’s about time. John Kerry proved himself much more the gentleman than Al Gore by politely phoning President Bush this morning and congratulating him. It’s got to be heartbreaking to spend several years of your life (some would say your whole life) to come that close. Say what you want about the man, but I still respect John Kerry as an astute politician and a respectable man. Perhaps that’s what I appreciate most out of this election: no scandal, no screaming during debates, no childish behavior. Of course they traded harsh words in ads. Of course they made every accusation about each other. It’s an ugly process. But they never lost their heads and they retained almost all of their respective dignities. I sincerely hope that the issues brought up during the campaign are addressed by the administration and this grand exercise in democracy is put to good use.

In the aftermath of the election, there are several things that catch my attention. One is poor old Tom Daschle, who has finally paid the ultimate political price for being the Senate Minority Leader in a highly conservative state. It’s a very interesting development. Also interesting are the high (but still low) voter turnout, the conspicuous absence of young voters, and the GOP gains in the House and the Senate. But what catches my attention most are the results of the state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage in 11 states. Perhaps more than the presidential election, these votes have made a large but subtle impact on the nation.

Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah all passed amendments banning gay couples from marriage. (Missouri and Louisiana passed similar amendments earlier this year.) Mississippi’s initiative won by a colossal 86%, but the most surprising victory came from Oregon where some local officials issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples and gay marriage proponents had expected to be able to defeat the amendment. I quote two segments form the corresponding article in the New York Times:

The votes will become ``a blip in the longer term historic view,'' said Karl Olson, executive director of the gay-rights group PRIDE in Montana. ``Our constitution isn't going to be able to sustain this kind of restriction on civil rights.''

``The results just go to show that the citizens ... clearly understand the value of natural marriage,'' said Christina Rondeau, director of the North Dakota Family Alliance.

I have sincerely struggled with the issue of gay marriage. I believe in equality. I believe that civil rights should be afforded to all people, regardless of their racial background, political persuasion, or sexuality. But where do you draw the line? Is marriage a basic right that should be available to all of society? If marriage is necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom, should we be denying it to anyone, even if we believe his or her version of marriage is incorrect?

I have wrestled with this issue for quite some time now. I ultimately came to the conclusion that my personal stance is the same as that of the Church: marriage is between a man and a woman, and any other arrangement is not marriage. But in order to really take a position on the topic I had to reach that conclusion for myself. I’m not the kind of person that takes doctrine on blind faith. My personal version of faith is more of an “informed faith.” I’ll believe and obey, but I must reach that decision on my own. One of the things I like about the Church is that it leaves room for this personal conviction, and that I never have to believe anything I don’t know is true. In this case I have come to the sincere conclusion that marriage was not created by man or government. Just as we are all born with certain inalienable rights that cannot be changed or impugned upon by governments, the institution of marriage is sacred, divinely given, and unchangeable by man. Governments cannot dictate the bounds of marriage any more than they can dictate the bounds of repentance or any other tenant of the gospel. The confusion lies in the fact that marriage is an institution officially recognized by governments. This is convenient for administrative and social purposes, but recognizing marriage does not grant power to determine the nature of the institution.

My largest personal conflict with gay marriage is the dilemma of loving someone while denying them something they want. The friends and acquaintances I have who are gay or who have gay family members support same-sex marriage. I love and respect these people while at the same time I oppose them in their desire to marry. This conflict of love and denial is difficult for me to reconcile. But I know what is true, and I know that ultimately it is better for all people and all of society to deny them this wish because it will help keep the family unit strong in society and reinforce correct principles.

I voted in one of the 11 states that banned same-sex marriage yesterday. I voted according to my conscience, not without some pain, but with full knowledge of the implications of my vote. With Massachusetts making gay marriage legal and a Louisiana judge already striking down its amendment as unconstitutional, I predict that this issue will become increasingly important in the coming months and years. With the imminent challenge of these amendments under the equal rights and protection clause of the Constitution, we will all have to come to some reckoning of our personal feelings on the issue. It will probably be a painful and uncomfortable process for all those involved, because it leaves many people unhappy. But this “uncomfort” is good, because it is the basis of the “informed faith” that is necessary to keep our society and country on the right track. I really don’t have all the answers. I’m just trying to find them.