What does it mean to have no voice? To be filled with expression, thoughts, ideas, and yet.... to have your voice be stilled? 

In some ways, this is what has been happening to the people of the United States of America.  In a country that is based upon the freedom of speech, the freedom to vote, and the freedom to elect representatives, this country has been in some ways silenced.  Instead of changes of law coming from the people, and being carried forth towards Washington elected officials, it has to some degree been changed in reversed order.  Federal judges who deem rules and laws should be different-- even in instances when the people have already voiced their choice via a vote on those very things-- instead have taken legislative powers into their hands, and have changed the laws and traditions governing this land.  

Is there harm in such a thing?  Perhaps, perhaps not. Only time-- as in the case of the Dred Scott ruling -- will tell.  It is hard to see the far-reaching effects of policy change all at once.  

"In a dissent that has outlasted the majority opinion, Justice Curtis explained that when the “fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws [are] abandoned, and the theoretical dissenting 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. " These words by Chief Justice Roberts, both his words, and his quoting Justice Curtis, illustrate the dangers of individuals changing what should be determined by  large scale vote from the American people.  It is when judges rule in favor of what they would like to see-- as opposed to being guided by what is law-- that the voices of millions are silenced.  

In the last decade, marriage has been a matter that has undergone this type of change.  Despite voters in California reaffirming their belief in defining marriage being between one man, and one woman, on the ballot in 2000 for Proposition 22,  things changed due to the decision of the California Supreme Court in 2008.  But then something interesting happened: the voters again voted in favor of marriage being defined as the union between one man and one woman-- this time on Proposition 8 in 2008-- just months after the court ruling.  The people voted, the voice of the people was heard... but only for a brief time before things changed, and the voices were silenced again. 

So why is defining marriage such a difficult thing? Perhaps it is because it involves an evaluation of self, God, community, and the relationship between it all.   

Marriage is an opportunity to move towards “eternal life, the greatest gift of God to his children, is only possible through the creative powers inherent in the combination of male and female joined in an eternal marriage (Links to an external site.).” -- President Russell M. Nelson. 

How can we move towards a more Christ filled world where compassion is key? By showing compassion to others who believe differently, have different challenges, and who are-- and always will be-- our fellow Children of God.    



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_California_Proposition_22