Recently, I read some comments posted online in response to a news article discussing the LDS church's involvement in the campaign for California Proposition 8. There were some who reacted with rage, angry that the Church was even involved in the campaign. Others posted derisive remarks, mocking the leaders of the Church as out of touch with modern society.
The tone of the responses matched exactly the description of the responses Lehi received as he taught the people (see 1 Nephi 1:18-20). As I reviewed the account of Lehi's efforts to teach the people, I was struck by a phrase that, in all my previous readings, I had never before noticed. Lehi taught the people the things which he had seen and heard. Rather than being out of touch with the popular philosophies, Lehi was in touch with the Lord.
The Church recently released an article entitled The Divine Institution of Marriage which defines and clarifies the Church's official position on the issue of same-sex marriage. It's definitely worth reading (more than once) and brings out some important considerations that are often overlooked in the debate over same-sex marriage.
One major concern is the assault on the religious liberties of both religious organizations and individuals. An article on the NPR website summarizes several instances in which groups or individuals have faced legal challenges in response to personal beliefs about homosexuality. For example, a medical doctor in California faces a legal battle over declining to perform an in vitro fertilization for a homosexual couple. The doctor simply referred the couple to a co-practitioner. While it would indeed be bigoted to withhold lifesaving medical care based on sexual orientation, does a doctor not have the right to decide against performing an elective medical procedure? And in Boston, the Catholic-based adoption service has closed its doors because that was the only alternative to assisting homosexual couples in adopting children. Have we really fallen so far from the wisdom of our founding fathers that the state can now dictate actions contrary to an individual’s personal religious beliefs?