Let Us Cease Casting Stones: A Proposal of Peace

Let Us Cease Casting Stones

A Proposal of Peace

Written by Bjorn Jones

Slavery Abolitionist Elijah Lovejoy:
"If you suppose, sir, that I have published sentiments contrary to those generally held in this community, because I delighted in differing from them, or in occasioning a disturbance, you have entirely misapprehended me. But, sir, while I value the good opinion of my fellow-citizens, as highly as any one, I may be permitted to say, that I am governed by higher considerations than either the favor or the fear of man. I am impelled to the course I have taken, because I fear God. As I shall answer it to my God in the great day, I dare not abandon my sentiments, or cease in all proper ways to propagate them."

About the Author

            The Author of this document is a young heterosexual man who believes all people are children of a loving God. The Author loves his family, especially his precious wife and eternal companion. He is a faithful member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, otherwise known as the LDS or “Mormon” Church. He believes that the LDS Church contains the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and believes that the individuals in Church Leadership positions are called of God. The Author also believes that the Prophet and President of the LDS Church, Thomas S. Monson, is the only mortal individual today, who has the authority to utilize all the divine priesthood keys and powers, in guiding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in the building of the Kingdom of God on the earth.

            The discussion and statements provided by the Author are in no way to be taken as endorsement by the LDS Church as a whole. As he has deeply reflected on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, the document may contain the Author’s personal interpretation of principles of Mormonism, and Christianity in general. He finds the following beliefs not only compatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but that what is proposed is compulsory, based on the just teachings of Jesus Christ. As this is a complex issue, the Author believes comprehensive discussion is required. The following has been written with the Author’s genuine intent to speak in defense of truth and righteousness. This proposal is meant to be one of peace, to help bind up the wounds of contention.

Overview

            Homosexual individuals and couples are to be afforded the same legal protections, benefits, and opportunities as are available to heterosexual individuals and couples. Religious Morality need not be transcribed specifically into secular law, as demonstrated by Jesus Christ. Religious Freedom and all sister liberties are to be granted to all people equally, as long as one’s beliefs or actions do not hinder the rights of another or others to do the same. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America proclaimed in the name of their belief in an Almighty God, the standards to which such freedoms should be measured. Such freedom of choice should only be limited if such prevents another from Life, Liberty, or the Pursuit of Happiness, regardless of the opinion of the religious majority.

            Groups of people, as they are imperfect, sometimes forget when they are in the religious majority that they desired the same protection and equal opportunities under the law when they were the religious minority. Additionally, religious terms are for religious organizations to confer upon a religious ceremony and agreement, not to be legislated to refer to the secular contract of such ceremony. As a couple engaging in consensual sexual relations of any kind, is an expression of religious liberty, it can be compared to a couple of a differing religion than the majority. The principle to withhold equal legal rights and opportunities from couples of differing religious beliefs is invalid. Therefore, it is unjust to not provide homosexual couples the same legal opportunities and benefits, as those that are afforded heterosexual couples in the current legal contract known as “Marriage,” in the state of Utah. Whether heterosexual or homosexual, all such agreements under the law are to be referred to as “Legal Partnerships,” with the participants being referred to as “Legal Partners.” Religious institutions may classify such legal agreements according to their desires. It is believed that the Constitution of the United States affords such equality, and that Jesus Christ Himself demonstrated respect for religious choice and having morality being separate from secular legality.

Table of Contents

What is Proposed?

Why is this Proposed?

Religious Morality, Secular Legality, and Progression of Christian-based Religious Liberty

Christian-based Religious Liberty and the American Revolution

Religious Liberty and Mormonism

Evaluation of the Principles of Religious Liberty with Respect to Current Utah Law

Response to Specific Claims Regarding Issues Related to Proposition

            *Definition of Marriage*

            *Status Quo not Persecution*

            *Supporting Legality Equal to Supporting Morality?*

            *Diminishment of Social Value of Traditional Family*

            *Religious Belief of Homosexuality*

*After Homosexual Couples, How Do We Set the Limit for such Legal Agreements?*

How are the Items Proposed to be Implemented?

What is proposed?

At the present time, as if the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States were inadequate, it is proposed that the Constitution of the state of Utah be reflected to reaffirm the same, which is that the State shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The principle to be written in law, and applied to law in practice, without regard to the legal sexual inclinations or actions of an individual, in addition to other characteristics such as Race, Religion, Sex, National Origin, Age, or Disability.

It is also proposed that equal legal rights should be constitutionally provided to all adult Utah couples, who consensually wish to be subject to the exact same legal responsibilities and obligations, and receive the same legal benefits, as those that are presently afforded to eligible heterosexual couples, who elect to participate in the current legal agreement of marriage. Additionally, it is presented to be enacted in law that those homosexual couples who wish to accept such an agreement should not be legally barred from adopting children, but such law to respect currently existing law regarding religious adoption agencies. This motion is put forward with the intent to be implemented specifically without regard to the sexes, sexualities, or the legal sexual practices of the two individuals who pursue this legal contract. It is also advanced that Utah Amendment 3 be repealed, for it stands in direct opposition to this proposition.

Due to the fact that the word "Marriage," is inseparably connected to the religious beliefs of a large body of the inhabitants of the state of Utah, it is also proposed that the legal term describing all such secular contracts to be a "Legal Partnership," with the two adults that submit themselves to the agreement to be referred to as “Legal Partners.” The same terms to be used regarding this legal commitment and bond, whether the sexual orientations of the individuals are heterosexual, homosexual, or another combination, for any sexual relations between consenting adults are not the concern of the government. The religious term for this Legal Partnership may be prescribed as a religious body sees fit.

