"TRUTH IS TREASON IN THE EMPIRE OF LIES"

The following video was brilliantly done. Since 2002, Ron Paul along with Peter Schiff, have been predicting the current economic crisis. They were spot on in terms of its cause, its severity, and I hope they are wrong in their predictions of how long it will last.

If you haven't already, get your spiritual, and temporal house in order ASAP.

DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT?

President Bush announced today that the executive branch would intervene and help out the auto industry. In a statement to the press, the President said the following:

"Unfortunately, despite extensive debate and agreement that we should prevent disorderly bankruptcies in the American auto industry, Congress was unable to get a bill to my desk before adjourning this year."

The reason Congress was unable to pass a bill, is because Congress represents the people of the United States. I wrote to my senators, Boxer, and Feinstein, expressing my disapproval of the bailout. Obviously the majority of members of Congress received similar disapproval from their constituents, or they would have passed the bill. Congress was unable to get a bill to the President's desk because the people of the United States do not want to bail out the auto industry. Congress represented the will of people in this matter.

Despite the will of the people, and the workings of the government as prescribed in the Constitution, the President further explained:

"This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the executive branch to step in. The American people want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I'm announcing that the federal government will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week."

The American people obviously do not want the auto companies to succeed under the plan you propose. Here is what the President actually meant:

"This means the only way to avoid a collapse of the U.S. auto industry is for the MONARCHY to step in. MY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS want the auto companies to succeed, and so do I. So today, I'm announcing that the U.S. TAXPAYER will grant loans to auto companies under conditions similar to those Congress considered last week."

The federal government of the United States of America no longer represents the will of the people. If this is not a demonstration of that, then I do not know what is. If you think that is okay, you do not know your history. We are heading down a very dangerous path.

GMC: MIRROR IMAGE OF THE USA

The current crisis facing General Motors, is nearly a mirror image of the situation facing the United States of America. GM was founded in 1908 and has grown to be the worlds largest auto maker employing roughly 266,000 employees. Originally founded as a car company, whose sole purpose was to manufacture automobiles, GM recently has branched off into other ventures.

The government of the United States of America was founded in 1776 and its Constitution ratified in 1787. For awhile it led the world in promoting individual liberty, freedom, and prosperity. Originally founded as a protector of individual rights and administrator of national defense of its sovereign states, the government of the USA has branched off into other ventures.

GM employees formed the United Auto Workers Union (UAW) in 1935 due in part to a philosophical difference with the management of GM. Namely, management viewed the company as a means to produce cars to make money. The UAW saw the company as a means to provide a job. Indeed, the UAW formed the Job Bank program in 1984 which currently pays 12,000 UAW members to do nothing, seriously, nothing at all.

The people of the United States of America began to change the nature of their government due to a philosophical difference with the founders of the Constitution. Namely, the founders viewed the Constitution as a means to protect individual liberty, provide the common defense of the states, and limit oppressive government. The people disregarded the constitution (especially in 1913), and saw the government as a means to provide for not only the common defense, but also due the following: (1) provide and maintain full employment for all citizens, (2) secure agricultural prosperity, (3) develop a national housing program, (4) underwrite hundreds of billions of dollars in private loans and private insurance programs, (5) administer a national welfare program, (6) administer a national Medicare and Medicaid program, (7) administer a social security program, (8) allocate billions of dollars for educating the young, (8) administer a network of health agencies, (9) administer an environmental protection program for the entire nation, (10) administer 40% of the nations land area and its resources, (11) regulate all major industries such as steel, automobile manufacturing, coal mining, oil production, metal mining, and so forth, (12) supervise all radio and television broadcasting, (13) monitor the manufacturing and distribution of food and drugs, (14) create federal programs on a regional basis to replace the powers and activities originally reserved to the sovereign states.[1]

Comedian Argus Hamilton recently made the following joke: "The United Auto Workers said Saturday they won't make any concessions on wages or benefits to help the Big Three [auto makers]. First things first. Investors are just starting to realize that General Motors is a health care provider that makes cars on the side."

The people of the United States recently perpetuated the following joke: the idea that electing either a Democrat or a Republican to congress or the executive branch will provide any real change. Unfortunately, the people are not realizing that the government of the United States is infiltrating every aspect of their lives and is throwing the concepts of individual liberty, national defense, and limited government into an abyss.

[1] Skousen, W. Cleon. "The Making of America". p.508-9

A PHOTO ESSAY (VIDEO) OF TOLERANCE

Here is a video compiled by someone that demonstrates the love, tolerance, and rationality of those opposed to proposition 8.

NO ON 8 PROTESTS OUTSIDE THE TEMPLE

Opposition groups have begun to target the leadership of the Church. Read about the protests and see videos of the anti-traditional family protesters in front of the L.A. Temple here.

Protesters are also beginning to organize in front of the Salt Lake Temple. Read about that here.

This quote from President Benson seems applicable:

"As a prophet reveals the truth it divides the people. The honest in heart heed his words, but the unrighteous either ignore the prophet or fight him. When the prophet points out the sins of the world, the worldly either want to close the mouth of the prophet, or else act as if the prophet didn't exist, rather than repent of their sins. Popularity is never a test of truth. Many a prophet has been killed or cast out. As we come closer to the Lord's second coming, you can expect that as the people of the world become more wicked, the prophet will be less popular with them."

