This guest post is written by Brent D. Beal, whose marriage to Heather Olson Beal is not at all threatened by the idea of same-sex marriage.
My name is Brent Beal. I’ve been married for eighteen years. My wife and I have three beautiful kids. We are both university professors, we’re Mormon, and we support gay marriage.
I support gay marriage for two reasons.
Heroic Aspirations
People are people. On our bad days, we’re capable of unforgivable indifference and unimaginable cruelty. On most days we muddle through-we help each other out, we keep each other company. On good days, we do things that make the world a better place.
There are quite a few good days in our history. For me, when it comes to the issue of gay marriage, one day, in particular, sticks out: July 4, 1776. This is the day, of course, that the committee of the whole of the Continental Congress adopted the final draft of Declaration of Independence. Here’s the second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
When I was younger, I found the reference to God comforting. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to a deeper understanding of the wisdom of referencing God as the ultimate source individual rights, but I also see now that that’s not the source of this passage’s power. What this passage does, in a heroically aspirational way, is elevate basic rights-the right to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness-above all else. The existence of these rights is not open for debate. They cannot be put up for vote. The majority, even in a democracy, cannot take them away from the minority. All men are created equal, and they have certain rights, full stop. Notice that not only are these rights set safely beyond the reach of government-they are put beyond the reach of everyone, and that includes those who think God has informed them otherwise.
This is an incredibly important concept. We are not so much a “Christian” nation as we are a nation where certain unalienable rights have been put out of the reach of religion, Christianity included. We are not a great nation because we believe in the right God, we are a great nation because everyone is free to believe in whatever God they choose, as long as-and this is critical-as long as everyone understands that their right to impose their understanding of God ends where others’ rights begin.
This ideal is aspirational. It requires effort. Equity, fairness, a belief in the worth and dignity of the individual, a commitment to the rule of law, and a willingness to respect the rights of others even when it’s not convenient-these are not easy things. We’ve been trying to live up to these ideals for more nearly 250 years. Sometimes we have fallen shamefully short. We have had to go back again and again, hold those ideals up to the light, and see our own deficiencies reflected back at us. Trying to live up to those ideals, I believe, has made us a better people.
Public Policy
Public policy is serious business. We should deliberate carefully before making changes to foundational institutions. Bringing religion into these deliberations, however, makes no sense if you believe in what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence. This debate is about whether or not a significant segment of our population is going to have equal access to what all parties acknowledge is an important social institution. We are debating whether or not fellow Americans will be allowed to fully engage in the unalienable rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. Because this debate is about individual rights, it is above the pay grade of religion. I may hold certain religious views on the matter. You may hold different religious views. Both our religious views are irrelevant. The only question is whether or not granting these rights gets us closer to the ideal of treating all men equally and making sure everyone has equal access to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The first reason I support gay marriage, therefore, is because I believe in the values and ideals that our country was founded on.
I Believe in Religious Freedom
The second reason I support gay marriage is because I believe in religious freedom.
For those of you that are familiar with Mormon history, you know that the Mormon church has been on the receiving end of religious intolerance. Those experiences have, I believe, made us more tolerant-at least for most of our history.
One of our Articles of Faith-an official summary of our principal beliefs-states that “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
Heber J. Grant, an early president of the church, stated in a church-wide conference, in April 1921, that “We claim no right, no prerogative whatever, to interfere with any other people.”
A few years prior to that statement, in 1907, the First Presidency of the church, stated categorically that “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints holds to the doctrine of the separation of church and state. . . . We declare that from principle and policy, we favor the absolute separation of church and state. . . .”
In 2006, this same sentiment was repeated in another official church statement: “Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with publicly stated Church positions. . . officials must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.”
In 2009, Dallin H. Oaks, a church leader, warned church members in a speech given at BYU-Idaho that “fragile freedoms are best preserved when not employed beyond their intended purpose” and that members should be careful “never to support or act upon the idea that a person must subscribe to some particular set of religious beliefs in order to qualify for public office.” The danger, Oaks warned, is that if such a standard were to be employed, then those elected under such conditions might attempt to use government power to support their religious beliefs and practices, and the “free exercise of religion [would be] weakened at its foundation.”
We have a long history of behaving ourselves in the public square. We recognize, as do other thoughtful people of faith, the blind alley of religious argument in the context of political discourse. If I bring my religious beliefs into the public square and assert that my understanding of God should be enshrined in public policy, what is to prevent people of other faiths from doing the same? When our respective views of God conflict, then whose interpretation should be given precedence? We could each cite as evidence our respective spiritual impressions and experiences, but in the end, we would find ourselves with no effective way to referee the impasse. If you claim that your experiences are superior to mine and that your religious views should therefore be given precedence, then what is to prevent me from making the same claim? It is a blind alley-and the only safe exit is a mutual agreement to use the general welfare as an arbiter. In other words, when we leave our private lives and enter the public square, we leave our respective religious views at the curb. We talk about what is in the best for everyone. We debate, we compromise, and we figure out how to live together. And we leave God out of it (at least until he gets his story straight and starts telling everyone the same thing).