Why is this proposed?

*** Since the success of this proposal, and also the hearts of the majority of the Utah people, rely on the understanding and implementation of religious principles, the History and Teachings of Christianity, and its branch known as Mormonism, will be included in the discussion.***

Religious Morality, Secular Legality, and Progression of Christian-based Religious Liberty

Of prime importance to the civil conversation of this proposition, is one's belief of what the relationship between morality and legality should be today. For millenia, those with the charge to form the laws of man by which society is to be governed, have largely relied upon the foundations of their own personal and religious morality, on which to build such laws. Indeed, the Old Testament of the Holy Bible provides us with ample evidence which demonstrates the concept of religious morality and secular legality being one and the same. Many Old Testament laws, when compared to the laws of today, detail extreme punishments for those whose actions violated religious morality, and therefore also broke secular law.

Nowadays, although the punishments and lack of liberties may be comparatively less severe, there are still some religious people, many of whom are respectfully Christian, that still support the belief that the laws and principles of religious morality, should identically be transcribed into secular law, reflecting the Old Testament practice. However, it seems that this belief does not stand well with other firmly-established tenets of Christianity. A fundamental Christian belief, is that through the mortal ministry of Jesus Christ, He Himself provided a higher law of righteousness, not only with respect to the morality of certain actions, but also demonstrating how one should regard those who violate the laws of religious morality. This new superior standard, often referred to as the Gospel, declared by Jesus Christ, was given to supersede the previous Old Testament laws, and the ways in which one should treat those who have committed acts, which are contrary to religious laws.

Christians believe that the way in which Jesus Christ taught and revealed His Gospel, was not solely through word of mouth, or metaphorical stories known as parables, but that He also perfectly exemplified His Gospel through His actions. In the Eighth Chapter of the Book of John in the New Testament, which is the portion of the Holy Bible that describes the events of the life of Jesus Christ, a demonstration of His acting out one of His teachings is recounted. A group of people bring to Jesus a woman who was caught in the act of adultery, otherwise defined as religiously immoral consensual sexual relations. The people stated that the unified religious and secular law, found in the Old Testament, prescribed the punishment of such an offense to be death by stoning. The people then asked Jesus what He believes should be the punishment for the woman who had committed such a sinful act, to which He replied, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

(Diggingwithdarren.com)

According to Christian belief, no person is without sin, save Jesus Christ alone. In the very principle-modifying moment that Jesus Christ said those words, the centuries of belief and practice that religious morality was to be strictly implemented in secular law, ceased. It was as if the Night was revolved instantly to Day. Assuredly, this event does not discredit Christianity at all, but rather reaffirms the faith and hope of so many Christians, in the perfection of knowledge and eternal power possessed by Jesus Christ. This revolutionary occasion also supports the Christian belief that through Jesus Christ and His teachings alone, is any redemption for the imperfections of individuals made possible,  in addition to the gradual regeneration of the whole of humanity.

The relationship between religious morality and secular legality, as demonstrated by the central figure of the Christian religion, can otherwise be described as respect for religious liberty, both for beliefs and actions. Prudence demands discussion of how this principle has been applied throughout Christian societies since the time of Christ.  Despite this Christian principle of religious liberty, written history provides us that for centuries following the time of Christ, the attempt to implement such a principle in the Christian societies of Europe was disgraceful.

The failure of this principle to be put in practice, starting with the Romans, continuing through the Dark Ages, and reflected in the adverse decrees and actions of the Christian Kings in the Medieval Ages, created a lack of religious liberty and an abundance of social oppression. Indeed, the majority of the bloody turmoil in Europe during this time period, involved mindsets that one’s religious convictions were superior to another’s, with accompanying violent actions to unjustly impose those beliefs on others.

Over time, an increasing number of individuals and municipalities throughout Europe began to recognize the significance and blessings surrounding religious liberty, advocating the protection of such religious belief and expression through secular law. The courageous souls of the Protestant Reformation declared this religious freedom to be a God-given right. However, as men lusting for power will desperately use any instrument to attempt to achieve dominance over others, there were many who wished to continue to wield religion as a weapon, to attain their personal selfish desires. In the strictest sense, brotherly bloodshed ensued, persistently staining the purest ideal of religious liberty.

As the European battles in the war for religious freedom onwardly raged, a group of modernly well-known English-Puritan settlers, the Pilgrims, traveled to North America with the desire to exercise their divinely supported religious liberty, without the interference of the King of England. However, only a short amount of passed before these Puritans hypocritically established a theocratic society of their own, which suppressed religious freedom, and again secular law reflected religious morality with exactness. Here, it is made manifest how quick a thanksgiving people can be, to forget their previous suffering and burdens due to a lack of religious liberty, when living in a society where they then constituted the religious majority.

One must also note, that if secular laws defending religious freedom are not put in place and respected, the legislation of the religious morality of the majority, can be just as tyrannical as the declaration of law, based on the religious morality of a single man wearing a crown.  However, just as one individual can influence the institution of religious oppression, so can the efforts of one individual, produce the fruits of widespread religious freedom. During the time of the Puritans, one such horticulturist of liberty was Roger Williams. 

