Reposted from 8/2010 – worth a second read in response to the decision to abandon the Defense of Marriage Act by the Obama Administration
The Designated Conservative has commented on the gay marriage debate before (see Gay Marriage and the Gospel, the Subprime Marriage Crisis, and even more posts on this topic), but the federal District Court Judge in San Francisco’s recent ruling overturning the popular will of the voters of California – substituting his one “supervote” for millions of conservative residents of that state – has put me in mind to address the issue from a slightly different direction.
The following lays bare the fallacies and flawed logic of the Judge’s ruling – which we hope will provide the foundation upon which the U.S. Supreme Court will rebuild the 5,000 year old protective structure around marriage as a sacred union between one man and one woman.
by V. Hudson, April 2009
(Y)ou would think the telos (chief object or purpose) of marriage was reproduction (with all the) arguments about marriage (by certain men) that are grounded in who’s fertile, who’s having an orgasm, who wants to have whose babies, who’s having transcendent sex. No wonder the anti-same-sex marriage movement is faltering…. By missing the true telos of marriage, these men render themselves utterly incapable of protecting it. And there’s culpability here: because men, for the most part, do not understand the true purpose of marriage, we will lose it as a societal ideal. This is an enormously tragic example of reaping what one sows.
Men’s overwhelming dominance in the anti-same-sex marriage movement, coupled with their misunderstanding of the telos of marriage, is dooming that movement to ignoble and inevitable defeat. If American society loses the ideal of heterosexual marriage, it will be in large part because many American men never understood what it was really for.
(W)hen God married Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, He established, in the words of Elder Earl C. Tingey, “an absolute equal partnership between a husband and wife. Eve was to be equal to Adam as a husband and wife are to be equal to each other.”
President Gordon B. Hinckley taught that, “God our Eternal Father ordained that men and women should be companions. That implies equality . . . There is no basis in the gospel for inferiority or superiority between the husband and wife.”
Elder L. Tom Perry has told us that “There is not a president and vice president in a family. We have co-presidents working together eternally for the good of their family . . . They are on equal footing. They plan and organize the affairs of the family jointly and unanimously as they move forward.” 
Elder Bruce C. Hafen, putting the icing on the cake, teaches us that the King James translation in Genesis 3:16 (“and he shall rule over thee”) is a mistranslation. In Hafen’s words, “over in “rule over” uses the Hebrew bet, which means ruling with, not ruling over.” 
After her courage in partaking of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…Eve was told that Adam would rule with her, with Adam’s earning that privilege through fulfilling his family and priesthood obligations.
(The true purpose) of marriage is to ground every human family in real, lived, embodied gender equality. And then, as a consequence, all reproduction would occur only within that context of gender equality. If the ideal were lived, then every son and daughter of God would be born into a family that lived gender equality, and thus each would learn how to form such a relationship when they themselves came of age. Reproduction is the fruit, not the root, of what God intended in establishing marriage.
That is why it doesn’t matter who’s fertile, and whether a marriage of infertile people is a marriage is beside the point. The test of whether you have a marriage or not is whether it is gender-equal monogamy.
No gender unequal relationship (even if it is called “marriage”) and no gender apartheid arrangement (with a person of the same sex or with no other person at all) can ground the households of the human family in gender equality.
(G)ender equality is not just some PC ideal. There is good evidence, according to Cassler, that greater gender equality in marriage gave the world sustainable democracy and greater levels of interstate and intrastate peace. Apparently, freedom and peace are the natural blessings that come from following the Lord’s version of marriage.
This…view calls for a wholesale reevaluation of the logic and the arguments of the anti-same-sex marriage movement…. If the movement is not put on firmer footing…it will be but a memory in less than a decade.
Your comments are always welcome. What do you think?