When I approach the issue of gay marriage from this perspective, the right choice seems clear.
The Decline of Religion in Public Esteem
When we use religion as a basis for public policy, we bring it into a contested domain. When we allow religious beliefs to be enshrined in law, we privilege certain religious views over others, and that puts the delicate balance that supports religious freedom at risk. If I can impose my religious views on others today, then what prevents them from doing the same to me tomorrow? If I can keep someone from marrying today because that is what I believe God wants, then what happens when they invalidate my marriage tomorrow because that is what they believe God wants?
We protect and preserve our religious freedom by keeping religious views out of the public square.
So why did the Mormon church get involved in Prop 8? I don’t have an answer.
Dallin H. Oaks recently gave a speech at Chapman University School of Law in which he bemoaned the ascendancy of moral relativism and the decline of religion in public esteem. He and other church officials have, on numerous occasions, defended the church’s opposition to gay marriage.
When I read the speech, I couldn’t help but assume that he was throwing me in with the moral relativists. I couldn’t disagree more. I support gay marriage because I believe in values and ideals that haven’t changed. What’s changed, I hope, is our capacity to live up to those ideals. In my opinion, the decline of religion in public esteem should be attributed to religion’s failure to live up to these ideals rather than to any imaginary wounds inflicted by moral relativism.
A Truly Religious Experience
For me, it was truly a religious experience to listen to President Obama’s remarks at the signing of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010:
For we are not a nation that says, “don’t ask, don’t tell.” We are a nation that says, “Out of many, we are one.”
We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot. We are a nation that believes that all men and women are created equal.
Those are the ideals that generations have fought for. Those are the ideals that we uphold today. And now, it is my honor to sign this bill into law.
Is it too much to ask that the message we get in the pews on Sunday be as inspiring?
What a great post, Brent. You get right to the heart of what I find so inspiring about our Constitution and our collective opportunity to carry that vision out. I have a Swiss friend studying for citizenship and in explaining to her what it meant to declare these rights “inalienable” as opposed to “inspired” or “granted,” I found myself tearing up- it seemed the most profound act of courage and dignity. We weren’t coming as beggars to the table- asking for a scrap of autonomy; we were asserting our claim on a precious birthright. That difference is so radical and foundational to what it means to be an American citizen and is also why I find the debate over gay marriage so enraging. It isn’t our privilege to extend. It is every citizens right. Thanks for writing about this. I just got an email this morning that HB 74- (which would seek to strip out of state gay marriages of their rights) failed a House vote in the Wyoming legislature. It can still pass out of committee but that’s looking unlikely. Alleluia. What a sad battle this is.
So well said.
Well done, Mr. Beal. Well written, well illustrated and your points well argued. Thank you for your courage and convictions. You are not alone.
“We claim no right, no prerogative whatever, to interfere with any other people.”
Well stated brother Brent! I’m with you 100%!
Beautifully reasoned and written Brent– and timely:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/us/24marriage.html?hp
This is great, Brent. I wish more people could see the heart of the matter, like you do. Why do people want to strangle other people’s happiness? In my opinion, it is just plain mean spirited. It is a perspective that drowns compassion and leaves people on a lonely island of self-righteousness.
I hope that same-sex couples get all the rights and benefits they need to protect their families, but I have a concern about the way it is done. A huge part of the argument is about the right to pursue happiness and that the Mormon church is not respecting that right. FAIR posted a response to this. I was just wondering what you thought:
http://en.fairmormon.org/Church_involvement_in_politics/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8/Imposing_morality
Didn’t get to read this yet, Joshua (Josh?), but I will. Must get kids in bed first. ;)
Brent, I have no problem with your sentiment — I (like most people) believe gays deserve the same respect, dignity, and rights as everyone else — but you’re begging the question in terms of “equal rights” meaning “governments must recognize same-sex relationships using the word ‘marriage'” without explicitly connecting the dots.
Like you I have no conception of how gay partners getting an official piece of paper with their names on it affects my relationship with my wife. However, I don’t see how calling officially recognized gay relationships “domestic partnerships” (as is the case in California) affects their relationship, either. Saying gay marriage *can* be legalized without the world ending in apocalyptic horror is different than saying gay marriage *must* be legalized, because of some equal rights issue or other fundamental moral obligation.
Currently, marriage laws in all states are applied equally to all people, regardless of sexual orientation, the same way marijuana laws are applied equally to all people, whether they smoke marijuana or not. I don’t happen to drink alcohol but that doesn’t mean my right to buy alcohol, should I choose to at any time, doesn’t exist. If current marriage law *is* applied equally to all citizens, then the burden of proof to say that failure to legally recognize same-sex relationships is a “civil rights violation” is a bit higher. (Does failure to allow legalized prayer in schools violate the civil rights of Christians? Many Christians believe so…but simply having a group believe something is a “civil right” does not automatically make it so, without objective support.)
Neither federal nor state government recognizes an absolute “right” to have any living arrangement between two (or more) people licensed by the state — most gay marriage supporters do not support legalizing polygamy, for example, without any apparent hypocrisy at “denying the civil rights” of polygamists. If the government has the right to restrict recognition of marriage according to certain criteria (age, blood relationship, or an existing marriage for one of the proposed partners), why *fundamentally* can’t it restrict it according to gender as well?