Roger Williams was an English Minister who believed the dictating of religious beliefs by secular English law was unjust. In the effort to follow his religious and moral conscience, he traveled to America to join himself with the Puritans. However, not long after arrival, Roger Williams, to his disgust discovered that religious liberty was just as absent in this Puritan society of America, as it was back in England. Like unto Old Testament times, the Puritan Elite “cast their stones” upon Williams for voicing his opinions against the status quo, banishing him from the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

After his exile, Roger Williams purchased some nearby land from Natives, founding the colony of Rhode Island, and unbendingly declaring a society of religious freedom, with the Church and Government State, to be maintained as distinct entities, which concept is modernly known as the Separation of Church and State. The burdened religious minorities of Europe, Christian and Non-Christian alike, sought refuge under the roof of Rhode Island’s principle and practice of religious liberty. For the first time in the1600 years following His death, Jesus Christ’s teaching that secular law should not strictly reflect religious belief or morality, truly seemed to be gloriously alive in the American colony of Rhode Island.

Realizing the increased social stability and extensive personal blessings connected with religious freedom, following Rhode Island’s example in the decades after, many other American colonies enacted similar laws. However, once the dam of individual and social oppression, was cracked to allow the waters of religious worship to freely flow, the perforated barrier of broken principle could not distinguish between those waters, and other waters such as the freedom of political speech, and economic liberty. This provided the social irrigation necessary, to provoke the American people to undertake a pilgrimage, towards a more perfect paradise of political principles, the American Revolution.

Christian-based Religious Liberty and the American Revolution

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Prefaced by this statement, political, social, economic, and religious independence from Great Britain was declared. The Representatives of the American colonies did not proclaim this independence citing a denial of the existence of God. Rather, these Revolutionaries summoned their confidence in the existence of a God that promotes not only religious liberty, but also advocates the freedom of choice in countless spheres.

The Representatives asserted that under British rule, the inhabitants of the American colonies were not able to adequately exercise their natural liberty. They affirmed the role of the Governments of Men, stating that the purpose of their institution is to secure this divinely-endorsed concept of free choice, that the legal freedom of one to choose a course of action, should not be limited by a government, unless such action results in the loss or the diminishing of another’s right to life, right to liberty, or right to pursue happiness. Following this ideal, the Representatives also provided the principle, that because all men are created equal, the law should view the rights of all men, and the chosen courses of action of all men, to be equal, as long as those actions to do threaten the rights of others to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Declaration of Independence and the designated principles within it, were based on belief in God and also God-given Liberty, and for this reason there should not only be religious, but all kinds of freedom. When inspiring the American people to declare such independence from Great Britain, the Revolutionary Thomas Paine maintained that “the cause of America is the cause of all mankind.” Combined with the belief by Christians both past and present, that the cause of mankind is the cause of God, these two statements also lead to the conclusion,  that the cause of America is the cause of God, and if not we should make it so.

Although the Founding Fathers of America beautifully declared these rights and the reasons behind these rights, in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, it is not enough to merely state a belief, but one must act upon that belief for it to have true merit. Assuredly, just as an individual person’s actions do not perfectly reflect their beliefs, one cannot reasonably believe that a group of such individuals will provide a different result. The same is so when speaking about the implementation of the principles in the Declaration of Independence. However, recognizing imperfections of humanity, both individually and collectively, does not mean that acting in accordance with those beliefs should not be the expectation or the goal. Indeed, the moment when an individual or a group of individuals, holds the opinion that all their actions are perfectly in accordance with their principles, is the time when progression is halted and begins to decay.

Four score and seven years after the Declaration of Independence, the American President Abraham Lincoln recognized the imperfections of men and their institutions, emphasizing the consistent perseverance to promote and practice precious principles in his famous Gettysburg Address, by resolutely stating, “Our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” The Emancipator of millions of souls of African descent, did not say that because the principles on which the American Nation was founded were just, that the implementation of such principles was also just from the start, or would ever be perfectly just.

Rather, Lincoln asserted that the United States of America was formed with dedication to the proposition “that all men are created equal,” reaffirming the reality of human error, but also that one should be committed to the improvement and correction of such human imperfection. The phrase “conceived in Liberty,” also describes the President’s belief in personal and societal progression. The American Nation’s destiny is not just to be conceived in Liberty, but for that Liberty to further develop and mature, and to truly live.

Most American Christians believe that the Founding Fathers of America, were inspired and led by God to break away from Great Britain, this separation firmly establishing religious freedom for all, and all such Liberties like unto it. These freedoms not just to be Christened by God, but also legally protected. Indeed, from a Christian perspective, if the American Nation was conceived in and by Liberty, and the right to Liberty is of God, then it stands clear that the Ultimate Father of the principles of the United States of America, is God Himself. Continuing with this Christian mindset, as a mortal father must justly instruct his child on how to act and complete tasks, God, the Progenitor of the United States of America, has provided the knowledge and tools to act righteously, and fulfill a specific sacred duty.  The divine charge, both a responsibility and a privilege, is one of progression, learning how to love and respect those whose opinions and actions may differ from one’s own, which also includes the protection of equal legal rights of another whose opinions and actions may differ, as long as the differing beliefs and actions of any of the parties involved, do not result in a loss of Liberty to another.

Although marked by joyous gradual improvement, in attempting to perform this treasured obligation, America’s behavior during its continued childhood of existence has not always been praiseworthy. However, like every child and person who has made mistakes can achieve a limitless potential, if they but reflect on their mistakes and act correctly in the future, so too can the people of the United States of America.  Additionally, like a child who remembers their own sorrow caused by the unjust actions of another, and resolving to never subject another to such suffering, it is believed that a great portion of the people of Utah can similarly relate, specifically those of the Latter-Day Saint faith, otherwise called the Mormons.

