There are protect marriage amendments up for vote in at least two states that I'm aware of, California and Arizona. Opponents of these efforts often criticize the LDS church for supporting these measures. Unfortunately, in today's political and moral climate, standing up for one's beliefs is often mistaken for intolerance by those who do not share that belief. This post is not about whether or not the protect marriage amendments should pass, but rather addresses why a church (like the Mormon church) has a right to be involved in the process. The protect marriage amendments are not fundamentally about discriminating against people who are gay. Their primary purpose is to seek to recognize the institution of marriage as between one man and one woman in law such that a judiciary cannot arbitrarily redefine what marriage is. The amendments as they currently stand do not seek to restrict any of the civil rights already granted to gay couples (things such as hospital visitation rights and others). So why then even need a marriage amendment? Why not let gay individuals marry just as a man and a women can? The basic reason I believe is that the redefinition of marriage threatens the ability of churches to practice their religious and moral beliefs in certain social situations. In a sense, not having this amendment in place is resulting in judicial decisions that have a potential “chilling” effect on certain religiously-based social efforts. Certainly this an issue where moral, religious, and legal concerns intersect. In addition to the moral and religious reasons why a church would and should be allowed to be involved ,let me give two practical examples that might illustrate why an issue such as this might be so important to the LDS church (and other churches too).

If marriage is redefined (as it currently has been in California) to be between two individuals (regardless of gender) then a gay couple has essentially the same legal standing as a traditional couple to adopt children. Setting aside religious beliefs about children and being raised with a mother and a father, this new legal definition of marriage has the potential to affect the ability of adoption services to define who could adopt children through their agency. As far as the LDS church is concerned, this could bring concern over the effect a redefinition of marriage might have on the LDS Family Services adoption program.

Another potential implication is the use of LDS temples as a place where a man and women can be married for time and all eternity and that is also recognized by the civil authorities. If marriage is redefined to include any individual marrying another regardless of gender, could there be implications about a government recognizing a marriage performed in and by a religious authority that "restricts" the people who can be married there to a man and a woman?

These are just some of the possible policy ramifications that this issue raises. Is it certain they will occur, of course not. But for a church who holds marriage between a man and a woman as a basic tenant of its belief, is it something they can just ignore and wish for the best. Regardless of whether you agree with this definition of marriage or not, hopefully this helps you understand the implications a church could see in recent judicial actions to redefine marriage and why they deserve to have a voice about the issue.

For more information on the issue you can see YES for marriage.