California has officially recognized “domestic partnerships” between same-sex couples since 2005 (and still does today…Prop 8 had no effect whatsoever on those who already had domestic partnerships, nor on the ability for current couples to apply for one). For couples that are over 18 and live together, there are no differences between “domestic partnerships” and “marriages” in terms of health insurance, inheritance or any other legal or practical matter. Only the name is different, which means arguing that the passage of Prop 8 had a negative effect on anyone’s search for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness rests solely on a “symbolic” foundation. All legal and practical differences between gay couples in June 2008 and December 2008 in California lie only in semantics…only the names printed on the official certificates are different. Are we really to accept this as a civil rights violation comparable to slavery or segregation? Is there a fundamental right to a name?
Support of gay marriage is a legitimate position to have, for LDS or anyone…but so is NOT supporting gay marriage. Gay marriage supporters need to do more to answer why gay marriage *should* be legal, rather than simply asking, “why *can’t* it be legal?”.
Why, specifically, is legal recognition of same-sex relationships using the word “marriage” (rather than “domestic partnership” or “civil union” that provide the same benefits) an equal rights violation? Who, specifically, is not equal to who? Why isn’t legal recognition of polygamy an equal rights issue in the same way? How does current law in California (or anywhere) prevent gay couples from loving each other and seeking after happiness together such that it is untenable and requires change? “Same-sex marriage = civil right” isn’t a given, and if the Constitution is simply subject to interpretation in the matter (which it is), then gay marriage supporters need to do more to support their position (instead of, as is often the case, treat it as if it was obvious, and call those who disagree hateful, intolerant bigots).
KMB, I’m sure Brent will address your question in his own way, but I wanted to respond, as I recognise your argument as one that family members and friends often make to me. Here in the UK we have ‘civil partnerships’ for same-sex couples, which are legally and in all other ways apart from name, equal to marriage for heterosexual couples. So what’s the problem with this, you ask?
The issue is – for me – to do with who is trying to control the legal institution of marriage, against who. For whatever reason (a tradition of societal acceptance and legitimacy, in some cases, perhaps?), same-sex couples do want to have a partnership called marriage, and it doesn’t seem right to me that they should be prevented from doing so, when it harms no-one. I think the whole issue is a barometer of public acceptance for homosexuality, and both sides know it.
The ideals of unity and equality don’t include the kinds of conditions that the Prop 8 supporters seem to imply. I would support a freedom to marry – for same-sex couples, for polygamists, and for any other people who want to express a commitment and love for each other. As Brent said, when we do this, we can claim – with some moral currency – the privilege of living according to the dictates of our own consciences, unthreatened.
By allowing anyone who wants to express a commitment and love for each other to be married, you make marriage be only about expressing commitment and love for each other.
Marriage is about more than just love and commitment. I believe marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation for a strong society. One thing it helps society with is providing children with a mom and a dad. It is not the only thing, otherwise sterile couples wouldn’t be allowed to get married. Under this definition, every child whose parents are married have both a mom and a dad. Including sterile couples under this definition doesn’t interfere with this requirement. Including same-sex couples in this definition does.
I want single parents to have the rights and benefits they need to support their families. I want same-sex couples to have the rights and benefits they need to support their families. But that isn’t the same thing as making sure their kids have a mom and a dad.
I don’t care about the terminology, but I think we need to do something about the number of kids being raised without both a mom and a dad. I would think simply recognizing the benefit a union between a man and a woman wouldn’t be too much to ask. By making a distinction, I think more people would choose traditional marriage over same-sex marriage.
But just having a mom and a dad doesn’t guarantee that that mom and dad are good parents, right? Surely there are plenty of dysfunctional “nuclear” families, right? So there’s gotta be more to it than just wanting to advocate for strong families.
Is it possible that some of the same benefits of having a mom and a dad are present with same-sex couples? Might it also be the case that two dads or two moms committed to each other and to their children are as good as a heterosexual couple similarly committed to each other and to their kids? I think so. I hope so.
And certainly there are single parents whose kids are just fine, right?
There are good single parents and good same-sex parents, and some horrible opposite-sex parents. That is one reason why I think single parents and same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt.
There are a lot of factors in being good parents. We recognize many of them. I think kids need both a male and female role model. I think there are things fathers do for kids that mothers can’t do and vice versa. I simply think we should be able to recognize that.
I don’t want to penalize single parents or same-sex parents. I just want to recognize the benefits to having a dad, and that they are distinct from the benefits from having a mom, which are also important.
As far as rights are concerned, I am all for rights. I only think there should be a distinction.
So are you in favor of “civil unions”?
Or how about if we followed the European model wherein everyone gets married civilly and then if people choose, they can get married in their church by whatever authority their church mandates? I think I’m in favor of that.
Yes, I am in favor of civil unions.