Religious Liberty and Mormonism

***The purpose of this section is not to debate what religion to follow, or argue that one should follow a religion at all, but solely to discuss the History of the maltreatment of a specific people, due to their religious beliefs. The Author believes that themes present in the History of Mormonism are relevant to the discussion of the proposition. ***

***Eleventh Out of Thirteen Articles of Faith, or Tenets of Mormon Belief***

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints(LDS for short), it is believed that Joseph Smith was the first prophet of modern times. In 1820, after having been visited by God the Father and Jesus Christ, as known as “The First Vision,” it is believed that Joseph Smith was then told that in time he would restore Jesus Christ’s original Church and Gospel back to the earth. It is believed that although parts of Jesus Christ’s Church still remained, it had been tainted by the doctrines of men and lost its priesthood authority since the time of Christ. In restoring Christ’s true church, it is also believed that Joseph Smith was given Gold Plates, which contained Holy Scripture like unto the Bible, written and kept by a people who had lived on the American continent but had then become extinct. It is claimed that he translated such scripture into the English Language by the power of God, the product of such translation being called “The Book of Mormon.” Latter-Day Saint people believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon are complementary in testifying of the divinity and Gospel of Jesus Christ. Due to belief in this unique book, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is often called the “Mormon” Church.

As this story may sound peculiar to some nowadays, assuredly there were many in 1820 that found it unusual or hard to believe. Others however, believed that Joseph Smith’s claims were of the Devil, with himself and his family being ostracized in their hometown for Joseph’s speaking of his personal religious experience. The Mormon belief is that Joseph Smith continued to receive inspiration and instruction from God, to restore Christ’s Church with its proper teachings and authority. Its translation complete, publication of the Book of Mormon occurred in1830, with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints being formally established in that same year. For Mormons, religious liberty is of great importance, for it is believed Christ’s Church could not be re-instituted among men without it, the right to freedom of religion legally protected by the Constitution of the United States of America. However, in the case of the Mormons, it is not overreaching to say that their right to religious freedom was not respected, neither protected by the government.

As Joseph Smith was personally mocked and bullied for telling his story, so too were those who believed him, and believed that Christ’s true Church had been restored to the earth. Although the Mormon persecution during this time period started in the state of New York, eventually it continued everywhere they went. The group was compelled to leave their homes and towns due to the hostility from Non-Mormons, caused by their disrespect for the Mormons, for following and living their religious convictions. In the 1830s and 40s, the maltreatment and relocation cycle of the early stages of Mormonism, took the Church and its members to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, and Nebraska.

Despite the fact that most of the persecution of the Mormon people was not government-endorsed(Missouri being set apart), the failure to act in protection of religious liberty was just as culpable and shameful. Mob violence by those who felt threatened by the Mormons due to their increasing numbers escalated. Businesses and homes of Mormons were ransacked. Again, in a lynch-style manner, Mormon individuals were beaten, tarred and feathered, and sometimes killed. These stones were persistently cast by many individuals of other Christian denominations.

As people are not perfect, and as some people’s actions in response to life-threatening situations become less so, some acts by Mormon individuals, in retaliation for such offenses against the Mormon people, were inexcusable. However, just as being the recipient of detestable actions does not justify a vengeful response for those actions, the inverse is true also. Just because some individuals acted in vengeance for the continued mob violence against the Mormon people, it does not mean that the principal wrong should be minimized or overlooked. The unconstitutional suffering of the people of the Mormon Church, was openly ignored by the government of the United States, despite the loss of liberty, the flooding fall of tears, and the sorrowful spilling of blood.

This persecution came to a peak, when the Mormon Prophet Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob in Illinois. Whereafter, a man named Brigham Young succeeded him as the Prophet and leader of the Mormon Church. Given their history of hardship and lack of liberty in the already developed American territory, Brigham Young headed the migration of the Mormons, settling in and around what is now known as the state of Utah. As the Pilgrims sailed to America from England to escape religious oppression, likewise the Mormons travelled westward in search of religious refuge.

Evaluation of the Principles of Religious Liberty with Respect to Current Utah Law

             It has been established that Jesus Christ Himself demonstrated the distinction between religious morality and secular legality, that the United States of America and its Constitution were founded upon the Christian principle of Religious Liberty, and how a lack of such liberty in practice can affect the quality of life of a people, particularly the Mormons. It is now necessary to assess the current use of that knowledge in personal and political practice, specifically in the state of Utah. For this discussion, the scope of evaluation will be limited to the issues surrounding the heretofore discussed proposition.

            Straightforwardly, although it can depend on who the professor is, if the state of Utah were scored according to the rubric of established principles of religious liberty, chances are the splendid state would receive a failing grade. Indeed, in the global class of religious liberty, Utah holds an exceptional ranking. However, We the People of the state of Utah, are not to be measured by our position relative to other Peoples, but judged according to our knowledge and capability. Regrettably, our lack of living up to our potential, may very well be attributed to our forgetfulness. Specifically, our forgetfulness with regards to the suffering and burdens, which afflicted the Mormon people when part of the religious minority, they were persecuted for exercising their religious freedom. Let it be restated, that if secular laws defending religious freedom are not put in place and respected, the legislation of the religious morality of the majority can be just as tyrannical, as the declaration of law based on the religious morality of a single man wearing a crown.

            When applying this statement to what has been proposed, it is not to be taken that an individual, or a group of individuals, does not have the God-given right to lovingly and firmly express their religious beliefs regarding the definition of marriage and homosexual relationships. However, it IS to say, that an individual, or a majority of individuals, does not have the right to dictate the legislation of such beliefs, for doing so violates the principles of religious freedom. Religious freedom encompassing not only the lawful ability to express one’s beliefs, both in words and through action, but also for the associated rights and benefits of laws, to not be distinguished between persons for any legal action in which one chooses to perform.. As any action can be considered an exercise of one’s religious freedom, choosing to engage in sexual relations of any kind is also classified as such. Again, only the exercise of this God-granted religious freedom that does not impede upon such religious freedom of others is acceptable.

