Should Latter-day Saints Vote for Barack Obama?
Michael T. Griffith
October 4, 2008
We who are members of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints are free to vote for the candidates of our choice. The Church does not endorse or oppose
political candidates and maintains neutrality about political parties. So the decision is ours to make. The question
is, Should Latter-day Saints vote for Barack Obama? Some argue that since the Church has not told
us for whom we can or can’t vote, there can be nothing wrong with voting for
Obama. But this argument ignores several
facts.
OBAMA VS. THE CHURCH ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
AND ABORTION
For example, the Church has told us that we
should be actively supporting efforts to preserve traditional marriage and to
prevent same-sex marriage from being legalized.
Obama, on the other hand, supports same-sex marriage (also known as gay
marriage), and even wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which gives
states the option of not recognizing other states’ same-sex marriages. In addition, the Church has counseled
members not to support abortion in any way.
Obama, on the other hand, is so radically pro-abortion that he wanted to
repeal all existing restrictions on abortion and has even voted against
legislation that was designed to prohibit the killing of babies that survived
abortion. Let’s consider some specifics
in relation to these issues:
1. The
Church has called for passage of the Federal Marriage Amendment. The Church
even sent Elder Russell M. Nelson of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to
attend a press conference for the Federal Marriage Amendment in Washington,
D.C., shortly before the Senate voted on it. But Obama voted against the amendment and
continues to oppose it. He argues that
passing the Federal Marriage Amendment would constitute “enshrining discrimination and divisive
distinctions among citizens into our founding documents” (Interview with The
Washington Blade, September 10, 2008; Obama
Pledges “Equality for All,” The Washington Blade, September 10, 2008). When he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004,
Obama pledged, in writing, “I will also
oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians
from marrying” (Obama
on Marriage).
Elder Nelson said the following when he
spoke at the above-mentioned press conference in support of the Federal
Marriage Amendment:
The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is pleased to be represented in this significant
cause. While those of us here today represent a broad spectrum of religious
diversity, we are firmly united in our declaration that marriage of a man and a
woman is ordained of God. The sanctity of marriage and family constitutes the
spiritual undergirding of lasting and successful societies.
Together we share a
duty to preserve marriage and family as established by God. The time has now come
when a constitutional amendment is needed in this country to protect our divine
inheritance. Such action does not reduce our regard for individuals who choose
to live by other standards. But it confirms our conviction that marriage is the
foundry for social order, the fountain of virtue and the foundation for eternal
exaltation. (Elder Nelson
Speaks at the U.S. Capitol to Protect Marriage)
2. The
Church has warned that same-sex marriage poses a serious threat to the family,
to religious freedom, and to society as a whole. But Obama has made it clear he sees nothing
wrong with same-sex marriage and has called efforts to ban gay marriage
“divisive” and “discriminatory” (See Obama’s Opposition to DOMA;
Obama
Promises Gays “Strongest Possible Bill”; Obama
Rejects Proposed California Gay Marriage Ban, Sacramento Bee, July 1,
2008; Obama
Talks All Things LGBT with The Advocate; see also below). Obama not only
opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment and wants to repeal the Defense of
Marriage Act, but he opposes all bans on same-sex marriage at the state level
as well. It’s worth noting that the
Defense of Marriage Act was signed by Bill Clinton after being passed by an
overwhelming majority in Congress, but Obama claims it’s discriminatory and
wants it revoked. During a Democratic
debate at
The prospect of same-sex marriage has already spawned legal collisions with
the rights of free speech and of action based on religious beliefs. For
example, advocates and government officials in certain states already are
challenging the long-held right of religious adoption agencies to follow their
religious beliefs and only place children in homes with both a mother and a
father. As a result, Catholic Charities in
Other advocates of same-sex
marriage are suggesting that tax exemptions and benefits be withdrawn from any
religious organization that does not embrace same-sex unions. Public
accommodation laws are already being used as leverage in an attempt to force
religious organizations to allow marriage celebrations or receptions in
religious facilities that are otherwise open to the public. Accrediting
organizations in some instances are asserting pressure on religious schools and
universities to provide married housing for same-sex couples. Student religious
organizations are being told by some universities that they may lose their
campus recognition and benefits if they exclude same-sex couples from club
membership.
