Marriage is a Covenant not a Contract

The instances of divorce dramatically increased with the passing of “no fault” divorce; a divorce in which the dissolution of a marriage does not require a showing of wrongdoing by either party. Laws providing for no-fault divorce allow a family court to grant a divorce in response to a petition by either party of the marriage without requiring the petitioner to provide evidence that the defendant has committed a breach of the marital contract. in 1969. (Wikipedia)  Divorce rates increased in the 70s and began to decline by 1982, but are still at staggering rates of between 40-50%. One problem with the no fault divorce law is that it makes it so easy to attain a divorce. With the ease of a legal divorce, those who could have potentially saved their marriages may opt to end the marriage instead of working things out. I need to mention that divorce in many instances is the answer, and I am thankful people in abusive relationships or where a spouse simply will not be faithful have a way out and a hope for a better life.

I believe marriage is a sacred agreement or covenant between man, woman and God. When we view marriage as a covenant which includes God the sacredness of the union becomes deep and binding. The following thoughts and story from an article titled, Covenant Marriage, in the Ensign magazine written by, Bruce C. Hafen, explains the difference between a covenant marriage and a contractual marriage.

“Marriage is by nature a covenant, not just a private contract one may cancel at will. Jesus taught about contractual attitudes when he described the “hireling,” who performs his conditional promise of care only when he receives something in return. When the hireling “seeth the wolf coming,” he “leaveth the sheep, and fleeth... because he ... careth not for the sheep.” By contrast, the Savior said, “I am the good shepherd, ... and I lay down my life for the sheep.” Many people today marry as hirelings. And when the wolf comes, they flee. This idea is wrong. It curses the earth, turning parents’ hearts away from their children and from each other” (1996 Hafen)

My husband and I in 1992 Los Angeles Temple

Our firstborn on her wedding day 2016 Provo City Center Temple

Every marriage is tested repeatedly by three kinds of wolves. The first wolf is natural adversity. After asking God for years to give them a first child, David and Fran had a baby with a serious heart defect. Following a three-week struggle, they buried their newborn son. Like Adam and Eve before them, they mourned together, brokenhearted, in faith before the Lord.

Second, the wolf of their own imperfections will test them. One woman told me through her tears how her husband’s constant criticism finally destroyed not only their marriage but her entire sense of self-worth. He first complained about her cooking and housecleaning, and then about how she used her time, how she talked, looked, and reasoned. Eventually she felt utterly inept and dysfunctional. My heart ached for her, and for him. Contrast her with a young woman who had little self-confidence when she first married. Then her husband found so much to praise in her that she gradually began to believe she was a good person and that her opinions mattered. His belief in her rekindled her innate self-worth.

The third wolf is the excessive individualism that has spawned today’s contractual attitudes. A seven-year-old girl came home from school crying, “Mom, don’t I belong to you? Our teacher said today that nobody belongs to anybody—children don’t belong to parents, husbands don’t belong to wives. I am yours, aren’t I, Mom?” Her mother held her close and whispered, “Of course you’re mine—and I’m yours, too.” Surely marriage partners must respect one another’s individual identity, and family members are neither slaves nor in animate objects. But this teacher’s fear, shared today by many, is that the bonds of kinship and marriage are not valuable ties that bind, but are, instead, sheer bondage. Ours is the age of the waning of belonging.” (1996 Hafen)

In my marriage I believe the second wolf is our biggest threat. Not that we share the same issue of criticism, but in that I see our own imperfections get in the way. What my husband and I have going for us is that we view our marriage as sacred. We made a covenant to each other and to the Lord in the Los Angeles Temple 25 years ago. With this deep commitment and love we are willing to work to make our marriage deeply fulfilling for each other and our children. We both understand that we are not perfect. We try to focus on the other person more than ourselves. We seek to learn and grow together through work, study and wholesome recreation as a couple and a family. I know as we continue to be selfless, to have charity toward one another and to stay close to the Lord through prayer and study, we will one day stand before the Lord as Eternal Companions.

My Thoughts On Marriage After Reading OBERGEFELL v. HODGES

What is marriage? Who created marriage and where did it originate? Who has the right to change the definition of marriage?