            This principle of Religious Liberty has been demonstrated by Jesus Christ, described in History, and detailed in the experiences of the Mormon People. Despite being presented with such formidable evidence, there will still be some portion of the people of the state of Utah, and others, who will continue to choose to be blinded by the lasting light that is liberty in law. Although respect should still be given to these people, it is assuredly immoral to respect their opinion, as long as the opinion maintained denies another full equality under the law, due to another’s religious freedom being expressed in their actions. Religious Liberty and this proposition, are both foundationally about living the concept, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” coupled with the following quote by President Abraham Lincoln which reads, “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, cannot long retain it.”

            Now to every soul that strives to follow in the footsteps of Christ, it is asked not of man, but rather required by God, that we remember not just what Christ taught, but also how He taught. With respect to this issue, are our hearts truly close to Him, when we differentiate legal rights due to religious morality? Or do we merely honour Him with our lips? Yea, the Lord Jesus Christ has laid down His law, and His life, so that all may be free of blemish. His teachings of truth remain unfaltered, yet in His perfect goodness, His grace uncondemningly gives us refuge. Indeed, we have been instructed to share and declare our knowledge of His truth. However, it must be done in His demonstrated loving and righteous manner.

            If those of us who believe in Christ proclaim the moral right according to His word, but do so in an immoral way according to His actions, at the core, our efforts but spoil the sweet fruits of righteousness. The same Divine right that affords us the legal protection from persecution, for believing in and following the Lord Jesus Christ, also provides those not of our faith to follow their own consciences, both in words and in action, with the same equality and protection under the laws of men.

            This commandment, given through the words and actions of Christ, should not be viewed as a concession to lower a standard of morality, but rather an act of His love and Divine respect for choice. Verily, if it is not the authority of the King of Kings, to dictate secular legislation based on religious morality, then why should we believe that such is the right of the masses of men? So, as none of us are without sin, let us stand firmly upon the foundational rock of Jesus Christ, and lower each of our oppressing arms, which are further fixed to condemningly cast another stone. For inasmuch as we cast a stone upon another, we also cast a stone upon the Merciful Mediator, the Hope of Humanity, and the Savior of the World, Jesus Christ. 

            It is foolish for us to wait for a declaration from the courts of men to compel us to change a political policy, when the High Court of Heaven has already made manifest its ruling. Assuredly, we Christians believe that Jesus Christ will come again, and the government shall be upon His shoulders. He will then reign in His loving Mercy and Judgment, fulfilling His perfect Justice. However, until that glorious day presents itself, we must be righteous stewards of the divine privilege which has been lent to us, that of participation in the secular governing of the children of God. We cannot only talk as He talked, but we must also walk as He walked. And most importantly, love, as He eternally loves all.

Response to Specific Claims Regarding Issues Related to Proposition

As the Author has in the past, many people claim that the status quo in Utah regarding Gay Rights is acceptable. Some claim that the expansion of equal legal rights to Gay people and Gay couples will diminish the value of what is currently defined as legal marriage. Relating to this, others primarily advocate the protection the status quo in defense of the family unit. Although the family is among the most noble of causes, one must remember that righteous promotion of one’s family ideal, does not include the persecution of or limiting the equal rights of another, for another not believing the same with respect to what constitutes the ideal family. Specific claims concerning the proposition and its perceived effects on the family and some additional claims will be commented on. Concerns about the impact of the proposition on religious institutions will be discussed in the section: “How is this proposition to be implemented?”

*Definition of Marriage*

            Some people have rejected propositions to provide equal legal rights to homosexual couples, on the grounds that they believe the term Marriage should only be used to describe the union between a Man and a Woman. Seeming as Marriage is a religious term, this proposition overcomes the obstacle of the definition of Marriage by having the secular contract of such agreement to be named a Legal Partnership, with the two willing participants being referred to as Legal Partners in written law and by government entities. As previously stated, the diverse religious groups can refer to the religious portion of the agreement however they wish. The Christian religious ceremony that entails partaking of bread and water, can be referred to as Communion, the Eucharist, or the Sacrament by various religious groups, but it does not have a specific religious term designated in secular legislation, so why should the religious ceremony of marriage need to be so?

*Status Quo not Persecution*

            Some people believe that current Utah Law is sufficient regarding the protection of the rights of those who wish to exercise their religious liberty and choose to participate in same-sex sexual relations. The major claim is that those who wish to engage in such behavior can legally do so, for there is no law against it, and therefore they are not being punished. So, let’s apply this logic another situation.  

            Since the act of two people of the same sex choosing to participate in sexual relations is an expression of religious belief, in this analogy let this act by the two same-sex individuals be replaced by a Buddhist man and woman who wish to make the legal commitment portion of the current marriage law. Is it just to say that because this couple believes and practices the Buddhist religion that they cannot agree to the same legal contract that a Christian couple can? Is it just to say that the Buddhist couple is not being punished? Or that they in fact have equal protection of the law?

