From a man whose opinion I respect and admire, in a discourse
called, "Protect the Children," (October 2012):
"Of utmost importance to the well-being of children is
whether their parents were married, the nature and duration of the marriage,
and, more broadly, the culture and expectations of marriage and child care
where they live. Two scholars of the family explain:
“Throughout history, marriage has first and foremost been an institution for
procreation and raising children. It has provided the cultural tie that seeks
to connect the father to his children by binding him to the mother of his
children. Yet in recent times, children have increasingly been pushed from
center stage.”12
A Harvard law professor describes the current law and
attitude toward marriage and divorce: “The [current] American story about
marriage, as told in the law and in much popular literature, goes something
like this: marriage is a relationship that exists primarily for the fulfillment
of the individual spouses. If it ceases to perform this function, no one is to
blame and either spouse may terminate it at will. … Children hardly appear in
the story; at most they are rather shadowy characters in the background. 13"
Dallin H. Oaks is arguing that children are always affected
by their family lives and by their parents' behavior in relation to marriage.
When parents treat their marriage solely as a means of individual
fulfillment, they seem to be leaving children out of the picture.
Likewise, when divorces occur with no consideration for the children
involved, there seem to be adverse effects as well. In my adolescent
development classes, we recently discussed how a divorce in adolescence can
directly and permanently affect a child well into adulthood. I have
personally seen the stress that divorce can have on a child. There is
often cynicism towards marriage and doubt in its ability to be stable.
So is this argument about same-sex marriage? Yes and
no. The debate in Washington gives us the opportunity to consider the
defense of all marriage. My junior year of high school, we were assigned
an issues project in my AP US History class. Some students chose things
like abortion, drug abuse, etc. I chose the breakdown of the family. (We chose this song to represent our discussion: Raise it Up).
It seemed like an irrelevant topic to some of my group-mates and to some
of my classmates as well. I mean, what 16 or 17 year old is thinking
about their future family or wanting to talk about their own? Still, I
thought it was important that we talk about stable households, with mothers and
fathers working for the good of their children. I had one girl thank me
after our presentation. She said that her parents were going through a
divorce at that time and she didn't feel like anyone else really saw it as a
problem. They just saw it as something that "happens."
Successful marriages don't just "happen" and
neither do divorces. Either choice requires thought, effort and sacrifice
on the part of the individuals involved. And especially when there are
born children involved, parents should give extra thought to their
decision-making.
Dallin H. Oaks continues, "looking upon marriage as a mere contract that may be
entered into at pleasure … and severed at the first difficulty … is an
evil meriting severe condemnation,” especially where “children are made to
suffer.”14 And
children are impacted by divorces. Over half of the divorces in a recent year
involved couples with minor children.15
Many children would have had the blessing of being raised by
both of their parents if only their parents had followed this inspired teaching
in the family proclamation: “Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to
love and care for each other and for their children. … Parents have a sacred
duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their
physical and spiritual needs, and to teach them to love and serve one another.”16 The
most powerful teaching of children is by the example of their parents.
Divorcing parents inevitably teach a negative lesson."
Elder Oaks clarifies that there will be occasions when a
"divorce is necessary for the good of the children, but those circumstances
are exceptional.17 "
Whenever possible, parents should give all of their effort to give
children the "emotional and personal strength that come[s] from being
raised by two parents who are united in their marriage and their
goals...Summarizing decades of social science research, a careful scholar
concluded that “the family structure that produces the best outcomes for
children, on average, are two biological parents who remain married.”18 A New
York Times writer noted “the striking fact that even as traditional
marriage has declined in the United States … the evidence has mounted for the
institution’s importance to the well-being of children.”19 That
reality should give important guidance to parents and parents-to-be in their
decisions involving marriage and divorce. We also need politicians, policy
makers, and officials to increase their attention to what is best for children
in contrast to the selfish interests of voters and vocal advocates of adult
interests."
Elder Oaks also explains that children can be
"victimized by marriages that do not occur." These
circumstances include birth out of wedlock, families with an absent father or
mother and cohabitating couples. "Whatever we may say about these
couples’ forgoing marriage, studies show that their children suffer significant
comparative disadvantages.23 For
children, the relative stability of marriage matters."
The last disadvantage Elder Oaks mentions in this category
is same-sex marriage. He states, "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.24"
No one knows for certain what the effects of allowing
same-sex marriage are. As Justice Kennedy admitted, "We have five
years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more" (NY Times). Nevertheless, I know where I stand. I stand for family. I stand for marriage
that is lasting, committed, unselfish and even eternal. While I recognize
that there is good in everything and there is always a gray area, I also
know that there are some things that are black and white. I join with the
First Presidency of the Church of Latter-day saints in "solemnly
proclaim[ing] that marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God and that
the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His
children" (lds.org, the family).
This is what I believe. I do not rescind anyone else's
right to believe what they will, but I do expect respect for my beliefs and I
do expect my efforts in 2008 regarding Proposition 8 to mean something to the
Supreme Court. It was the people's decision and it should remain the
people's decision.
