In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children

I recently read the 2015 supreme court decision on same sex marriage.  

• Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Supreme Court of the United States.

When I set out to read this document, I read with an open mind trying to understand the arguments from both sides of the same sex marriage law.  The arguments of the majority rule were described as emotional and fairness for all.  The majority believed in the sanctity of marriage.  In their view, marriage was not on trial.  In their view, families and children were not at risk.  The same entitlement government benefits need to be available for all people whom love each other regardless of their sexual preference. 

Both sides agreed that Marriage was not on trial but the dissenters argued regarding the definition of marriage and that the laws concerning this subject need to be given to the voice of the people and the states, not the judges of the land.   

I listened to a video:   https://youtu.be/xVTHhQhFb8M

Cathy Ruse, Esq. Senior Counsel, family research council  Oct 28, 2015 Salt lake city, utah. 

I wish to summarize Cathy's comments regarding this very sensitive subject.  

In speaking of same-sex marriage, Cathy said, "Americans did not ask for this change. When historians write about the politics of marriage in the 1^st decade of the 21^st  American century.. what will they write? 

Will they write that in the year 2000 the people of Nebraska voted overwhelming to codify man/woman marriage in their state law?  Will they write that in the year 2004 the people of Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Utah, Oklahoma, Ohio and Louisiana codified man/woman marriage in their state laws.  Will historians write that in 2005 the people of  Texas,  Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Wisconsin overwhelmingly codified man/woman marriage in their state laws?  Will they write that in 2008 Florida, Arizona and California made man/woman marriage the law?  Will they write that in 2009 the people of Maine and 2012 North Carolina codified man/woman marriage into their state law?    

These laws were not passed by a legislature.  These were passed by people stepping into a voting booth and casting their personal vote for man/woman marriage. 

Will historians write that by 2012, 50 million Americans had stepped into voting booths and said no to a change in the definition of marriage and did all they could as citizens to legally preserve man/woman marriage as the law of their land?   

Historians won’t write this!  Will historians write that in 2013 a federal judge struck down the law that the people of Utah had passed?  Will they write that in 2014, another judge struck down the law that the people of Oklahoma, Virginia, Texas and Michigan had passed? Will they write that a handful of federal judges nullified the laws that the people had put into place in Ohio, Arkansas, Idaho, and another handful struck down the laws that had been put in place in Oregon, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado and Florida?

Certainly historians will write that in the spring of 2015, five lawyers on the highest court in this land struck down the rest of the laws that the rest of the people had put into place.  The historians won’t write it that way though.  

 Instead historians will speak of a shift in American attitudes. They will use phrases like tidal wave and sea change.  They will ruminate on how rapidly Americans came to embrace this new paradigm about marriage. 

This will be an illusion.  It will be a lie.  All that can really be said is that a handful of liberal judges embraced it and forced it on the rest of us. 

The other side want those of us who believe in man/woman marriage to think that all of America is against us and the world is against us.  Certainly it feels that way.  But that is an illusion. 

Advocates of same sex marriage don’t want us to count the number of nations in the world that have changed their laws to embrace same-sex marriage.  It is only 20 nations out of 220 UN nations world wide. 

Advocates of same sex marriage don’t want us to count how many nations have forced same sex marriage on their people by court order. There are only two nations in all the world that have forced same sex marriage upon their people, Brazil and now the United States of America!  

Advocates of same sex marriage don't want us to notice that eastern Europeans are changing their constitution to protect the definition of marriage as a union of a man and a woman.  

One after another after another of these countries embrace the definition of marriage as a man and a woman. 

Advocates of same sex marriage don't want us to remember the 1.5 million Spaniards that crowded the streets of Madrid protesting a change in the definition of marriage.    It was amazing but they want you to forget that. 

Advocates of same sex marriage want you to forget the millions of Frenchmen who stormed the streets of Paris protesting a change in the definition of marriage and trying to preserve man/woman marriage as the law of their country. 

We must remember it all and we must tell it all.  We have got to repeat this story.  You can’t do anything in the future unless you understand the past and we have to understand what just happened.  WE have to understand the truth of it.  (Not the spin ...because historians will lie.)  

Americans tried to preserve man/woman marriage and a handful of liberal judges stopped us.  We must tell this story.  

Our enemy in this fight is not our neighbor...  Not even the 1.6% of our neighbors who identify themselves as gay.  Our enemy are those who would be our masters. 

The judge who jails a clerk for failing to give her signature.  

The magistrate who takes the house of a baker for want of a cake.  

These are our enemies in the fight ahead.  No government official can force us to bend the knee at the alter of a foreign god.  It is as simple as that. "

 These words are pretty straight-forward.  What I want to emphasize is that we are the majority voice in the land whom are made to feel like the minority.  Have we lost the battle?  Do we need to make our voice heard?  