Many of these examples have
already become the legal reality in several nations of the European Union, and
the European Parliament has recommended that laws guaranteeing and protecting
the rights of same-sex couples be made uniform across the EU. Thus, if same-sex marriage becomes a recognized civil right,
there will be substantial conflicts with religious freedom. And in some
important areas, religious freedom may be diminished.
Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal
implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument
that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless
and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any
way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain.
While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and
directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect
society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future
generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have
legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional
definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of
marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the
traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for
society.
Aside from the very serious consequence of undermining and diluting the
sacred nature of marriage between a man and a woman, there are many practical
implications in the sphere of public policy that will be of deep concern to
parents and society as a whole. These are critical to understanding the
seriousness of the overall issue of same-sex marriage.
When a man and a woman marry with the intention of forming a new family,
their success in that endeavor depends on their willingness to renounce the
single-minded pursuit of self-fulfillment and to sacrifice their time and means
to the nurturing and rearing of their children. Marriage is fundamentally an
unselfish act: legally protected because only a male and female together can
create new life, and because the rearing of children requires a life-long
commitment, which marriage is intended to provide. Societal recognition of
same-sex marriage cannot be justified simply on the grounds that it provides
self-fulfillment to its partners, for it is not the purpose of government to
provide legal protection to every possible way in which individuals may pursue
fulfillment. By definition, all same-sex unions are infertile, and two
individuals of the same gender, whatever their affections, can never form a
marriage devoted to raising their own mutual offspring.
It is true that some same-sex couples will obtain guardianship over
children –through prior heterosexual relationships, through adoption in the
states where this is permitted, or by artificial insemination. Despite that,
the all-important question of public policy must be: what environment is best
for the child and for the rising generation? Traditional marriage provides a
solid and well-established social identity to children. It increases the
likelihood that they will be able to form a clear gender identity, with
sexuality closely linked to both love and procreation. By contrast, the
legalization of same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender
development, and moral character of children. Is it really wise for society to
pursue such a radical experiment without taking into account its long-term
consequences for children?
As just one example of how children will be adversely affected, the
establishment of same-sex marriage as a civil right will inevitably require
mandatory changes in school curricula. When the state says that same-sex unions
are equivalent to heterosexual marriages, the curriculum of public schools will
have to support this claim. Beginning with elementary school, children will be
taught that marriage can be defined as a relation between any two adults and
that consensual sexual relations are morally neutral. Classroom instruction on
sex education in secondary schools can be expected to equate homosexual
intimacy with heterosexual relations. These developments will create
serious clashes between the agenda of the secular school system and the right
of parents to teach their children traditional standards of morality. (Official
statement of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The
Divine Institution of Marriage)
3. The
Church has called on members to work with other people of faith to preserve
traditional marriage and to ban same-sex marriage. But Obama wants to make same-sex marriage
legal in every state, which is the main reason he wants to repeal the Defense
of Marriage Act. Obama has indicated he
believes gay marriage is a civil right.
Obama’s supporters have been vocal in voicing this position. President Hinckley rejected this view:
We regard it as not
only our right but our duty to oppose those forces which we feel undermine the
moral fiber of society. Much of our effort, a very great deal of it, is in
association with others whose interests are similar. We have worked with Jewish
groups, Catholics, Muslims, Protestants, and those of no particular religious
affiliation, in coalitions formed to advocate positions on vital moral issues.
Such is currently the case in
Some
portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This
is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others
question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue
that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that
defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage
lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we
are compelled by our doctrine to speak out. (“Why
We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, November 1999)
See also:
http://www.ldstoday.com/home/level2/2006-05-27firstpresidency.php
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635202305,00.html
4. The
Church does not believe same-sex couples should be permitted to adopt children
and that placing children with gay couples is not in the best interest of those
children. One
of the reasons the Church opposes the Equal Rights Amendment is that it would
give “legal sanction to the rearing of children” in same-sex households. But Obama argues that gay couples should have
the same right as heterosexual couples to adopt children (See, for example, Obama
Promises “Change” for America. . . . and Obama
Says He Supports LGBT Adoption).
