If civil law were altered to recognize so-called "same-gender" marriage, you as believers in God, and keepers of His commandments, would then be regarded as exceptions to the rule. Your conscientious convictions would then be regarded as discriminatory. If you were a Christian school teacher, you could be charged with bigotry for upholding the Lord's law of chastity. In truth dear brothers and sisters, if you lose marriage, you also lose freedom of religion. Atheistic moral bedlam and religious repression go hand in hand. At stake is our ability to transmit to the next generation the life-giving and inseparable culture of marriage and the free exercise of religion. (“We Are All Enlisted,” To the Young Adults of the Boston and Hingham Stakes, 10 June 2010; LDS Newsroom Article)
Some ask what is wrong when marriage is granted to those of the same gender, as was done by
the California Supreme Court. I've already stated one reason: it is contrary to God's plan. In
addition, the court's decision will inevitably lead to conflicts with religious liberties, freedom of
association, and free speech rights.
The freedom of families to raise children in an atmosphere that values and supports the unique
importance of marriage between a man and a woman will be lost. Society will become more and
more hostile to traditional beliefs about marriage and family. People inside of institutions with
beliefs that oppose same sex marriage will increasingly be labeled as intolerant and subjected to
legal penalties or social ostracism‐‐and this will not be limited to California, as its powerful influence
is felt across the country.
Three examples will illustrate this concern. First: curriculum in public schools. Nearly all public
schools provide education about health and sexuality. By law, health education includes the legal
and financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood. By law, sex education
includes age‐appropriate instruction in grades K‐12 that teaches respect for marriage.
The California Supreme Court has declared that same‐sex unions must be given equal dignity
under the law. That's unless Proposition 8 passes, children in public schools likely will be taught
about same‐sex marriages, and that such unions should be respected as the equal of traditional
marriages. Children will also likely receive age‐appropriate information about sexual relations
within heterosexual and homosexual marriages.
Second, religious adoption agencies. After same‐sex marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, the
state tried to force Catholic charities in Boston to disregard its religious beliefs and place children
with homosexual couples. Rather than abandon its faith, Catholic Charities discontinued its
adoption services. California's religious adoption agencies will likely face the same choice under
California's rigorous anti‐discrimination laws.
Third, religious tax exempt status. Pressure will mount to revoke the tax exempt status of
religious organizations and other charities that refuse to recognize same‐sex marriages or open
their facilities for the performance of such marriages. The argument will be that the government
shouldn't subsidize discriminatory beliefs with tax exemptions. (The Divine Institution of Marriage, Broadcast to California Regarding Proposition 8, 8 Oct. 2008)