Quoting: OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

Our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition. Today, however, the Court takes the extraordinary step of ordering every State to license and recognize same-sex marriage. Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening. Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.

If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.

OBERGEFELL v. HODGES ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting

In conclusion, I would like to quote an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ.  

 Disciples of the Lord are defenders of marriage. We cannot yield. History is not our judge. A secular society is not our judge. God is our judge! For each of us, Judgment Day will be held in God’s own way and time.⁷

RUSSELL M. NELSONof the Quorum of the Twelve ApostlesAug. 14, 2014 • Commencement

Transitional Characters

   I welcome  you to an adventure of Marriage, Families and Life.  We are living in a time of great need for families to come together in strength and love.  The very heart of our societies is crumbling before our eyes.  

The first subject I wish to discuss is transitional characters.  

The late Carlfred Broderick, a renowned marriage and family scholar at the University of Southern California, coined the term transitional character and described it this way:

A transitional character is one who, in a single generation, changes the entire course of a lineage. The changes might be for good or ill, but the most noteworthy examples are those individuals who grow up in an abusive, emotionally destructive environment and who somehow find a way to metabolize the poison and refuse to pass it on to their children. They break the mold. They refute the observation that abused children become abusive parents, that the children of alcoholics become alcoholic adults, that "the sins of the fathers are visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation." Their contribution to humanity is to filter the destructiveness out of their own lineage so that the generations downstream will have a supportive foundation upon which to build productive lives.

Usually those that have a desire to be a transitional character believe in some higher power that will drive them to change.  The scriptures have many stories of how a loving Father in Heaven helped many leaders to break the mold.  Let's discuss some stories.  

I did not immediately think of Abraham being a transitional charter but feel He is a prime example of a character that chose not to follow the bad example of his fathers. The scriptures in the book of Abraham are not immediately clear about circumstances leading to the falling away of the fathers. We know that Abraham was raised among the fathers whom had the Priesthood. We can assume that Abraham was taught the gospel because He had a desire to follow righteousness and receive his appointment to the Priesthood. Abraham was taught to be a follower of righteousness. He desired greater knowledge and lived his life to receive all that our Father had promised. He had the Priesthood conferred upon him from the fathers. However, it is very clear that being a covenant people of the Lord does not guarantee that you will follow righteousness. Abraham states that His fathers turned from their righteousness and began worshiping the gods of the heathen and it became needful for him to obtain another place of residence.

I can think of a transitional character from my own life. I will protect the good name of the characters involved. The story appears fictional but the events are true.

There was a man (Frank) whom was very influential and respected among his own peers. He was taught the gospel and lived a good life. He had a good reputation among judges, law enforcement officials and the medical community. He made a very good living in a well respected occupation. Frank fell in love with a wonderful woman (Betty) and brought three children into the world. As the children started to grow and become more independent in their teen age years, Betty started a small sandwich cafe for extra money. Life seemed to be filled with roses.

Frank began having close associations with many of his prestigious colleagues. He soon began staying out partying and drinking with them at night. These prestigious men of the world had a habit of getting drunk and beating their wives. Frank began following in the footsteps of his colleagues. Eventually the drinking led to gambling. When Frank would run out of money, He would steal money from Betty's sandwich shop to fuel his gambling habit. His gambling habit took precedence over providing and protecting his own family. Betty had to get a second night time job to make ends meet. Eventually the spousal abuse became so bad that Betty took the kids and moved away to another state to escape the wrath of alchohol and the desperation of gambling.

It did not take long for Frank to track the kids down. He showed up in the schools office one day and took the children. The children screamed and cried. Frank was awarded custody of the children due to his association with the judges of the land. It was stated that Betty abandoned the children. Frank would intercept letters that Betty would write to the children and then tell the children that their Mother did not love them.

Frank ultimately lost his job due to his gambling habit and feared that he would lose the kids as well. This caused him to remember the teachings of the gospel that he was taught in his youth. He began reading the scriptures and putting his life back on track. He changed from a man preoccupied with alchohol and gambling to being a Father to his children. Change took place but it took a long while and it was not easy.

Eventually the children tracked down Betty and told Frank that nothing would stop them from seeing her.

When Frank repented and turned to full activity in the gospel, he was truly a changed man through the miracle of the atonement.

This story is not about Frank as the transitional character. This is about the children. Franks behavior could have had a generational impact on the children. One of Franks children fell away from the gospel. The other 2 children stayed true to the knowledge of the Savior and continue to live lives free of the negative generational impact that could have occurred.

All of us are transitional characters at some point in our life. Personally I am not immune to the temptations of the last days. I have my own story to tell. We all have to make our personal transition to the life we choose to live. Having the knowledge of its potential impact on our future generations gives us a bigger "WHY" to pick ourselves up and apply the atonement to our lives.