John McCain’s web site says that he believes “the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” I couldn’t find a comparable statement on Barack Obama’s web site, but he has stated the same thing in interviews: marriage is a union between a man and a woman.

I actually disagree, but not for the reason a lot of other people do. I actually think that definition is an insufficient argument against same-sex marriage, and I would put it this way:

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family.

McCain’s web site continues: “It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.” I think my definition does that better.

If marriage were only about the two people getting married, then I would agree that it doesn’t matter who those people are. But it is more than that.

Yes, my views on the subject follow that of my church. But I am not blindly and mindlessly following their teachings, nor did I take it on as part of a package of political views (I tend to vote Democratic anyway). My beliefs are the result of using my own brain, my own heart, and my own prayers. I will respectfully disagree with those who advocate same-sex marriage, and recognize that they have their own reasons and reasonings for their position. I expect the same in return, though I have not always gotten it.

About a month ago, the LDS church released an article titled The Divine Institution of Marriage. I think it does an excellent job of presenting our point of view, comprehensively and respectfully.

I’d like to summarize some points that caught my attention:

• The Family: A Proclamation to the World, released in 1995, ends by saying: “We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.” This was five years before the church got involved in California’s Prop. 22, taking a stand on a political issue for the first time. They were not getting swept up in the right-wing agenda. They were following their own pre-established policy. The same applies now with Proposition 8.
• The definition of “tolerance” is being changed. These days, in order to be considered “tolerant” of other people, you have to adapt your own standards and morals to accept whatever they want to do. “Tolerate” is becoming synonymous with “condone”.
• Legalizing same-sex marriage creates a conflict with the religious rights of people who don’t believe in it, and religious rights are losing. Churches are getting sued for not allowing same-sex weddings in their buildings, and photographers for declining to photograph those weddings.

Please read the full article. It covers many more excellent points, including references to other significant articles and studies.

My hope is that even if we can’t agree on issues like this, we can at least be able to respect each other’s points of view, and better understand our own. Far too often, these discussions descend into emotional arguments full of fear, anger, and name-calling. We can do better.