*Supporting Legality Equal to Supporting Morality?*

            Many people believe that if one supports the legality of something, such as homosexual couples being able to undergo a legal agreement, it also inherently means that one believes that the action is also moral. This belief is misguided. One major thing to consider with respect to one’s personal view of morality, is that it does not necessarily determine one’s view of what the legality of an action should be. One example, is that in the United States and elsewhere, it is largely held that cheating on your spouse, otherwise known as adultery, is immoral, however it is not illegal. Although adultery is considered by most be to be immoral, we have come to a point where we as a collective whole, have deemed it not a crime against the legal rights of others, and therefore not punishable by law.  Given this, it follows that the legality of an action does not always follow strictly the collective moral values of the individuals of society.  Just because something is legal, that does not mean it is collectively viewed as moral, or that is should be viewed individually as moral.

Relating to society’s moral and legal stance on cheating on a spouse, one can also say that just because one believes that something should not be a crime, it does not mean that the person agrees with or endorses that behavior. Most people in society agree that adultery should not be a crime, but most also do not support cheating on a spouse.  Just because people believe that something should not be a crime, it does not mean that they promote that behavior. Similarly, just because someone has the legal right to do something, it does not mean that it has been deemed the moral right by the majority of people.

Continuing with the concept of adultery, society collectively views it as immoral, and we have established that it is not a crime, but there are also no legal consequences or limitations for engaging in such behavior. Cheating on a spouse is not legal grounds for a criminal prosecution, but on top of that, one who has committed adultery, due to that behavior, does not have any lower legal standing than a person who was loyal to their spouse. One who has cheated on their spouse still gets to vote and receive their benefits under the law, with essentially no difference under the law because of their disloyalty. Just because someone has engaged in actions that have been deemed by others as not morally right, but still lawful, that specifically does not give justification to withhold equal legal rights from that person, that would otherwise be available to that person. So after discussion, one can see clearly that supporting the equal legality of an action, does not specifically mean supporting the morality of such action.

*Diminishment of Social Value of Traditional Family*

            The most dominant claim against the expansion of law to allow homosexual couples to take upon themselves a legal agreement equal to that of the current marriage contract, is that doing so would harm the role of the traditional(nuclear) family in society. A loving traditional family is regarded by many as the ideal domestic situation for the raising of children to promote a more successful society. Respectfully, the Author is also of the belief that the traditional family is the ideal situation. However, just because one may not believe something is the ideal, it does not mean any alternatives cannot be good, neither does it mean that equal legal rights should not be afforded in these alternative situations.

            Let us discuss a family situation which consists of a divorced single mother with two children, both boys, ages 5 and 7. The father of these two children pays child support as required by law, but does not have any desire to provide any emotional support. Although they do not live in luxury, the mother works full-time and is able to adequately earn enough money to meet the physical needs of the children. She shows her loves for them not only in words, but also in her actions.

            However, being raised in a single-parent household is associated with high risk behaviors in children and teens. It is certainly not considered by many as the ideal situation, but is this situation in which the children are cared for and loved, bad? Or because it is not the ideal, should the Department of Child and Family Services interfere and remove the boys from their mother, and place them into a Foster Care Family which has both a woman and a man within the home? The answer to both questions is no. Just because there is not both a woman and a man within a home with children, that does not mean the children are not being provided for or adequately loved. Additionally, the fact that there is not both a mother and father in the home, does not justly give the government the right to restrict or limit the custodial rights of the mother who is taking care of the children.

            Likewise, although it may personally or collectively be believed it is not ideal, if children in a household headed by two adults of the same sex are adequately financially supported and loved by the two adults, one cannot say that the living situation of the children is bad. Neither is one to say that the same sex adults do not have a right to care for these children, given they first obtained custody of the children in a legal manner(previous heterosexual relationship, artificial insemination, adoption etc.). People may debate whether or not homosexual behavior weakens the institution of the family, however that is not the purpose of this discussion. The purpose of this discussion is to apply the principles of religious liberty to the situation.

            One may believe that homosexual behavior weakens the institution of the family, and  although the family is an admirable institution to protect, the principle of denying equal legal rights and opportunities to same-sex couples for solely that reason is deficient. Engaging in homosexual behavior is an act of religious freedom, therefore this principle can be likened to religions. According to this principle, a Christian may argue that it is best for children to grow up in a Christian home, therefore only legal rights and benefits for Christian couples should be available through the government. Again with this principle, Catholics may believe it is best for children to grow up in a Catholic home, but not a Mormon home, therefore Mormon couples would not be eligible for equal legal rights and benefits. Some will still say “But homosexuality is different,” and indeed the nouns of the situation are different, but the principle is not.

*Religious Belief of Homosexuality*

Some also claim that any sexual relationship between two same sex adults, will religiously negatively affect any children who are cared for by the two adults. This argument is quite perplexing in that it suggests that the sexual acts which two consenting adults do privately in their bedroom, is the business of a child. Assuredly, if a single caretaker of any sexual orientation is having frequent sleepovers with various strangers, it very well may endanger the welfare of a child. However, a child who is living with heterosexual parents need not know the specifics about the sexual relations of the adults, neither is it necessary that the children know the adults have sexual relations at all. The same is true for any child who is being cared for by a homosexual couple.

Given this, still some will claim that because they believe that God does not approve of same-sex sexual relations, the children will negatively be affected religiously by the example that is given them. People may argue about whether or not the previous statement is true, but the purpose of this discussion is not to argue religion, but to determine whether the religious beliefs of the majority of the people in promotion of the ideal traditional family, justify the limiting of equal legal rights and opportunities, due to another’s personal and private sexual practices. It does not seem so. As private sexual expression is an act of religious liberty, like unto believing in a specific religion, it is equal in both foolishness and injustice to say that because a heterosexual couple with children is Catholic, they are not to be afforded the same legal opportunities as a Protestant couple with children, or granting equal legal opportunities to the Catholic couple would promote children to be raised in Catholicism. This principle is invalid and can be considered unrighteous dominion, meaning the unjust use of authority.