PROP 8 HAS PASSED!

A major battle has been won, but the war is not over. This will not be the end of attempts to alter the traditional family structure. Below is a talk given by Elder Neal A. Maxwell in 1978. These are prophetic words...

"Make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters, in the months and years ahead, events are likely to require each member to decide whether or not he will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions. President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had 'never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional or political life.'

"This is hard doctrine, but it is particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ. . . . Your discipleship may see the time when such religious convictions are discounted. . . . This new irreligious imperialism seeks to disallow certain opinions simply because those opinions grow out of religious convictions.

"Resistance to abrtion will be seen as primitive. Concern over the institution of the family will be viewed as untrendy and unenlightened.... Before the ultimate victory of the forces of righteousness, some skirmishes will be lost. Even in these, however, let us leave a record so that the choices are clear, letting others do as they will in the face of prophetic counsel. There will also be times, happily, when a minor defeat seems probable, but others will step forward, having been rallied to rightness by what we do. We will know the joy, on occasion, of having awakened a slumbering majority of the decent people of all races and creeds which was, till then, unconscious of itself. Jesus said that when the fig trees put forth their leaves, 'summer is nigh.' Thus warned that summer is upon us, let us not then complain of the heat."--- Elder Neal A. Maxwell

There is still a little hope in the state of California.

ANOTHER ARGUMENT FOR PROP 8

Below is an article that was referred to me. In a previous article I wrote here, I discussed many of the same points, but the articulation of this individual surpasses my articulation.

The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage

Adam Kolasinski

The debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. Homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.

I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. When a state recognizes a marriage, it bestows upon the couple certain benefits which are costly to both the state and other individuals. Collecting a deceased spouse’s social security, claiming an extra tax exemption for a spouse, and having the right to be covered under a spouse’s health insurance policy are just a few examples of the costly benefits associated with marriage. In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Granted, these restrictions are not absolute. A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.

One may argue that lesbians are capable of procreating via artificial insemination, so the state does have an interest in recognizing lesbian marriages, but a lesbian’s sexual relationship, committed or not, has no bearing on her ability to reproduce. Perhaps it may serve a state interest to recognize gay marriages to make it easier for gay couples to adopt. However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe’s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child’s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Some have compared the prohibition of homosexual marriage to the prohibition of interracial marriage. This analogy fails because fertility does not depend on race, making race irrelevant to the state’s interest in marriage. By contrast, homosexuality is highly relevant because it precludes procreation.

Some argue that homosexual marriages serve a state interest because they enable gays to live in committed relationships. However, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from living in such relationships today. Advocates of gay marriage claim gay couples need marriage in order to have hospital visitation and inheritance rights, but they can easily obtain these rights by writing a living will and having each partner designate the other as trustee and heir. There is nothing stopping gay couples from signing a joint lease or owning a house jointly, as many single straight people do with roommates. The only benefits of marriage from which homosexual couples are restricted are those that are costly to the state and society.

Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Adam Kolasinski is a doctoral student in financial economics.

This article was originally posted here.

REMEMBER TO VOTE YES ON PROP 8

Election Day is Tuesday. Remember to vote. I have received many emails from people regarding my stance on Proposition 8. Most have been in disagreement with me. Here is my final plea and argument on the matter before the election. It is a summary of the discussions I have had with people over the last few days.

The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God. The marriage ceremony was governed by religious traditions. In addition, practically every culture on earth associates marriage with their religious beliefs. Even if you are an atheist, you cannot deny the historical fact that marriage and religion are inseparable in nearly all cultures.Here is a brief Christian history of marriage via scripture and modern prophets:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:3)

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

"Marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17)

"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other." [1]

If you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, then you believe that God himself instituted marriage and is without question a religious ordinance. Since marriage and religion are inseparable whether by fact (from the revealed word) or by historical association, let us look anew at D&C 134:4.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to interfere in prescribing religious marriage ceremonies. We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to dictate who should be married. We DO NOT believe human law has the right to assume supreme authority on the definition of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, a religious union, and a religious sacrament. The government has no business involving itself whatsoever in a religious ceremony. It is obvious from scripture and latter-day prophets that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore two people of the same gender do not have the right to marry, and the government cannot intervene to dictate otherwise. The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc.

Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have.

D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.The opponents of traditional marriage have not been tolerant nor open minded regarding the religious nature marriage has for the majority. Instead of seeking equal protection under the law they have sought to force their views upon everyone using government force. Instead of promoting legislation in congress where open debate and discourse can occur, they have used the judicial system much like a tyrant.The Book of Mormon warned of the tyrannical use of the judicial system:

"the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." (Alma 10:27)

Our system of government must be done with open discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Under the Constitution, judges are not to legislate or make laws, they are to judge based on the laws the people have chosen. The people choose representatives whose sole purpose is to makes laws according to the will of the people, and judges are to judge based on those laws, and NOT create their own.The Book of Mormon again asserts this principle:

"If your higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." (Mosiah 29:29).