“This universal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman is no historical coincidence. Marriage did not come about as a result of a political movement, discovery, disease, war, religious doctrine, or any other moving force of world history—and certainly not as a result of a prehistoric decision to exclude gays and lesbians. It arose in the nature of things to meet a vital need: ensuring that children are conceived by a mother and father committed to raising them in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship. “For since the reproductive instinct is by nature’s gift the common possession of all living creatures, the first bond of union is that between husband and wife; the next, that between parents and children; then we find one home, with everything in common.”). The premises supporting this concept of marriage are so fundamental that they rarely require articulation. The human race must procreate to survive. Procreation occurs through sexual relations between a man and a woman. When sexual relations result in the conception of a child, that child’s prospects are generally better if the mother and father stay together rather than going their separate ways. Therefore, for the good of children and society, sexual relations that can lead to procreation should occur only between a man and a woman committed to a lasting bond. Society has recognized that bond as marriage.” Pg. 5 Roberts, C.J., Dissenting

Marriage has seen some changes in the relatively recent past considering the millennia in which marriage has been around. One of these changes was the law to allow and recognize interracial marriage. Another was the elimination of the law banning contraceptives.  There is a key aspect to these changes; they did not affect the definition of marriage. When these laws where abolished it was still assumed that marriage is between a man and a woman. The legalization of same-sex-marriage presumes to redefine the definition of marriage. Marriage between man and woman has always been the core of society, the way societies progress. It is the way the human race continues to function and even exist. It is the raw ingredient necessary to procreate; a man and a woman bound by matrimony then adding children to create the family. The passing of this new definition supposes that our current generation is superior in knowledge of right and wrong than all the preceding millennia of the human race. “while people around the world have viewed an institution in a particular way for thousands of years, the present generation and the present Court are the ones chosen to burst the bonds of that history and tradition.” Pg 29. Obergefell v. Hodges.

The decision to alter the definition of marriage is based on personal opinion. Who is a judge to decide that for the whole country? Justice Curtis explained, when the “fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control” the Constitution’s meaning, “we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean.” Id., at 621.

To prevent five unelected Justices from imposing their personal vision of liberty upon the American people, the Court has held that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 701, 720–721 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. ___, ___ (2013) (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 7). Indeed: “In this country, no State permitted same-sex marriage until the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Cour held in 2003 that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated the State Constitution. See Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309, 798 N. E. 2d 941. Nor is the right to same-sex marriage deeply rooted in the traditions of other nations. No country allowed same-sex couples to marry until the Netherlands did so in 2000. “What [those arguing in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage] seek, therefore, is not the protection of a deeply rooted right but the recognition of a very new right, and they seek this innovation not from a legislative body elected by the people, but from unelected judges. Faced with such a request, judges have cause for both caution and humility.” Id.,at ___(slip op., at 7–8). “For today’s majority, it does not matter that the right to same-sex marriage lacks deep roots or even that it is contrary to long-established tradition. Alito, J., dissenting

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when addressing the second annual Sacramento Court/Clergy Conference at Congregation B’nai Israel in Sacramento, California said, “Constitutional duties, including respect for the vital principle of separation of powers, are fundamental to the rule of law. Government officials must not apply these duties selectively according to their personal preferences — whatever their source,”.  It is in direct opposition to the Constitution that the definition of marriage should be redefined.

For clarity on what God defined marriage to be we can look to the following verses from the Bible.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:27.

And God blessed them, and . . . said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. Genesis 1:28.

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.

And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. Genesis 3:20; see also Moses 4:26.

“God is the Father of all men and women. They are His children. It was He who ordained marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Marriage was not created by human judges or legislators. It was not created by think tanks or by popular vote or by oft-quoted bloggers or by pundits. It was not created by lobbyists. Marriage was created by God! Russell M. Nelson. Disciples of Jesus Christ- Defenders of Marriage.”

I love God and my Savior. I love the family as defined by God. I know that is my greatest work I will ever do and where I will find everlasting joy. I hope for the protection of families and children everywhere. The adherence to the command of families beginning with a man and a woman are essential to the health and progress of civilizations, economy, and communities. I believe in the freedom to chose and that people should not receive persecution from man for their personal beliefs. I end this entry with closing statements of Roberts, C.J., dissenting comments in Obergefell v. Hodges.  

“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.”

 Obergefell v. Hodges