Some will continue to say that the two situations are not comparable, that there is a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Again, the point of issue here is not whether something is moral or immoral, or what religion one should follow because of such determination, but rather if the religious beliefs of the majority can righteously limit equal legal opportunity specifically based on a religious action. The application of the History and Teachings of Christian-based religious liberty affirms no.

*After Homosexual Couples, How Do We Set the Limit for such Legal Agreements?*

            Some people claim that if Homosexual couples are able to participate in the same legal agreement that a Heterosexual couple can, that eventually people will be able to do the same with an animal. It pains the Author to even discuss this point, but sometimes it is necessary to correct blatant stupidity. Firstly, an animal is not a person and cannot reasonably consent to or understand written humans law. Secondly, bringing up animals when talking about homosexual relationships, whether on purpose or not, suggests that those humans who choose to act on their homosexual feelings, are indeed animals, or inferior people. This is not just terribly insensitive, but this same argument has been used to justify racism and promote the oppression of women. It is foundationally unacceptable.

            Moving on to a claim that has some rationality, the concern being that if homosexual couples are able to receive the same legal opportunities as a heterosexual couple because of religious freedom, what would hinder those whose religious beliefs currently advocate polygamy, or the practice of multiple intimate partners, from claiming such equal legal opportunities? Indeed, one may have religious beliefs that find living with multiple partners as their ideal way to live. However, the religious practice of polygamy is different than homosexual couples with respect to the proposed Legal Partnership agreement, in that it only involves two consenting individuals.

            Having a group of individuals in such an agreement would be so complicated, that every agreement would likely need to be different from the previous one. The current legal marriage contract and the proposed Legal Partnership agreement, both rest on a general standard agreement provided by the government, for facilitation and simplicity. However, increasingly common are prenuptial agreements that provide specific alterations or additions to the standard legal contract. Although legal benefits would not be identical(i.e. lacking employer benefits/tax rate),those who seek to obtain a complex and unique Multiple Partnership Agreement can certainly speak with an attorney about such options. Limiting such standard Legal Agreements to only two individuals is justified by prudence.  This prudence is not of a religious nature, for sexual relations between consenting adults is not the affair of the government, but it is justified by prudence of practicality.

How are the Items Proposed to be implemented?

            The United States of America of which the state of Utah is part, was founded on and continues today to protect religious liberty. This religious liberty provides that the law and equal protection of the law will not be differentiated between people for their religious beliefs and actions, as long as such actions do not restrict the rights of others to do the same. As engaging in homosexual relations is indeed an expression of religious freedom, it has been proposed that individuals who exercise their God-given right to choice by electing to participate in such religious behavior, shall not be discriminated against under the law, nor be afforded equal legal opportunities under the law.

            This has been proposed to be implemented like unto how people of different religious beliefs are treated equally under the law. However, it is recognized that some may be concerned with this proposition due to their belief that the judiciary branch of government will apply the concept too broadly, encroaching upon another’s right to religious freedom. This section is meant to help alleviate such fears. Due to the fact that Christianity and its subcategory of Mormonism is highly significant to a great percentage of the people of Utah, specific issues relating to such religious beliefs will be discussed.

            This next portion of the discussion will necessitate a little action on the part of the reader. To each person reading this, it is asked that you think of your favorite color. The Author apologizes if you have multiple favorite colors. In order to continue, you must have a single specific color determined. Once you have a designated favorite color, we can now proceed.                                        
             Now imagine that you live in a town where most people’s favorite color is a single specific color, however, it is not your favorite color. Let’s say that you now need to go to the grocery store because you are out of milk. You do not have a car, but there is a grocery store just down the street to which you could easily walk. However, the female owner of that grocery store’s favorite color is the majority favorite color, and she will only allow people to shop there if the shopper’s favorite color is the same as hers, which again is the majority favorite color.

            So you cannot go to the grocery store down the street because of your favorite color.  There is actually only one store where you can buy food at in your town, and it’s not really a grocery store, but more like a gas station/convenient store. On top of it being the only place you can buy food at because of your favorite color, it is also six miles away. Restated, because you don’t have a car, you have to walk there.

            Imagine now that after you walk to the specific far away gas station/convenient store to buy some food, you really want to go see a movie. But unfortunately for you, the only two movie theaters in town have owners of the majority favorite color, and they like the grocery store close to you, will not allow you to go there. Additionally, you want to be able to move into an apartment closer to the gas station/convenient store where you are able to buy your food.. However, all the landlords in that area will only accept applications from people whose favorite color is the majority favorite color. You have been a perfect tenant at your current apartment, you get your rent in on time, you have not been loud or disturbed other residents of the apartment complex in any way, but still you cannot even apply to live in your desired part of town.

            Continuing, you currently have a job that pays alright, but you have the experience and the leadership skills that would make you a qualified manager in your company. However, although it is not really relevant to being able to successfully perform the tasks required of a manager, in your company, only people who like the majority favorite color ever get to be manager. For this reason, career advancement for you in your company is not really an option.

            All of the people of the majority favorite color also have the option to go to the government courthouse with their majority favorite color best friend and both accept a Legal Agreement, which may provide them with further legal rights and privileges. But both you and your best friend whose favorite color is the same minority favorite color as you, cannot go to the courthouse and participate in such Legal Agreement. Given this situation, you are indeed treated as a lesser person, or maybe not even a person at all, just because your favorite color is not the majority favorite color.

