Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

LETTER: Not a waste of cash

Published: Monday, February 3, 2014

Updated: Monday, February 3, 2014 17:02

To the editor,

Firstly and most importantly, I believe what Evelyn Beatrice Hall said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." For that, I thank Mr. Christiansen for his article concerning the same-sex marriage debate.

However, it should be pointed out that he was wrong in most of the fundamental points of his argument and was weakly arguing the rest of them. He argues the Utah government is wasting the taxpayers’ dollars in defending marriage between strictly a man and a woman and that they are "combat(ing) a decision based on an idea ... that homosexuality will corrupt children and violate the sanctity of traditional marriages, defined as those between a man and a woman." The children being raised by gay couples isn't even the issue here. Sure, they could turn out normal; many have. What should be looked at is what the public wants, not necessarily why they want it. To throw out just briefly the argument for the ethics of the situation, the government is doing what the taxpayers want them to do. In 2004, Amendment 3 was passed resoundingly by the voters in the state. All but two counties — Summit and Grand — voted that this is the definition they wanted for the state for marriage. Perhaps the issue should be put to a vote again, but by the most recent vote, this is what the taxpayers want. To condemn the price tag of $2 million is only saying the residents of Utah are stupid and don't know how to spend their money right.

Which brings up another good point: money. I would be interested to see how much money LGBT groups and court cases have cost trying to overturn the voting public's opinion since 2004. I would venture to guess it would exceed the $2 million. Yes, much has changed since then, but it is no surprise to me that in that period of time, both groups spent a lot of money to defend what they believe, and neither side should be faulted for that.

The fact that Mr. Christiansen points out he was raised a Latter-day Saint serves to undermine his arguments against the church's position. As any good voting community, we should vote as we believe. The fact that the church believes "God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between a man and a woman legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife" and that the population voted accordingly shouldn't be a big deal, and it shouldn't be labeled a "waste" to defend something the voting population holds sacred. To further expound the doctrine though, as Christiansen did, it is not a violation of the principle of free agency. Free agency is two parts: We are free to choose our actions, but we are not free to choose the consequences. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints obviously believes that eternally speaking, that lifestyle would have consequences. As Christiansen points out that "God put us on this planet to gain a body and make a set of decisions throughout our lives that would in turn lead us back to be with him in heaven," should we hold the Mormon community responsible for voting against something that would stand in the way of that? Mr. Christiansen should know from his 25 years as a Latter-Day Saint that we believe we are all God's children and we are trying to take as many of our brothers and sisters home with us. To do that, we need to defend them from sinful lifestyles in anyway we can. It is not often an opportunity to vote on such a matter will be presented, but when it is like it was, can you really shake your finger at the state government for fighting against something the public feels would have eternal consequences, to people they see as brothers and sisters? If you ask for what the people want, if you're in government, you better be prepared to fight for it, no matter what the cost.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Be the first to comment on this article!

log out