The problem with having the government get totally out of marriage is that I still think there is a secular benefit to encouraging the union between a man and a woman. It isn’t just religious people who think fathers and mothers have unique benefits that can’t be replaced by a second mother or a second father.
When it comes to opinions like this, the only fair thing is to vote on it.
Gosh, what if it was a tradition that families that have both a girl and boy were somehow better than other families (not to put other families down…they can be nice and all…just not as good as families with both, and thus not worthy of the title family.) If you believed such families were better, do you really think it would be in the interest of society to remind everyone of the superiority of those special types of “true” families by legally not allowing other types of families use the word family to describe themselves? Would this not be discriminatory? Even if the majority agreed?
Is it right to allow our laws to be discriminatory as long as the majority votes for it?
I could see similar arguments made that there are secular benefits to society to encourage women to be the ones to stay home with kids, while men go into the work place, (after all, it is better for babies’ health to be nursed, which is easier to do when the mother is not working.) Following the same logic, it would make sense to make laws that highlight the favorable nature of males in the work place over women by reserving special status job titles for men, and coming up with different job titles for women. They can’t complain…they are allowed to have mostly the same jobs and legal rights as men…we just want to remind everyone that males are better with the title we give them.
Is that really equal treatment under the law? Separate but equal anyone?
Personal opinion on what is the ideal way to live your life, raise children, and the best way to contribute to society are going to abound.
Our principles of allowing people to make those personal choices for themselves, is the beautiful safe-guard that keeps us from living in an oppressive society. (At least when we manage to live up to them.)
In a free society, you can be a “warrior” to share whatever opinions and values you hold important, without trying to be coercive. Let the merit of your values be what advances them in a free market place of ideas. Don’t endanger it all by trying to create a tyranny of the majority that has no respect for personal liberties or equal treatment under the law.
I would think churches would be happy to have the government keep to the generic realm of civil union/marriage (whatever you want to call it…same for everyone…only for legal purposes) and reserve for themselves the authority of sanctioning marriage in whatever way they see fit from a spiritual/religious perspective.
I agree that people should be allowed to form families however they want. That is why I am in favor of same-sex couples adopting and civil unions.
Answer me this question. Let’s say we legal same-sex marriage. Why recognize families with two parents who have sex as one with a marriage, but not others? Are you putting them above single parent families, or families with two siblings raising a niece or nephew?
Defining marriage is about defining marriage, not about defining families. Single parent families, same-sex couple families and two spinsters raising a niece or nephew are still families.
The difference between distinguishing between men and women for jobs and stuff is that people can’t make a choice between the two. They are either male or female. There would be nothing a woman could do to switch to be treated as a guy at work.
That is not true of same-sex couples. Being in a same-sex relationship is a choice. In fact, most of the kids being raised by same-sex couples originally came from an opposite sex marriage. But one of the parents took them out of an opposite-sex marriage and put them into a same-sex marriage. Society tell them they have no choice, that is the only option available to them. A lot of opposite-sex couples get divorced for that reason.
But woman can’t just choose to be men, so there is a difference.
I’m confused. You say you’re a Mormon, but you don’t believe the word of modern prophets. You quote past prophets and revelation to defend your stance. I find it difficult to understand how you feel comfortable opposing the current position of our leaders. I’m open for discussion here, it’s just not clear to me.
One of my favorite quotes from Brigham Young is that his biggest fear is that the Saints would become lazy and just follow the prophets without taking the matter to the Lord. Sometimes I think his biggest fear has come true.
That’s one of my favorite quotes. And yes, I think it has come true.
@ Heather
Way to dodge the question.
@ Joshua
Simply because you come to the same conclusion as the prophet doesn’t mean you haven’t taken the matter to the Lord. And your response still hasn’t answered the question.
What question? I’m lost.
CB, Brent does quote a modern day prophet – Dalin H Oaks and also official church position from 2006.
@Brent- Well said.
@KMB- (I am using Andy’s words – “I think the whole issue is a barometer of public acceptance for homosexuality, and both sides know it”- as a jumping off point here)-The words “marriage” and “husband” and “wife” are words we have- us humans- heard since childhood that are associated with safety, security, and the dreams we create as children as to what we want our lives to be when we are grown. What does it hurt my husband and myself if a woman has a wife? Or a man has three wives? If we are really just playing a game of semantics over what we call a “partnership” or a “marriage,” what is the point? Why can’t we as a society just pull up our big girl boots and accept that all people in this country are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
@CB- I am sure Brent will have something better to say than I do, but that’s okay. As a Mormon, I grew up learning that “God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.” So, I have an observation and a question for you: You seem to be saying that the past prophets and modern prophets (although I believe they are all classified as modern prophets) have differing views. My question is- which prophets should we listen to? Is there a time limit on the validity of their words? Do we listen to the “newest” prophet over his predecessor? If God truly does not change and these men are truly His voice, why are they of differing opinions?
Emily, you raise a very important question that I have really struggled with. There are all sorts of inconsistencies between what prophets said 100 years ago and what they’re saying now. So I’m with you–is there a statute of limitations?