These principles are found in our Constitution. The will of the people as expressed in their laws has been overturned in a process that is not Constitutional. As a method of last resort against a tyrannical government, the Founders placed in the Constitution the means that the people could have the final say in their government, and that is through the amendment process.Instead of promoting their ideas through peaceful means, instead of promoting legislation for their cause, instead of discussing the injustice they felt they have incurred, opponents of traditional marriage have sought tyrannical means to overthrow the will of the people. This will only cause further strife and contention in our society. The means sought to enact laws by opponents of traditional marriage is beginning to lay the foundation of the destruction of our Republic.I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because the government has sought intrusion into religious institutions.

I am voting Yes on Prop 8 because my right to open discourse and debate on this issue has been taken away from me through unconstitutional means. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because a Prophet of God has admonished me to preserve a sacred and religious ordinance from the clutches of a tyrannical judicial system. I am voting Yes on 8 because it is the only resort left that I have to tell my government they cannot interfere with my religious beliefs.

THE SEPARATION OF MARRIAGE AND STATE

Here is my latest correspondence with the creator of the www.lds4gaymarriage.com website:

Discussing this issue with you has finally helped me reconcile the same inability you have had with scripture and the perceived attempt of the Church to force its views upon other people. It is now clear to me that I have been looking for the reconciliation from a fallacious starting point. In reading your response I actually believe you will agree with me if you look at the issue from a different starting point.

I agree with you 100% that I do not have the right to impose my religious beliefs upon other people through the use of government force. Such action goes against the free agency given to man by God himself.

Your response did not indicate any dispute with my assertion that marriage is by fact or historical association a religious act. I will therefore assume that you are in agreement with that assertion.

If marriage is a religious institution, then any government intervention into that institution is unconstitutional per the first amendment. D&C 134:4 also affirms the same. The government simply has no business in involving itself with marriage. The legal contract that is formed as a consequence of marriage is an entirely different issue.

When the United States of America was founded, the commonly held definition of marriage was as follows:

Marriage: The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

The culture at the time of our nations founding was much less diverse in terms of religious views. Because of this and out of convenience, there was no perceived problem of the governments intervention through the civil contract component into the religious institution of marriage. Marriage was God's, civil contract's were Caesar's. Because of the diverse beliefs people have in our current society, the two components, religious and civil, should be separated. Since marriage is by definition, by fact, and by historical association a religious institution, the government must now remove all references and uses of that word. The government is should only be involved in who can make contracts with one another.

By separating the two components, the government is no longer meddling with religion. Marriage is performed and regulated at church, civil contracts are performed, regulated and enforced by the government. Any attempt by the government to define what marriage is oversteps its bounds. The government can only determine what contracts it will consider valid.

Under this system, the following scenario would occur. A man and a woman go to a church, and are married according to the methods of worship they subscribe to. They will then go to the government and announce they intend to enter into one of several types of contracts with one another. A church could require their members to enter into this contract before they will be allowed to be married. It is the religious organization's choice to determine the rules and definitions of marriage.

If a man and a man want join a church that performs same gender "marriage", such a church would have the right to do so, per their definition of marriage. The two men will then go to the government and announce they intend to enter into one of several types of contracts with one another.

Consider this brief example of the type of contract two people can enter into. Two men go to the government and announce they intend to form a partnership, very similar to current partnership laws which govern business. The contract can specify the assumption of the other partner's pension, inheritance, lease transfers, burial rights, etc. Current partners under certain partnership laws will automatically be liable for the debts or obligations of another, similar to what happens in current marriage law. Basically, two people can contract with one another to form a business entity. It is not marriage by definition, and by the fact the government cannot intervene in the religious institution. It is a contract formed by two people.

By definition, atheists cannot marry, but they can form a contract. An atheist could go to a church and get married, but they would then have to go to the government and announce their intent to form a binding contract. The atheist could simply avoid the church and bypass a meaningless ceremony (from their point of view) and go straight to the contract ratification. Government stays out of marriage. If the atheist couple decides to have children, the contract relationship formed would dictate the state's involvement.

The issue with Proposition 8 is governments intervention into the Judeo-Christian perception of marriage. As I have pointed out, the government must separate itself from marriage and only recognize contracts, not religious ceremonies. The majority of the people in this country associate marriage with religion. Attempts by the government to redefine marriage are seen as an attempt to redefine their religious beliefs. Proposition 8 is the will of the people telling the government to stop interfering in religious matters. The state must acquiesce and separate itself from dictating religious definitions. All of the rights and privileges associated with marriage can be solved through contract law, and defined as contract law and not marriage.

For this reason I support Proposition 8. For this reason the admonition by the leaders of the church to stop government intervention in marriage is in complete harmony with all scripture. The government must leave God's realm and go back to Caesar's. Caesar's place is enforcing contract law. Of course, the LORD will be the final enforcer of how Caesar enforced his laws.

I believe this scenario satisfies all of the examples you provided in your response. Marriage is religious, contract law is government. Yes on Prop 8 denies government intervention into the definition of marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman, and the government does not have the right to tell me otherwise. Opponents of Prop 8 should stop trying to mix government and religion and focus on contract rights.

The opponents of traditional marriage have not been tolerant nor open minded regarding the religious nature marriage has for the majority. Instead of seeking equal protection under the law they have sought to force their views upon everyone using government force. Instead of promoting legislation in congress where open debate and discourse can occur, they have used the judicial system much like a tyrant.