5. The
Church has condemned the recent California Supreme Court decision that
legalized same-sex marriage in the state and has called on Latter-day Saints in
California to support Proposition 8, which would add an amendment to the state
constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
But Obama supports the court’s decision and opposes Proposition 8.
The Church has even joined a coalition
called ProtectMarriage in an effort to help pass Proposition 8. Here is the official website of
ProtectMarriage:
http://www.protectmarriage.com/
And here is the
letter on this issue that the First Presidency sent to Church leaders in
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/california-and-same-sex-marriage
It’s worth noting that the First Presidency
directed that this letter be read in all LDS wards and branches in
When Obama was asked about the verses in the
New Testament that refer to homosexuality as unnatural and immoral, he called
them “obscure” and claimed that the Sermon on the Mount supports same-sex
unions.
Incredibly, Obama has claimed he’s opposed
to same-sex marriage, and on a few occasions he’s even said that his Christian
faith leads him to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This has led some to call his position on the
matter everything from “deceptive” to “incoherent” to “double-talk.” It should be noted that some gay and lesbian
activists are telling their supporters that they believe Obama supports gay
marriage but that he’s afraid to say so plainly and clearly right now: For instance, one gay rights activist
recently wrote:
I give Obama a pass when he says he is opposed to gay marriage but supports
civil unions because hey, he has to get elected. But I do this with the strong
suspicion that Obama and a lot of other progressive politicians are leaning
towards if not already inclined to support full marriage equality but are in
want of some political cover. (Obama
Frames Marriage Equality as Civil Right).
How can Obama claim that he’s opposed to
same-sex marriage when he opposes state amendments to ban same-sex marriage,
opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, supports state supreme court decisions
in Massachusetts and California that have imposed same-sex marriage in those
states, and advocates the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act?
In a recent letter expressing his opposition
to the proposed California state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage,
Obama said he favors extending “fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both
state and federal law,” and that he opposes “the divisive and discriminatory
efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the
U.S. Constitution or those of other states” (Obama Rejects Proposed
California Gay Marriage Ban, Sacramento Bee, July 1, 2008). This letter was addressed to a gay rights
group in
Finally, I want to
congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting
married these last few weeks. ( Letter from Barack Obama to
the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Democratic Club)
Commentators have pointed out that Obama’s
support for the California Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage,
his call for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, and his opposition to
all attempts to ban same-sex marriage at the state and federal level make it
clear that, if nothing else, he is operationally pro-gay marriage. Rich Lowry of the National Review Online
made this point in a recent editorial:
Barack Obama
might be the first major candidate for president to support same-sex marriage.
He won’t say as much. His definition of a “new politics” is capacious enough to
allow for pose and slipperiness (as long as he’s the one engaged in them). But
his stance on a
In a
carefully hedged statement, Obama said he "respects the decision of the
California Supreme Court." He respects a decision that disregarded the
will of the people in California, as expressed by a 2000 referendum that
defined marriage as between a man and a woman; he respects a decision that
excoriated his own position of support for civil unions and (theoretical)
opposition to same-sex marriage; he respects a decision that rejects the sort
of political compromise he extols. It's like a professed abolitionist in 1857
saying he "respects" the Dred Scott ruling. (Does
Obama Support Gay Marriage?; see also Obama’s
New Politics on Gay Marriage)
Blogger Ed Morrissey asserts that Obama’s
letter on his opposition to Proposition 8 in
Barack Obama has
reversed himself yet again, but this time he has done a double backflip with a
half-twist to the Left.
After previously saying he opposed gay marriage and that he respected the
rights of states to set conditions for marriage, Obama has now said that he
opposes California’s initiative to ban gay marriage — and that he would use
federal law to end such efforts. . . .