I still think we have the responsibility to weigh their words, consider our own opinions/thoughts/experiences, and act (or not act) based on the outcomes of that decision process. For me, the outcome of my analysis of this issue has been that I disagree with the church’s position on same-sex marriage. That doesn’t mean I can’t be Mormon anymore. I am Mormon. Trust me.
Elder Scott once described revelation as a flash of light. When I receive revelation to give priesthood blessings, all I get is general impressions. I don’t get word for word. While I believe the prophets are inspired, I don’t think every word out of their mouth is perfect.
For example, Joseph Smith once mispelt Brother Ryder’s last name. Brother Ryder thought that if Joseph Smith were his mouthpiece, then he couldn’t have mispelt his name. I think he didn’t understand how revelation worked.
Some good comments. Just a couple quick points: 1) One of the surest ways to undermine an institution like marriage is to set up a parallel competing institution (e.g. civil unions). The way to strengthen marriage is to make sure that as many people buy into it and support it as possible. 2) If marriage and civil unions were the same, people would treat them the same and feel the same way about them (and we probably wouldn’t use two different words to describe them). They aren’t the same. 3) The Church doesn’t have a good track record on social issues. It resisted civil rights (Benson hypothesized in conference that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, for example). It maintained that blacks would never get the priestood. Then it changed its policies. And then, over the last 30-40 years, it has changed its doctrine (and even changed wording in the BoM, etc.) to match the shifts in policy. Basically, looking back on the civil rights movement, it exercised no significant foresight or leadership. Not only did Church leaders fail to prepare members for the change–they did just the opposite. Why should we expect anything different this time around?
1) What is the point of strengthening marriage if the meaning has changed? It is like saying we can encourage more kids to eat vegetables if we include Twinkies as a type of vegetable. While love and commitment is an important part of marriage, you are also taking away another important part, which is the union of the sexes. “Neither the man without the woman, neither the women without the man”. They balance each other out. Men who are married to women live longer and are less likely to be addicted to various substances. The same can’t be said for men who marry men. You take away the substance of what marriage means when you remove the union of the genders. It used to be children whose parents are married had a mom and a dad. That isn’t the case anymore when you change the definition. You are reducing marriage to simply an expression of love, a mechanism to increase stability and a way to give out rights. That is very demeaning to the institution of marriage.
2) No, they aren’t the same. I am fine with equal rights, but there needs to be a recognition that they aren’t the same. By understanding there is a difference, more people will choose opposite-sex marriage over same-sex marriage. Most children being raised by same-sex couples originally had both a mom and a dad, but the opposite-sex marriage was broken up in favor of a same-sex relationship. They need to understand there was a loss there.
3) I don’t think you understand LDS history. The removal of the ban was long prophesied by many leaders. LDS church helped Utah be one of the first places to have woman’s rights. They were ahead of even Massachusetts in including gender identity in protection from employment and housing discrimination. Even in regards to same-sex couples, they are one of the few conservative churches to NEVER go against civil unions.
I have never seen such excellent insight into this whole matter as these couple of sentences:
The Church doesn’t have a good track record on social issues. It resisted civil rights (Benson hypothesized in conference that the civil rights movement was a communist plot, for example). It maintained that blacks would never get the priestood. Then it changed its policies. And then, over the last 30-40 years, it has changed its doctrine (and even changed wording in the BoM, etc.) to match the shifts in policy. Basically, looking back on the civil rights movement, it exercised no significant foresight or leadership. Not only did Church leaders fail to prepare members for the change–they did just the opposite. Why should we expect anything different this time around?
Thank you!
ok, so I admit I’m lazy, and I kind of skimmed both the post and the comments. But, I still want to throw out my opinion on this matter. Having a family member who is gay, and has left the Church as a result of it (while staying as active as you can as a non-member), I ponder this issue quite frequently.
My personal stance is that we should do away with religious marriage ceremonies being legally binding. I think anyone who wants to ‘marry’ (or whatever you’d like to call the legal binding together of two individuals) ought to have a civil union. That’s how it’s done in Europe. Marriage is a legal contract. Whatever you choose to do after that (temple wedding, other Church weddings, no religious ceremony at all, pagan party, whatever) is completely up to you, and has no legal ramifications. In other words, if I’d only go to the temple for my wedding, I’d not be legally married in Europe.
I think the US is creating problems for itself by not having a clear separation of Church and State in the matter of marriage. Because of that I find the option of simply making “marriage” as we have it right now in the US legal for gay couples about as problematic as simply having only civil unions for gay couples. Neither one really solves the problems for me. The problem I see with civil unions only for gays is that at this point, civil unions do not bring the same rights and privileges as marriage does – in many cases it’s close, but not the same. That doesn’t seem fair. On the other hand, I also feel that here in the US, there is a push for trying to get Churches to embraces and perform homosexual marriages, and that part of trying to get “gay marriages” legalized, is to put that into force. That also concerns me because, right or wrong, I don’t think any Church ought to be pushed that way. They should be free to preach/teach as they see fit. So, I just think the only right solution is to have legal marriage separated from Church for good. Period.
