by Patsy Lamb
“FAMILY VALUES are what are up for grabs here. Money can’t buy them back once they are gone.”
If anyone would have told me what I was about to experience, I wouldn’t have believed them. Imagine, living in St. George, Utah, and being in what seems to be a ground war over the definition of marriage. This moral/political issue has brought a wake up call that is so loud, I can hardly sleep at night.
I remember a couple of months ago hearing that all the Attorney General candidates were combining forces against Amendment 3 . At that time I thought there certainly must be something terrible hidden deep within the context of that amendment.
The first positive experience I was offered on the subject was when Susan Roylance came to St. George to speak about Yes! for Marriage. I read her book “Defending Marriage and Family In the Halls of the U.N.” I came to the realization that there had to be flawed thinking connected with the men running for our state’s highest legal office. But why? I have been on my own treasure hunt since that day.
In reading the September and October Ensign magazines, I gained messages from our Prophet about getting involved politically, honoring family and marriage and I reread the Proclamation to the World. In General Conference I was reminded once more, by President Hinckley, of the importance of family and marriage between a man and a woman.
About that time my niece forwarded me this timely LDS GEM: “Be wary, therefore, when some demand public tolerance for whatever their private indulgences are!” (Elder Neal A. Maxwell Ensign “The Tugs & Pulls of the World, November 2000, p36)
I found an article in the November 1999 Ensign by President Hinckley with this quote: “God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years. There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right and those who try will find themselves answerable to God.”
I wrote the following letter to the editor of our newspaper:
Dear Editor:
Amendment 3 is an emotional, controversial issue and one that is not easily understood. There are a multitude of voices out there. Which voice is a person supposed to listen to? I have come to the conclusion that what many people don’t realize is that marriage was instituted by God between a man and a woman from the beginning. This is not just another prejudice we are overcoming. Marriage is an ordinance, ordained by God. Who are we to tamper with its traditional definition? This is one of those critical periods in our lives when we can turn a deaf ear and a blind eye, or we can stand up and give whatever it takes. This is a test for all of us. I hope we have ears to hear and eyes to see. I will be voting YES for Amendment 3 on November 2.
Patsy Lamb
My letter was published on the same day that the Editorial Board had Amendment 3 in their endorsement column. Rather than endorsing it, they told their readers to VOTE NO, unless they wanted to pull out their wallets and pay the legal bills that it would bring.
The following day I had the great opportunity of spending one hour with Rep. LaVar Christensen, House Sponsor of Amendment 3, and with our local Rep. Steve Urquhart. They both spoke to our small crowd, gathered around some picnic tables.
I went from that meeting to the Vernon Worthen Park what would be the biggest political rally I had ever attended in our community. Many politicians and political candidates came from all over the state. I set up a table there and spoke with a constant steam of citizens about Amendment 3 for FOUR hours. Those people were confused and hungry for the truth about this issue. Most of them had only heard negative reporting from the media and wanted to know how to vote. Frankly, I was impressed that they cared enough to get dressed, load up the kids and come to the park, looking for the facts. It didn’t take a lot of talking before I could see the lights come on in their eyes.
It was interesting, because almost every person would say, “Do you have the full text of the amendment?” When I gave it to them (33 words in two sentences) they were shocked at how very simple it is. The next biggest question I heard was, “Why did our newspaper come out against it?” There were more than just a few who said they would not vote for Mark Shurtleff, just to send him a message.
The brochure we gave out (in part) says this: “Recently, a majority of Californians voted to restrict the designation “marriage” to the legal union of a man and a woman. In response, the California legislature simply invented a new term for the practice. They created the synonym “domestic partners” to endorse same-sex unions – contrary to the will of the people. Amendment 3 effectively protects Utah against this type of ploy. It also affirms and reinforces the established, accepted, time-honored meaning of marriage.”
The second sentence in the Amendment is our only insurance that we won’t have a repeat performance of what California has.
I think it is interesting that our newspaper came out against the Amendment with the last paragraph being a scare tactic about what it would cost all of us. The following Sunday they ran a survey about “putting a ban on gay marriage”. That opened up my opinion that there are two major issues connected with this. They pretend that it’s all about money and legalities until the real reason comes out, that of legalizing gay marriage.
As I see it, the majority of Utah citizens want to be protected against the legalization of gay marriage. Our lawmakers researched, drafted and sponsored a simple, powerful statement to go into our constitution. Those who want gay marriage to be legalized grabbed that second sentence (because of it’s strength) and put into effect tactics that would ignite the fears and sympathies of everyone.
In answer to one of my questions, Representative Urquhart gave me these words of wisdom:
“When it comes to all of this, what language under the sun might possibly avoid a legal battle? THIS IS A BATTLE. This is not a question of ‘wordsmithing.’ This is a fundamental difference of opinions. If one side says it will always back off if there is the threat of litigation, the other side has won. Rather than base a position on the threat of litigation, it might be acceptable if they based it on the likely outcome of the litigation. Here, did the opposition see any legal analysis to suggest we might lose or, again, is it just the fact that some people will sue? Why do the Attorney General candidates say the cost will be so great? Why can’t they do this in-house, which will not cost the taxpayers a penny above what is already appropriated to the Attorney General’s office?”
FAMILY VALUES are what are up for grabs here. Money can’t buy them back once they are gone. If this amendment goes down, we will have lost serious ground in Utah. We can’t afford that. The country can’t afford that. There is NO PRICE TAG on keeping things “as they are” in Utah when it comes to marriage and family issues.
So far my findings have led me to what I feel is the most important issue that may ever face Utah voters. My thoughts return to a recent stake conference when I heard one of the Twelve Apostles say that the legalization of gay marriage could be the final straw as wickedness ripens during our time.