His letter to the
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club will effectively toss traditional marriage
under the same bus as his opposition to FISA reform and his pledge for public
financing. (Obama
Flips Again: Gay Marriage)
Obama’s call for the repeal of the Defense
of Marriage Act is particularly revealing.
The act stipulates that no state can be forced to treat a same-sex
relationship as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage
in another state. The act also says the federal government may not treat a
same-sex relationship as a marriage for any purpose, even if it’s permitted or
recognized by one of the states. The act
does not prevent a state from legalizing gay marriage; it merely says that no
state can be forced to recognize or permit gay marriages performed in other
states. Yet, Obama claims the act is
discriminatory and wants it repealed. If
the Defense of Marriage Act were to be revoked, one of the consequences would
be that gay marriages performed in
6. The
Church believes abortion is wrong and urges members not to encourage abortion
in any way. The
Church “opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and
counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange
for such abortions.” But Obama is
the most pro-abortion candidate ever nominated by a major political party. He supports the so-called Freedom of Choice
Act, which would abolish all state restrictions on abortion and would also
repeal the federal ban on partial-birth abortion. In addition, Obama has voted against
notifying parents if their children get out-of-state abortions and against
prohibiting the transportation of minors across state lines to obtain
abortions.
As a member of the Illinois senate, Obama
even voted against a bill that merely said that if a baby survived an abortion
the doctor could not kill him but had to try to save him (Obama More Pro-Choice
Than NARAL). This was the Illinois
Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In
fact, Obama was the only member of the
In a General Conference talk, Elder Russell
M. Nelson said the following about legalized abortion:
A heavy toll on
life is included among the evils of war. Data from all nations are appalling.
For the
Regrettable
as is the loss of loved ones from war, these figures are dwarfed by the toll of
a new war that annually claims
more casualties than the total number of fatalities from all the wars of this
nation.
It is
a war on the defenseless—and the voiceless. It is a war on the unborn.
This
war, labeled “abortion,” is of epidemic proportion and is waged globally. Over
fifty-five million abortions were reported worldwide in the year 1974
alone. Sixty-four percent of the world’s
population now live in countries that legally sanction this practice.
2 In the
Yet
society professes reverence for human life. We weep for those who die, pray and
work for those whose lives are in jeopardy. For years I have labored with other
doctors here and abroad, struggling to prolong life. It is impossible to
describe the grief a physician feels when the life of a patient is lost. Can
anyone imagine how we feel when life is destroyed at its roots, as though it
were a thing of naught?
What
sense of inconsistency can allow people to grieve for their dead, yet be
calloused to this baleful war being waged on life at the time of its silent
development? What logic would encourage efforts to preserve the life of a
critically ill twelve-week-old infant, but countenance the termination of
another life twelve weeks after inception? More attention is seemingly focused
on the fate of a life at some penitentiary’s death row than on the millions
totally deprived of life’s opportunity through such odious carnage before
birth.
The
Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: “Thou shalt not kill.”
Recently he added, “Nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6.) Even before
the fulness of the gospel was restored, the enlightened understood the sanctity
of life. John Calvin, the sixteenth-century reformer, wrote: “If it seems more
horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house
is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious
to destroy a fetus in the womb
before it has come to light.”
But
what impropriety could now legalize that which has been forbidden by the laws
of God from the dawn of time? What twisted reasoning has transformed mythical
concepts into contorted slogans assenting to a practice which is consummately
wrong? (“Reverence
for Life,” Ensign, May 1985)
Obama not only wants to keep abortion legal,
but, as mentioned, he wants to repeal all state and federal restrictions on
abortion, including the ban on the disgusting practice of partial-birth
abortion. It’s no exaggeration to say he
is the most pro-abortion candidate ever to win the nomination of a major
political party (Terrence Jeffrey, Obama is the Most
Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever).
If Obama is elected president, we will lose
a golden opportunity to overturn the Supreme Court decision that legalized
abortion nationwide, i.e., Roe v. Wade.