The Book of Mormon warned of the tyrannical use of the judicial system: "the foundation of the destruction of this people is beginning to be laid by the unrighteousness of your lawyers and your judges." Alma 10:27

Our system of government must be done with open discourse, debate, and the free exchange of ideas. Under the Constitution, judges are not to legislate or make laws, they are to judge based on the laws the people have chosen. The people choose representatives whose sole purpose is to makes laws according to the will of the people, and judges are to judge based on those laws, and NOT create their own.

The Book of Mormon again asserts this principle: "If you higher judges do not judge righteous judgments, ye shall cause that a small number of your lower judges should be gathered together, and they shall judge your higher judges, ACCORDING TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE." Mosiah 29:29.

These principles are found in our Constitution. The will of the people as expressed in their laws has been overturned in a process that is not Constitutional. As a method of last resort against a tyrannical government, the Founders placed in the Constitution the means that the people could have the final say in their government, and that is through the amendment process.

Instead of promoting their ideas through peaceful means, instead of promoting legislation for their cause, instead of discussing the injustice they felt they have incurred, opponents of traditional marriage have sought tyrannical means to overthrow the will of the people. This will only cause further strife and contention in our society. The means sought to enact laws by opponents of traditional marriage is beginning to lay the foundation of the destruction of our Republic.

I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because the government has sought intrusion into religious institutions. I am voting Yes on Prop 8 because my right to open discourse and debate on this issue has been taken away from me through unconstitutional means. I am voting Yes on Proposition 8 because a Prophet of God has admonished me to preserve a sacred and religious ordinance from the clutches of a tyrannical judicial system. I am voting Yes on 8 because it is the only resort left that I have to tell my government they cannot interfere with my religious beliefs.

MARRIAGE IS A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY

The following is my latest response to an unidentified, self proclaimed member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The author is part of a group who has established a website www.lds4gaymarriage.com. A major premise regarding their view that the Church's leadership is in error rests on D&C 134:4. After considering his arguments, I have come to realize my own error in the manner I have been computing this issue. Here is my response:

"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:24)

"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." (Matthew 19:3)

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (1 Corinthians 7:2)

"Marriage is ordained of God unto man. Wherefore, it is lawful that he should have one wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation; and that it might be filled with the measure of man, according to his creation before the world was made." (Doctrine & Covenants 49:15-17)

"God instituted marriage in the beginning. He made man in his own image and likeness, male and female, and in their creation it was designed that they should be united together in sacred bonds of marriage, and one is not perfect without the other." [1]

The Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) believe that marriage is an institution ordained by God. The marriage ceremony was governed by religious traditions. In addition, practically every culture on earth associates marriage with their religious beliefs. Even if you are an atheist, you cannot deny the historical fact that marriage and religion are inseparable in nearly all cultures.

If you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph F. Smith, then you believe that God himself instituted marriage and is without question a religious ordinance. Since marriage and religion are inseparable whether by fact (from the revealed word) or by historical association, let us look anew at D&C 134:4.

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to interfere in prescribing religious marriage ceremonies. We DO NOT believe that human law has the right to dictate who should be married. We DO NOT believe human law has the right to assume supreme authority on the definition of marriage. It is a religious ceremony, a religious union, and a religious sacrament. The government has no business involving itself whatsoever in a religious ceremony. It is obvious from scripture and latter-day prophets that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Therefore two people of the same gender do not have the right to marry, and the government cannot intervene to dictate otherwise.

The only reason government involves itself in any way in the religious institution of marriage is for issues regarding divorce, i.e. the division of property, custody of children, etc. Since the government cannot dictate to religious organizations who can be married, and marriage in religious organizations is between a man and a woman, the only unions to which a government can ever involve itself in with regard to marital dissolution, are those between a man and a woman.

Since the government has clearly overstepped its bounds by involving itself with religious ceremonies and religious definitions, I have the right to voice my opinion to the government that it has intervened where it should not have. D&C 134:4 is a mandate to all members of the Church to voice their opinion, that the government has intervened in proscribing rules of worship and dictating public devotion with regard to marriage. Marriage is a religious function, and the government has no business defining what marriage is. It does not have that right. Yes on Proposition 8 reaffirms that the government has no business in defining or dictating a historically religious institution.

In regards to the church loosing its tax exempt status, I find the threat of the government to impose fines on an organization for speaking out on political issues deplorable. It violates the right of individuals to express their views. Through the tax code, the government has found a clever mechanism to silence its greatest threat, people who believe in a being superior to the state. I believe the current tax code is immoral and should be abolished. I do not believe the government should have any right to participate in social engineering by granting favorable treatment to people who are married or to whomever it deems.



[1] Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine: Selections from the Sermons and Writings of Joseph F. Smith, compiled by John A. Widtsoe [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1939], 272.

A RESPONSE TO YESTERDAY'S POST

A member of the group I wrote about in yesterdays blog responded to my inquiry. Here is their response. What they say has been changed to blue in order to better distinguish what I wrote from their response:

CM - Thank you for being honest and letting us know about your blog posting. We have no objection to you posting it on your site. We wish every LDS in CA would read it. We also think it would be equally honest to publish our response/rebuttal. It would show honesty and fairness. Responses are embedded below -

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.

I submit that this group has interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Since the entire argument for this group is based on the interpretation of this single scripture to support their position, it is critical to examine each phrase in full:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, ...

This means that any person, who practices any religion, is accountable to God only, in how they practice.