And, lastly, while I don’t feel that anyone else’s marriage diminishes mine in any way, be that a gay marriage, a crappy marriage, a swinger marriage, or whatever else, I’m also really bugged by the constant push for having everything and everyone considered the same. It’s just dumb to me. A gay couple is not the same as a straight couple, or the same as an incesteous couple, just as a happy couple is not the same as an unhappy couple, etc. I’m not even saying that gay is worse than straight or anything, but simply that two men don’t equal two women or one man and one woman or one woman and 3 men and so forth. Green is not blue. And yet, I feel that part of the whole gay marriage thing is simply to somehow force people to feel that it’s all the same, that there are zero differences. Anyway, it’s just something that bugs me in general in the US. Does everything have to be considered equal? Or can we also acknowledge differences without putting value on the differences (as in white is better than black, and straight is better than gay, etc.).
Finally, my gay relative’s opinion on the whole US gay marriage movement is “ridiculous”. He thinks it’s silly how worked up people get over this stuff. He thinks civil unions would be just fine. :)
Oh and just in regards to “listening to prophets”, I think it’s odd that we assume in the Church that everything a prophet says is the will and word of God. If that was the case, then we all need to do whatever C.S. Lewis says, because he gets quoted all the time by prophets and apostles…I simply don’t think that everything out of a prophet’s mouth is always God’s will. I think sometimes they are ideas to demonstrate a point, or maybe teach an eternal principle, sometimes they’re opinions or feelings that may have some value or not. Prophets, just like anyone else, aren’t perfect. And if people would pay attention when they read their scriptures, they’ll notice that pretty much any prophet mentioned in the scriptures had reason for repentance on many occasions. So, I don’t know why we’re so hung up in the Church on the idea that everything that’s being presented to us is eternal truth.
I started reading into this and you lost me. You have thrown the “everyone should have the right to do what makes them happy” idea out there and flaunt yourself to be in full support of it. This is right along side the “eat, drink, and be merry” idea that went over so well in times of old. Does this mean you also support pre-marital sex, drug and alcohol abuse, and pornography? All of those are what people do to make themselves happy and all are legal (depending on the drug) and not interfering with the rights of anyone else. Your post seems to be a justification for trying to support Mammon while claiming to be of God. I am just not getting how you think this is ok. How is your current standing in the church?
Fran, (well, to anyone, but I was thinking of Fran….)
We actually have done away with the connection between church and state *in* the law. No where in the law does the domestic civil contract we call “marriage” have anything to do with church, covenants, God. Instead, it is an agreement as expected, mirroring a legal partnership or developmental agreement. The only people who confuse the religious rite “marriage” and the domestic civil contract (unfortunately also named “marriage) are those who are too ignorant to realize the difference. Yes, the states allow clergy to administer the agreement and in effect “notarize” the civil agreement, but that doesn’t mean that the church in any way is the jurisdiction of the civil agreement. This is why even Mormons, if needing to part, have to obtain 2 “divorces” – one for the civil jurisdiction and one for the religious jurisdiction. This means two separate outcomes upon the same event, though the spheres are different.
So…. I am *for* Mormons stepping up and supporting equal access (as required by the 1964 civil rights act) to all domestic civil instruments and federal programs. In layman’s terms, I am for civil marriage for all who may represent themselves before the court (which is the purpose of a civil marriage– to enter the agreement into the court and to modify that agreement as needed). This idea is supported by D&C 134 and by our understanding of the Plan of Salvation– which must allow us to “plant seeds” in equal ground in order to view and judge the fruit of any seed so that we may apply offer of the atonement as needed. Without equal ground, we have no vision, without vision we have no ability to judge the seeds, and without ability to judge the seed, we thwart the Plan of Salvation by nullifying the best-preparation and application of the atonement.
Marni, I don’t really care how it’s all worded, it doesn’t change the fact that as you pointed out, clergy (Churches) are allowed to perform this legally binding contract of the “domestic civil contract”. In simplified terms, it means Churches have the legal power to wed. And that’s certainly where you could claim that state and Church are NOT separated. Just because in cases of divorce there is a clearly legal route to follow doesn’t diminish the fact that Churches are still at large involved in the marriage business of the US. And if you’d simply take away that right from Churches to carry out such legal business and put it back where it belongs, then I think there will be less confusion between your “marriage” and “domestic civil contract”. Also, it will then be much easier to allow equal access to laws while allowing Churches to keep doing their thing (whether that is to perform marriages for gay couples or not).
Anyway, gleaning from your second paragraph we’re hoping for the same thing – except I’m not sure if you feel that the power to perform legally recognized unions should be taken away from the Churches. I think it should. I mean, why give Churches that privilege? It’s mainly because of religious reasons, I’d think. Otherwise, why not allow just about anyone or any institution to perform those ceremonies?
I don’t think the “who” that performs the civil marriage is pertinent. If I get my brother to give me any Club Membership, it doesn’t matter if it was my brother or a stranger- what matters is the jurisdiction of the Club. WHO does it— just doesn’t happen to matter at all. That’s why we ever agreed to allow priests to administer the civil agreement along with the religious rite – because it is immaterial when, where, how, why the people make their civil agreement as long as it does happen with witnesses and frankly those witnesses could be any turkeys at all. Witnesses observe a double-agreement: the couple is agreeing to a civil marriage (to have a domestic relationship, share and develop property and maybe heirs) and a religious rite (totally within the definition of the religion) with the same “I DOs”. We do double-agreements all the time, such as “double-closings” of financial agreements.