We are one judge away from having a 5-4 pro-life majority on the Supreme
Court, i.e., one judge away from having a majority on the Supreme Court that
will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. The
next president may very well get to appoint a Supreme Court judge to replace
one of the old and ailing pro-abortion judges. If Obama wins and is given the chance to
appoint a Supreme Court judge, he will appoint a liberal, pro-abortion judge,
and abortion will remain legal.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS: “DISCRIMINATION,”
“HATE SPEECH,” AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Obama supports the so-called Employment
Non-Discrimination Act. The title of the
act sounds harmless enough, but similar state regulations have been used by
liberal groups and judges to attack religious freedom. The act includes provisions against
“discrimination” based on sexual orientation.
In the
Turn groups like
the Boy Scouts into targets of federally funded lawsuits. While he
was Vice President, Al Gore said on Good Morning America, in answer to a
question about the Boy Scouts, that he hoped ENDA would do away with all
“discrimination” by public and private groups.
Constitute a
major expansion of federal power over the workplace and create a new way for
the government to manipulate employers.
ENDA’s intent is to create grounds for lawsuits. By injecting sexuality into
civil rights law, ENDA opens a Pandora’s box of ways for the government to
dictate to businesses.
Make people’s
sexual temptations a source of material for federal lawsuits. The law properly deals with actions, not beliefs.
ENDA creates a new class based on the fuzzy grounds of perception and
intention. This is far removed from laws designed to end racial discrimination,
because not only is race evident but also it has no moral aspect. Sexual
behavior is fraught with moral consequences.
Elevate
multiple-sex-partner relationships into a federally protected “right.” By
including “bisexuality” in the definition of sexual orientations, the
government would go on record supporting the practice of having sex with more
than one person. This is a direct challenge to the intent behind the Defense of
Marriage Act and other laws designed to protect marriage.
Put the federal
government in the position of adopting a view of sexuality utterly at odds with
that propounded by the major faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All major faiths support marriage and oppose
homosexual conduct. The
Prohibit
employers from taking into account sexual conduct in the hiring of education
and child care worker positions. Because
ENDA is so sweeping, employers could not take into account any sexual conduct,
even that which might severely impact children.
Afford special
protections to an already privileged group. Statistically, homosexuals do not qualify as a bona fide minority
group, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court. Homosexuals are not defined by
an immutable characteristic, they are not economically deprived, nor do they
suffer from a history of discrimination and political powerlessness.
Change national
policy by forcing the government to abandon support for marriage – the bedrock
of every healthy society. By
declaring traditional morality regarding sexuality as a form of
“discrimination,” ENDA will undermine the special status of marriage as the
union of one man and one woman.
Lead to further
demands by homosexual activists to force others to celebrate abnormal and
unhealthy sexual behavior. Many
corporations that adopted “sexual orientation” policies soon found themselves
besieged by demands for outright “gay pride” celebrations. Anything less than
open promotion is regarded by many homosexual activists as “discriminatory.”
(CWA, Talking
Points: The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. See also ENDA Still
Protects Gender Identity)
Obama also supports so-called “hate speech”
laws. These laws have already been used
in some states to prosecute or harass Christians for teaching what the Bible
says about homosexuality. In
NEGATIVE ATTITUDES AND TROUBLING
ASSOCIATIONS
While speaking to a gathering of wealthy
liberals in
You go into these
small towns in
Needless to say, this comment caused a huge
controversy. African-American author
Thomas Sowell said this about Obama’s remark:
Some of his recent talk in
Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal
Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard
stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of
psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left
are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to
arguments that need to be answered. (“Senator Barack Hussein Obama:
A Living Lie,” Capitalism Magazine, April 14, 2008)
Another African-American commentator, Larry Elder, had
this to say about Obama’s statement:
Where to begin with Obama's
statement about bitterness? . . .
"Cling" to
religion? Obama here insults all religious Americans, 80 to 90 percent by some
polls. Obama apparently believes one embraces religion out of bitterness, not
due to spirituality, values, belief in or the acceptance of and submission to a
higher power. Perhaps this explains why Obama clung to the Trinity Church of
Christ for 20 years, with its anti-Semitic, anti-white, anti-American,
conspiracy-believing pastor, Jeremiah Wright. (Obama: “Bitterly” Out
of Touch, Jewish World Review, April 17, 2008).