CM - Agreed!

Continuing:...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;...

In other words, there is a rational limit to what a person's religious liberty will allow. If I believe in human sacrifice as my religious belief, I will have to infringe upon another humans right to live. At that moment, I become accountable to a human law, that says homicide is illegal, regardless of my religious beliefs. The purpose of this verse is to declare the limits of which government can interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals. In other words, if my religious views do not infringe upon the rights and liberties of other people, the government CANNOT become involved in any way.

CM – Agreed. We can't use our religion as an excuse to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Gays have a right to marry in CA and we LDS are using our religious beliefs regarding marriage as a reason to try and revoke those rights. This also violates Paul’s statements as to how the religious opinions of others do not have the right to limit his own rights (1 Cor. 10:29).

The first amendment of the Constitution says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The government can make laws against homicide however, and if committing homicide is part of your religion, your right to freely exercise that religion can be limited.

This group views this scripture as a limit on what individuals can do, when it is actually a limit on what government can do.

CM - The "...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;..." portion says that men will not only be accountable to God for infringing upon the rights of others (it’s a sin), but also accountable to man's laws and punishments. IOW, the first clause of the verse says that we are subject only to God for our religious practices unless we do things in the name of our faith that infringe upon the rights of others. In such a case, we will not only be punished by God for the sin, but be punished my man as well.

...but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;...

Again, this verse states that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship. There are no limits however, placed upon the individual in voting according to their religious beliefs. As a human being, and believer in a set of core moral values, I have the right to advocate my position, persuade others to my position, and vote according to my moral values.

CM - We agree "that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship." as you state, but that does NOT give you a free pass to infringe upon the rights of others. Gays in CA have a right to marriage and you want to use your vote to remove that right. That's a clear infringement upon the rights of others. You have the LEGAL right to do so, but not the moral right, per scripture. It is a sin to infringe upon the rights of others. We are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. Using government is force (per Pres. Benson and others). Force is Satan's Plan.

I believe that incest is wrong..... I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. ....I believe that men and women should not commit adultery. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if adultery was never made a legal act. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who desire to have sexual relations while breaking their marital vows.

CM - We agree if all of the above weren’t practiced in society, society would be much better off. That does NOT give us the right to use force to make it so. Our religion also teaches that girls shouldn't wear bikinis or date prior to 16 or single date until 18. We also believe that drinking iced tea is a sin. Shopping on Sunday is a sin. Etc...We may have a LEGAL right to try to force these on society. If we catch a 14 y/o girl wearing a bikini on a date while shopping on Sunday at beachfront shops with an iced tea in her hand, should she go to the slammer? She violated 4 of our "laws". Again, we may have a LEGAL right to do it, but we don't have a moral right, per our religion.

I do not believe it is right for the state to institute Christianity as a state religion, to force people to be baptized, pray, or dictate how I worship God. I will no longer be ashamed of my positions. The purpose of the oft repeated phrase "separation of church and state" was to limit government intrusion into religion. THE CONSTITUTION STRICTLY FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION FREELY. My religious beliefs teach me that incest, same gender "marriage", and adultery are wrong, and I have the right to express my views in the way I vote. I will not be intimidated; I will not be thwarted in my efforts. God has given me the right as an individual to express my views and no government will ever prevent me from voting my conscience.

CM - IOW, you feel free to let your religious opinions prompt you to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. Let's throw the little bimby in the slammer for strolling through those beachfront stores on Sunday, in her bikini while on a date and drinking iced tea. Those are sins and society would be better off if people didn't sin. Let's therefore outlaw all sin. We live in a democracy so let's vote these laws in. I sure hope that Seventh Day Adventists don't do these things...they may outlaw shopping on Saturday and force businesses to close. They might also outlaw meat being served in restaurants and in grocery stores. . Those are MORAL issues to them, NOT civil rights issues. Why are we so willing to “do unto others” the evil which had been “done unto us” yet scream when others try to do something to us? Why are we being hypocritical? We may have a LEGAL right to infringe upon others' rights in this case, but we don't have a moral or scriptural right to do so.

I close with words from Gordon B. Hinckley:

"Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?"

"I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. ..."

CM - Didn't others think it was in the best interest of society to issue an Extermination Order or have the US Army invade Utah? Wasn't polygamy considered to be contrary to the best interests of society? Ben Franklin said that a pure democracy is like 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for lunch. It's great if you are in the majority (wolves), but stinks if you are in the minority (sheep). This is why we live in a constitutional republic with protections for the sheep, but we LDS are trying to remove those protections for certain sheep so that we can have lunch. Again, we are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. Force is of Satan. We can only use force when someone is objectively infringing upon our rights. The gays aren't. No one's rights are objectively harmed.

"There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Cm - But in our secular democracy, we have to ask - "Whose God?" The god of the churches that allow gay marriage? That same line above was probably issued by others opposition to polygamy. Not everyone agrees as to what the "best interests of society" really are. This is why we keep church and state separate and allow people to do as they please as long as they don't infrige upon the rights of others. Should majority rule without regard to the rights of the sheep. We sure hate it when others have used the majority to harm our rights. Why are we being 2-faced about this?

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality.