Ah. Second response-
A year ago I would have said that since it doesn’t really matter who gives the vows in a civil contract, why not let the priests? Now, having seen all this abuse, I guess I have to think that it really *is* time to let only civil authorities (Justices of the Peace, or whatever) perform the civil portion of any marriage. People can go from the courthouse to the church if they want to, or do it a week apart, but let them become separated. I guess people just aren’t smart enough to be fair to everyone without a literal, physical demonstration of separation.
Obedience to the sitting prophet pretty much requires disobedience to multiple past prophets. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Better to heed your own conscience and face God with the humility and assurance that comes from following one’s convictions.
Very good way of putting it, Jacque. Best response I’ve seen so far :)
Amen, Jacque. ‘Cause who wants to appear before the bar with the expectation of greater responsibility and nothing to offer but excuses and scapegoating on “I was just following the words of the Prophet.”
Brent, totally loved this. Calm, well-reasoned, appealing to our better natures, pluralistic in the founding sense, and full of charity.
Oh good grief. I am on the fence. I like both sides! It’s like a tennis match! This is why I am libertarian! Gays want to marry, no problem! The benevolent religious heterosexual relationships aren’t fooling anyone. My husband and I are BOTH from LDS broken homes!? In fact, heterosexuals SUCK at marriage by and large! Marriage is serious to gays and a joke to heterosexuals these days. As far as those worried about society ceasing to exist, um, don’t worry, fornication is alive and well and babies are still being made! I love my marriage and it effects me if Adam and Steve want to marry, oh wait, no it doesn’t. At ALL. Carry on! I enjoyed the comments and I thought Brent did well.
Soph, you seem like you have a great personality! Would love to meet you in person. ;)
@Joshua,
1) Marriage as an institution has evolved significantly over the years. Had it not evolved, it probably wouldn’t occupy the same position it does today in society. Interestingly enough, the move to ban plural marriage here in the U.S., I would argue, helped shape it in interesting ways. It’s interesting to me that we are now defending the same institution that we spent a good part of our history working diligently to undermine. Here’s what Brigham Young thought about the institution of marriage as practiced today:
“Since the founding of the Roman empire monogamy has prevailed more extensively than in times previous to that. The founders of that ancient empire were robbers and women stealers, and made laws favoring monogamy in consequence of the scarcity of women among them, and hence this monogamic system which now prevails throughout Christendom, and which had been so fruitful a source of prostitution and whoredom throughout all the Christian monogamic cities of the Old and New World, until rottenness and decay are at the root of their institutions both national and religious.” [JoD, Vol. 11, p. 128]
So, we’ve gone from arguing that monogamy is an evil imposed by “robbers” and is a source of prostitution and other whoredoms to now reverencing the same institution as sacred and inviolate. Doesn’t anyone see the irony of our position? Regardless, in my view, the institution needs to evolve-and I see that evolution as positive.
2) If they aren’t the same, then everyone should have equal access. We have no business restricting access to an institution as important as marriage based on our own religious views (as I argue in the essay).
3) I don’t claim to be an expert on church history, but this comment doesn’t seem to be grounded in reality. The prophet at the time, Ezra Taft Benson, dismissed the civil rights movement in conference as a communist plot. There are too many examples to cite of apostles and other leaders clearly opposing the movement. It was openly taught that blacks were unworthy to receive the priesthood because they were less valiant in the spirit world (a belief that we’ve distanced ourselves from a bit today). There are countless examples of church leaders stating that blacks would never receive the priesthood. I think it is more than safe to assert that the church didn’t stake out a progressive position on this issue. With respect to women, the church is (and has been) a benevolent patriarchy-it treats women well as long as they behave and stay in their place (and don’t advocate for any real institutional power or control).
1) Marriage has changed. I’ll give you that. Some changes are good and some are bad. Change for the sake of change is just as lame of an argument as tradition for the sake of tradition. I think the fact that there is more ability for people to get out of abusive relationships are a good thing. I think the increasing rate of kids who are either fatherless or motherless is a bad thing. I respect your decision to disagree, but I still say the argument that changing the meaning to be more inclusive will strengthen it doesn’t mean a thing if the change losses an important aspect of marriage, which is that it gives any kids whose parents were married both a mom and a dad. You want to take that away. There is a loss.
2) I think recognizing the unique benefits that fathers and only fathers have for society and mothers and only mothers have for society is a secular benefit, not a religious one. I happen to believe children are entitled to be raised by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Is that secular or religious? I think I have both secular and religious reasons for thinking that. You seem to base most of your argument on the assumption that the only reasons are religious. Don’t discount my secular reasons simply because I am religious.