The last sentence in the above quote refers
to the fact that for nearly 20 years, until just a few months ago, Obama had a
close friendship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attended Wright’s church, and in
fact donated tens of thousands of dollars to it. Wright not only denies that Jesus is the only
way to salvation, but he’s an advocate of radical liberation theology and a
strident critic of
Wright
is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator
"affirmed" his Christian faith in this church [Wright’s Trinity
United Church of Christ in
Many Christians and Jews worry that Obama agrees
with some of Rev. Wright’s views on Israel—and they have good reasons for their
concern (see, for example, Obama’s Controversial
Views on Israel; Barack
Obama and Israel; Obama
Keeps Hiring Anti-Israeli Advisors; Arab-American
Activist Says Obama Hiding Anti-Israeli Stance; Obama’s
Pro-Israel Stance Questioned; Who
Are You, Barack Obama?; Obama
and Israel, Continued; Obama’s
Weak Judgment on Israel). We now
know that Obama got into Harvard with the help of a radical anti-Israeli Saudi
adviser and black nationalist named Khalid Mansour (“Obama
Had Ties to Top Saudi Adviser at Early Age, Newsmax, September 3, 2008;
see also “Who
Is Khalid Mansour?,” Newsmax, September 4, 2008 and The
Mansourian Candidate). Mansour
recently said he hopes Obama wins the election (“Who
Is Khalid Mansour?,” Newsmax, September 4, 2008; The
Mansourian Candidate). In his
. . .
many of the foreign policy team members have long histories of extreme
hostility to
Many Jewish groups took notice when Obama told
a pro-Israeli audience in June that he supported an undivided
The
presumptive Democratic nominee declared at the AIPAC Policy Conference in
Last week, he went even
further, saying that what he meant by "undivided" was that barbed
wire fences should not divide the city as they did during the Jordanian
occupation of eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria between 1949 and 1967. (Jewish Groups
Challenge Obama)
The Coalition for a United Jerusalem held a
press conference “to protest Obama’s
It means he used
the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of
Given these facts, perhaps it’s not
surprising that a few months ago Hamas’ top political adviser in the Gaza
Strip, Ahmed Yousef, declared that Hamas hopes Obama wins the election:
We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election. (Hamas All Out for Obama; Obama’s Delusional Foreign Policy; Obama’s Foreign Policy Emboldens Islamists)
CONCLUSION
Each Latter-day Saint must decide for
himself or herself whether or not to vote for Obama. The choice is ours to make. The Church maintains political neutrality and
does not tell members what party they should join or which candidates they
should or should not support. The Church
teaches us correct principles and expects us to make the right decisions based
on those principles. As we consider
whether or not to vote for Obama, here are some questions that I think are
worth pondering:
·
How can we
follow the Church’s counsel to support the Federal Marriage Amendment if we
vote for a candidate who is unalterably opposed to the amendment?
·
How can we
follow the Church’s counsel to support state constitutional amendments to ban
same-sex marriage if we vote for a candidate who has made it clear he wants to
overrule or nullify all state constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage
and who even wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?
·
How can we
follow the Church’s counsel about not supporting abortion in any way if we vote
for a candidate who wants to repeal all current restrictions on abortion and
who has even voted against protecting babies who survive abortion?
·
How can we vote
for a candidate who supports federal versions of laws that have already been
used at the state level to prosecute and intimidate religious groups and their
members?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Michael
T. Griffith holds a Master’s degree in Theology from The Catholic Distance
University, a Graduate Certificate in Ancient and Classical History from
American Military University, a Bachelor’s degree in Liberal Arts from
Excelsior College, and two Associate in Applied Science degrees from the
Community College of the Air Force. He
also holds an Advanced Certificate of Civil War Studies and a Certificate of
Civil War Studies from
Back to LDS Information
Web Page