Cm - It is OBJECTIVELY a matter of civil rights. We are trying to use CIVIL means (voting) to deny CIVIL RIGHTS of people that currently have the CIVIL RIGHT to have our CIVIL government recognize their marriages. To us and other Christians, there is also a moral component, but it is first and foremost a CIVIL RIGHTS issue. Check out our site again and read the words of Bruce R. McConkie regarding the separation of Church and State.

Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Cm - I agree that we have a duty to speak out. As stated above, we are to use kindness, gentleness, meekness and love unfeigned to persuade people to live righteously. We have to be careful though, because we do NOT have an unfettered right to our tax-exempt status. The Church might have it revoked if we are too involved in politics. The Church would have to pay taxes on the tithes it collects and we wouldn't be able to write off our donations on our taxes. Revoking it would NOT be an infringement on our religious rights. You can bet that we would scream bloody murder if there was a serious attempt to revoke this thing which is not in any way a CIVIL RIGHT, yet we take offense when others oppose our own attempts at revoking an ACTUAL CIVIL RIGHT.

The Lord, the scriptures, the prophets, the Constitution speak out against government intrusion into forcing religion upon people. The Lord, the scriptures, and the prophets declare that we must vote for moral values, and the Constitution protects that right.

CM - Shouldn't we be careful about imposing our morals on others when others have that same right in states or countries where THEY are the wolves and WE are the sheep? We complained when the Russian government denied us the opportunity to buy land and build chapels. The Russians considered it a MORAL issue because we would preach things that are contrary to their morality - the superiority of the American Constitution, doctrines which contradict the official state church, ideas about minimalist government rather than Communist/Socialist ideas, etc... Was that a MORAL issue or was it a CIVIL RIGHTS issue from our standpoint? What goes around, come around. We need to be careful about not incenting others to infringe upon us.

CM – The bottom line is that 1 Cor. 10:29 and D&C 134:4 frown upon the idea of people using their religious as motivation to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others. The language is clear and can’t be wrested to mean the opposite with redefining what the definition of the word “is” is. We have seen when others have infringed upon our rights, yet we don’t bat an eye about doing the same unto others. What goes around comes around. Perhaps a liberal CA legislature could remove our tax-exempt status in the state. It was considered after our involvement in Prop.22 and there is even more justification now. We can’t simply can’t expect to run roughshod over the rights of others and not expect the same treatment. Even worse, we are violating the CLEAR teachings of scripture, ignoring our own history of having our rights infringed when we were the unpopular minority, and breaking apart LDS families with gay children. This is anti-family and anti-missionary work. There are few things that rival this in being sin.

YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE

With the election drawing near, the forces against the YES on Prop 8 campaign are becoming more fierce, more clever, and more deceptive. Beginning this last weekend, a group of people began to picket outside of the Oakland Temple. A news article by SFGate.com details the encounter. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is coming under increased attacks from the opposition. The news article provides access to a website where people are tracking the amount of donations given by individuals who are members of the Church. While this is public information, one of the goals of the site is to provide a list of people that can be intimidated and mocked instead of engaged in rational debate.

The website also contains a large list of websites in opposition to the Church's involvement in the preservation of marriage. There are also many websites that cleverly use the scriptures and the Church's doctrine in a twisted manner to show the Church's alleged hypocrisy in this matter. The best website which demonstrates this false use of scripture is www.lds4gaymarriage.org. I believe this to be an excellent example of how the scriptures can be misused. A textbook example of the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. There are many warnings against this type of issue within the scriptures themselves. Here, here, here and here.

Here is the groups argument:

A Brief Summary As To Why Promoting
California's Proposition 8 Is Contrary To Scripture

We feel that promoting Proposition 8 violates the scriptures. For those in favor of Proposition 8 please tell us why, how and where we are wrong in our step by step analysis. We always welcome your thoughts and constructive criticism.

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others. (1 Cor. 10:29 does as well).

2. Gays in California currently have the right and/or liberty to marry.

3. By supporting Proposition 8, we are attempting to infringe upon this right/liberty, in contradiction to scripture, because our religious opinions regarding marriage and homosexuality prompted us to instinctively do so, just like Uzzah who instinctively tried to steady the ark contrary to extant scripture.

4. The prophets have also stated that their own words are overruled by scripture and that we are to ignore anyone's teachings, including their own, if those teachings contradict scripture. Scripture trumps the words of all men. Consider these two quotes from Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee.

Unless a statement is raised to the status of scripture as Harold B. Lee outlined above, it can't overrule previously given scripture.

5. Since D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 overrule contradicting statements made by ANYONE, even the prophets, according to the prophets, and since no efforts to overturn them via the historic guidelines of Common Consent have even been discussed, D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 remain the prevailing and governing statements.

6. Since D&C 134:4 and 1 Cor. 10:29 remain the prevailing/governing statements and condemn those who use their religion as an excuse/reason to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others, our efforts to infringe upon the existing rights and/or liberties of gays, prompted by our religious opinions, are therefore wrongheaded, contrary to the clear meaning of scripture, and thereby violates OFFICIAL LDS Doctrine. It's that simple.

Number 2 is factually accurate; under California Law, people with homosexual tendencies can be legally recognized as "married". Number 4 is accurate and is they way people can know if a teaching of any leader is accurate. Number 5 is accurate as well; unless the members of the Church give their common consent to an addition to the scriptures that contradicts the two scriptures mentioned, such teaching is invalid.