Now think of these situations and replace your favorite color with your religion, whatever it may be, and replace the majority favorite color with another religion. Think of the grocery store that you cannot go to because of your religion, and now you have to walk to gas station/convenient store six miles away. Think of your desire to go to the movie theater, but remember that you are prevented from doing so because of your religion. You want to move to an apartment in another area of town, but the landlords there won’t even think about letting you live there because your religion is different from theirs. You aren’t able to get a manager position at your company either, because your religion is the minority one. To top it off, you aren’t able to go to the courthouse and receive the benefits of current legal marriage, because you and your partner are not of the majority religion. People are rude to you and say terrible hateful things about you and towards you because you have a different favorite color, you’ve even been beaten up a few times because of it. Do you think that the way society is in this situation is wrong?

Fortunately, in the United States of America it is not typically this terrible, but we are human and therefore are not perfect in making these wrongs right. Discrimination does happen. However, we are dedicated to the proposition to making society more just for everyone, not just the majority of people. The provision “Equal protection of the laws,” found in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, specifies that someone of the minority religion cannot be rightfully subject, to the same hardships that one would face in the previously described favorite color scenario. In addition to religion, it also affords such protection for a variety of other things for which historically have been discriminated against, such as Race, Sex, National Origin, Age, and Disability.

Under the current interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by the United States’ Supreme Court, all laws of the land, whether Federal, State, or any other kind, cannot provide different legal rights or opportunities, such as benefits of current legal marriage, based on one’s religious beliefs, or any of the other prescribed characteristics. It has also been interpreted that discrimination cannot take place in any of the situations previously discussed in the favorite color scenario, which include food establishments, movie theaters, places of residence, and places of employment. The terms used to describe such situations and those similar, in which protection is deserved, are “public accommodation” and “equal opportunity.”

The Author promises that this will be the last time you will have to use your brain to imagine a scenario. Please picture this same town and think of your favorite color. You again are not among those of the majority favorite color, but now you can shop where you want, go to the movies, upgrade your apartment, and you are now made eligible for a manager position given your experience and skills. You and your best friend, sharing the same favorite color, can now go to the courthouse and sign a legal agreement that provides you with the same legal rights and opportunities as two people of the majority favorite color(legal sexual relationship is not the just jurisdiction of government). Although most people in town still believe that your favorite color is not the best color, people are not rude to you or say terrible things because of your choice of favorite color. The first favorite color scenario seems like Hell compared to this paradisiacal society.

            So now in this new Heavenly society, it is many times the practice for those who have the same color to meet up once a week and discuss why they like their favorite color so much. People who like the majority color are not the only ones that can legally do this, but all groups of people who like a specific color can do so. Sometimes the favorite color groups in this society set up schools, in order to educate individuals about the world, but also about how liking a specific color can make someone happy. Nobody is forced be a student or work at a specific color school. The rules of the school are determined by the specific color group. There are schools provided by the government and other private all-favorite-colors schools where people of all favorite colors can be educated together, without a favorite color being taught to them, so nobody is denied choice. Sometimes these private groups of favorite colors set up charities or other organizations with the purpose of helping others.

            One organization that can be set up by any specific color group is an adoption agency, to help children who need a home find one. Now although a specific color group that sets up an adoption agency respects other groups’ freedom to promote their favorite colors, and for other color groups to set up their own adoption agencies, they want to place children in a home where the color groups feel they can be most loved and successful. There are adoption agencies provided by the government and private all-favorite-colors adoption agencies where couples of all favorite colors can adopt children who need a home. Mothers and Fathers who feel it is best for their child to be raised by another family, have the choice to transfer custody of the child to a government agency, a private all-favorite-colors agency, or a specific color group adoption agency.

             If the parents of the child being put up for adoption choose a specific color group adoption agency, they are aware that the specific color group will most likely place them win a family that is of that specific color group. However, many specific color group agencies provide a list of willing families that are of the specific color group, so that the parents of the children being put up for adoption can choose a specific family. The rights and freedoms of those of minority favorite colors are respected, but also the rights and freedoms of groups of different color organizations are respected. Does this society sound favorable to you? Now, if you did not already replace the colors in this scenario with religions, please do so.

            The society described in this second scenario is the ideal of how the principles of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness are to be applied in practice. This is a balance of respecting equal legal rights and opportunities of the religious minority, and also the rights of the religious majority to congregate and promote their beliefs through specific faith-based institutions, which are separate from the institutions of government. Whether from a minority or majority perspective, respect is a two-way street. You have to be willing to give it if you expect to receive it. The Founding Fathers declared in the name of their belief in an Almighty God, that this was the glorious cause for American Independence. The United States of America were and are not unified because everyone believed the same or wanted to act the same. We became and will continue to be indivisible, only by standing, shouting, and acting as one, in respectful defense of our differences. Yes, whether the differences are ones which we do not choose, or whether they are traits we choose through our beliefs and actions, we are to be united by the individual characteristics that distinguish each of us.

            So how is this proposition to be implemented? The simple and only answer is the same way Religious Freedom is to be implemented, which is equal to the way the principles of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are to be implemented. Striving for perfection in the implementation of these principles is not merely our duty, but our destiny. However, whether we as individuals are part of the majority or minority, in order for us to achieve that total and collective destiny, we cannot only selfishly think of ourselves, our own beliefs, or our own desires. We cannot legislate what we find to be popular or pious, but we must remain persistently principled. Although our hearts beat for many different things, they all beat in rhythm with the drums, in the battle for liberty and justice for all. So there is but a single question that truly remains, “Will our shouts of selfishness be so loud, that we cannot hear the preciousness of our hearts, beating in unison for freedom?”