This invalidation of scripture or previous teachings has been done in the past. For example, when the gospel superseded the law of Moses. Christians are not bound to follow certain aspects of the law as contained in the Old Testament. Another example is when the practice of plural marriage was discontinued by the 1st Manifesto.

Numbers 1, 3, and 6 are all inaccurate because this group has not correctly interpreted the scriptures for which they base their reasoning. Here is what D&C 134:4 actually says:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

Again, here is what the group says:

1. LDS scripture (D&C 134:4) says we can't use our religious opinions to justify infringing upon the rights and liberties of others.

I submit that this group has interpreted this scripture incorrectly. Since the entire argument for this group is based on the interpretation of this single scripture to support their position, it is critical to examine each phrase in full:

We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, ...

This means that any person, who practices any religion, is accountable to God only, in how they practice. Continuing:

...unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others;...

In other words, there is a rational limit to what a person's religious liberty will allow. If I believe in human sacrifice as my religious belief, I will have to infringe upon another humans right to live. At that moment, I become accountable to a human law, that says homicide is illegal, regardless of my religious beliefs. The purpose of this verse is to declare the limits of which government can interfere in the religious beliefs of individuals. In other words, if my religious views do not infringe upon the rights and liberties of other people, the government CANNOT become involved in any way.

The first amendment of the Constitution says "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The government can make laws against homicide however, and if committing homicide is part of your religion, your right to freely exercise that religion can be limited.

This group views this scripture as a limit on what individuals can do, when it is actually a limit on what government can do.

...but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion;...

Again, this verse states that government should not interfere with how people choose to worship. There are no limits however, placed upon the individual in voting according to their religious beliefs. As a human being, and believer in a set of core moral values, I have the right to advocate my position, persuade others to my position, and vote according to my moral values. I believe that incest is wrong, and that there should be laws that prevent a blood brother and sister from marrying one another.

This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if such unions did not exist. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who are blood siblings.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if society defined marriage in this way. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who are of the same gender.

I believe that men and women should not commit adultery. This position comes from my religious beliefs. I feel society would be better off if adultery was never made a legal act. I believe this is a moral issue that happens to limit the liberty of two consenting adults who desire to have sexual relations while breaking their marital vows.

I do not believe it is right for the state to institute Christianity as a state religion, to force people to be baptized, pray, or dictate how I worship God. I will no longer be ashamed of my positions. The purpose of the oft repeated phrase "separation of church and state" was to limit government intrusion into religion. THE CONSTITUTION STRICTLY FORBIDS THE GOVERNMENT TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM EXERCISING THEIR RELIGION FREELY. My religious beliefs teach my that incest, same gender "marriage", and adultery are wrong, and I have the right to express my views in the way I vote. I will not be intimidated, I will not be thwarted in my efforts. God has given me the right as an individual to express my views and no government will ever prevent me from voting my conscience. I close with words from Gordon B. Hinckley:

“Why does the Church become involved in issues that come before the legislature and the electorate?”

I hasten to add that we deal only with those legislative matters which are of a strictly moral nature or which directly affect the welfare of the Church. We have opposed gambling and liquor and will continue to do so. We regard it as not only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues. Such is currently the case in California, where Latter-day Saints are working as part of a coalition to safeguard traditional marriage from forces in our society which are attempting to redefine that sacred institution. God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.

Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out.

Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married. (To view the entire talk click here).

The Lord, the scriptures, the prophets, the Constitution speak out against government intrusion into forcing religion upon people. The Lord, the scriptures, and the prophets declare that we must vote for moral values, and the Constitution protects that right.

WILD PIGS AND THE GOVERNMENT

I am sorry for repeating myself with the opening title. My Mother-In-Law forwarded me this anecdote in an email. Whether the actual story is true, I do not know. The moral of the story however, is very true.

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country's government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, 'Do you know how to catch wild pigs?'

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line.

The young man replied that it was not a joke...

'You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming.'

'When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.'

'Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.'

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch!

Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you!

Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America .

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

RAMIFICATIONS OF SAME SEX "MARRIAGE"

Below is a video that documents some of the side effects same sex "marriage" can have on a society. Same sex "marriage" has the potential to drastically increase the power of the state and lessen the power of the individual.

THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE

Webster as of 2008 defines marriage as: "(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as a husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage."

Here is the Webster 1828 dictionary definition of marriage: "(1): The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children." Note that Webster relates current and common use of words in a culture.

The difference between the two definitions is almost so different as to make one believe they are not the same word. When Mosiah discovered the people of Zarahemla, he could not understand them because their language had become corrupted. The source of the language corruption was the fact that no records had been brought with them.

The people of the United States have allowed the government to take over the religious institution of marriage. Moral decay in Western Civilization has given rise to the revised definition as reflected in Webter's Dictionary. The overt religious reference to God has been stripped away completely. The definition and semantics of this word have obviously changed for the majority of society since 1828.

Per the 1828 definition, marriage is (1) a contract between a man and a woman; (2) it is the means of securing the well being, education, nourishment and prosperity of children, (3) it is a sacred obligation between a man and a woman to remain faithful and true to one another. By removing the critical components of the true definition, marriage has evolved into nothing more than a simple contract which can be voided anytime one party is tired of the arrangement.

A contract is an agreement creating and defining the obligations between two or more parties. Both parties have obligations to one another. The debt incurred by one is the debt of the other. The assets acquired by one are the assets of the other. The two parties contract in essence to become parties to a single entity.

The sacred obligation to remain true and faithful to one another is the covenant aspect of marriage. A covenant is a solemn promise to engage in, or refrain from a specified action. In contrast to a contract, it is a one way agreement whereby the covenanter is the only party bound by the promise. It may have conditions and prerequisites that qualify the undertaking, but there is no inherent agreement by such other parties to fulfill those requirements. In this sense only person making the covenant can break it.

A popular passage from traditional marriage ceremonies includes the following: "Do you take this woman, to have and to hold, in sickness and in health, rich or poor, until death do you part?" The officiator of such a ceremony is asking one party to make a solemn promise (covenant) to love and cherish his wife even if she becomes ill, poor, disabled, disfigured. So for example, something happens to her in the future and she is burned in an accident and becomes disfigured. The man becomes revolted at her appearance and abandons her. Such a man has broken his solemn promise (covenant). She did not break any covenant as remaining perfectly healthy was not a condition of the covenant. Her husband promised to love her no matter what physical circumstances might occur in life.

The current Webster definition reflects a view of marriage nearly devoid of its original meaning. No matter what laws are passed, no matter how the definitions are reworded to appeal to the thought police, my view of marriage is and always shall be based on its original meaning. Our civilization is founded upon the fruits the original definition has provided. Even the phrase "the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them" has been removed.

I am thankful for the modern day prophets who offer the Lord's will and counsel regarding critical issues such as marriage. I am grateful and proud to be a supporter and activitst for the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign in my home state of California. It is time people reaffirm what the true meaning and definition of marriage is. It is time we stop letting outside influences such as government, media, and activist groups change the meaning of the word in our society. Marriage the way the Lord intends, is the most noble union between a man and a woman that can be achieved in mortality. It is an ideal to aspire to and proclaim.

Below is a video that was sent to me by my Bishop. It was made by CatholicVote.com. It is a powerful message regarding the moral issues that face our nation this next election day.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1787

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America..."

221 Years ago today, the Constitution of the United States of America was ratified on September 17, 2008. Our government is unique in human history, in that it was established by the WILL of the people. Nearly every other government on earth was historically established by brute force, i.e. the person with the most weapons seized control. The rise to power for history of governments has been through fraud, force or accident.

Many of the American "Founders" who sacrificed their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor in establishing the Constitution referred to final version of the document as a "miracle." [1]

In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette on February 7, 1788, George Washington wrote, "It appears to me, then, little short of a miracle, that the delegates from so many different states (which states you know are also different from each other, in their manners, circumstances, and prejudices) should unite in forming a system of national government." [2]

James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson in France on December 9, 1787, saying it was "impossible to consider the degree of concord which ultimately prevailed as less than a miracle." [3]

The prosperity, liberty, and freedom achieved in the United States of America is a direct result of the limitations placed on government by the Constitution. In order for secure our freedom, prosperity, and continued liberty, we must become familiar with the document that has had such a large part in creating it.

One of the most damaging causes to worldwide peace and prosperity is the foreign policy of the United States of America. Our current foreign policy has strayed radically from the original intent of the Constitution and from the intent of the people who wrote it.

J. Reuben Clark, former Under Secretary of State and former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, described the role of America as a great world peacemaker. He wrote:

"America, multi-raced and multi-nationed, is by tradition, by geography, by citizenry, by natural sympathy, and by material interest, the great neutral nation of the earth. God so designed it. Drawn from all races, creeds, and nations, our sympathies run to every oppressed people. Our feelings, engaged on opposite sides of great differences, will in their natural course, if held in due and proper restraint, neutralize the one [with] the other. Directed in right channels, this great body of feeling for the one side or the other will ripen into sympathy and love for all misguided and misled fellowmen who suffer in any cause, and this sympathy and love will run out to all humanity in its woe....

"Having in mind our position as the great world neutral, ... we should announce our unalterable opposition to any plan to starve these innocent peoples ... -- the women, the children, the sick, the aged, and the infirm -- and declare that when actual and bona fide mass starvation shall come to any of them, no matter who they are, we shall do all that we properly may do to see that they are furnished with food....

"If we shall rebuild our lost moral power and influence by measures such as these which will demonstrate our love for humanity, our justice, our fair-mindedness, we ... shall then be where ... we can offer mediation between the two belligerents.

"America, the great neutral, will thus become the Peacemaker of the world, which is her manifest destiny if she lives the law of peace." [4]

Washington then made his famous declaration of the Founders' policy of foreign relations:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop."

Only recently, Washington had seen certain American politicians getting the United States embroiled in European quarrels. He saw these operating to the distinct disadvantage of the United States. Therefore, he warned:

"Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.... Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interests, humor, or caprice?" [5]

Take time today to think of the tremendous blessings that have arisen in your life due to the Constitution of the United States of America. More importantly take time in the future to study the Constitution and vote only for people who will truly support and defend it.

[1] Bowen, Catherine, Miracle at Philadelphia. p. 213
[2] Skousen, Cleon, The Making of America. p. 4
[3] Ibid.
[4] Skousen, The Five Thousand Year Leap. pp 276-278.
[5] Fitzpatrick, The Writings of George Washington, 35:234.