3) This is really off-topic, but I must say you are wrong. How can you say giving women the right to vote doesn’t count as any real institutional power or control? Can you argue the fact that the church was more progressive in giving employment and housing rights to transgenders than most of the states, including Massachusetts? Can you argue that unlike most conservative churches, we never opposed civil unions?
Here are some quotes about the priesthood ban being lifted:
-Brigham Young said “That the time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more.”
– Wilford Woodruff said “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have”.
– George Albert Smith reiterated what was said by both Brigham Young and Wilford Woodruff in a statement by the First Presidency on August 17, 1949
– David McKay taught “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the Priesthood.”
– In 1972, Harold B. Lee said “It’s only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we’re just waiting for that time.”
– In 1978, when blacks were given the priesthood, it was herald as the long prophesied day.
The explanation given in Mormon doctrine was never preached in General Conference and was never accepted as official doctrine. If you read Mormon Doctrine, I think Elder McConkie said it was not to be taken as an official stance of the Church.
I think you make your point well. I’d like to add an opinion; however, this should not be taken as arguing against you, just a different approach.
I am sure that there is no mean-spiritedness in any of the true Christians, who think that their churches should not be forced to accept gay marriage (in that they must solemnize them as equal to hetero marriage) as a given, just because 52% of the people believe it’s not wrong.
What if the same people also believed that freedom of religion is an outdated notion, and we should not let people abuse it any longer? Should we meekly accept that, also (and that’s not just idle hypothesizing, but it’s a suggestion that I hear more and more often)?
Because of the above, I definitely support the absolute separation of a civil union and Church marriage. Let a civil union be the only one recognized as a legal domestic partnership for everyone. So nobody could call their domestic partnership a “marriage” without the blessing of a church. Then, the churches should have the right to recognize any marriage they choose, and likewise refuse to accept any marriage. Both religious freedom and equality before law would be preserved.
If “marriage” is just a religious notion, as some say, then the civil authorities have no business in dictating it one way or the other. If, however, it is not, then we must come to the conclusion that what with the “no-fault divorce” and such, the State does not have an interest in a contract-based family any more. The “marriage” is no longer a “contract” (in the spirit of “pacta sunt servanda”), if it is not expected that it shall be kept. Thus, forget about the whole concept of “marriage” in civil law. Plus, civil law has in any case moved too far into the direction of creating a world as we’d like it to be, instead of recognizing the world as is, and trying to keep it bursting into anarchy.
When I look at the way that the “gay rights” group has prosecuted their case, I am dead certain, that if/when gay marriage becomes the law of the land, there will be lawsuits against all those churches, that refuse to recognize it, let alone solemnize them. Just wait and see, because we’re going that way, because the majority of Christian fundies (plus Mormons) have taken the road of just stalling the acceptance of gay marriage. Well, actually I don’t know if anyone is pursuing something like what I describe above, but I don’t see it.
“I couldn’t help but assume that he was throwing me in with the moral relativists.” – I relate to that feeling as well. Somehow if you disagree you are cast as a moral relativist.
I thought of this issue reading a post responding to Glenn Beck’s assumption that Reform Judaism is only about politics:
“They might be talking about why they, as individuals, feel called to lobby their political representatives to preserve a woman’s civil legal right to an abortion because those who wish to take away that right would actually be preventing Jews from dealing with these women’s health issues in ways that are congruent with Jewish law. Jewish law is absolutely explicit – if an unborn child threatens the health of a woman, the woman’s well-being always takes precedence. Reform Rabbis who advocate on this issue don’t wish to prevent someone else acting on the basis of their faith in a different way; but they do object to a different religious understanding of this issue impinging on our rights as American citizens.” http://shmakoleinu-hearourvoices.blogspot.com/2011/02/reform-judaism-like-radicalized-islam.html
For me, it’s not about moral relativism, but the idea that my own freedoms are only as safe as the freedom of those around me.
I agree that the accusation of ‘moral relativism’ is an easy shot, and something that the church uses to cheaply discredit an argument it doesn’t like. And that’s not cool.
But I want to stand up for relativism a bit here… I mean, who doesn’t believe in some degree of moral relativism – unless they believe that there’s some kind of extra-human force holding morality in place somehow? Where could an ‘absolute morality’ exist? The only affirmative answer to that question, it seems to me, must be: ‘with God’. To me, things like goodness, kindness and hatred don’t happen ‘out there’ in the world: but in the interpersonal relations and perceptions of the people who express them. So what was ‘good’ to LDS members in the 19th century wouldn’t seem that way now, especially with things like racist and sexist outlooks. I’m not going to hold them to harsh account for being the product of their times. I hope that future generations will treat any memory they retain of me with similar understanding.
@Velska, I think you make a great point. There are other countries that follow this model (i.e. the “civil” part of the marriage contract is overseen by the state, but then religions can do whatever they want, or don’t want to do, on top of that). I think it makes sense. I agree with you–I’d like to see some movement in that direction. I wonder if the push for civil unions might not get us there. If you stand back and squint, a civil union looks a lot like a civil “marriage”–and the folks that get civil unions are certainly free to have their union solemnized or celebrated in whatever religious setting they choose. Looking at it that way makes the idea of civil unions a little more palatable.
@Mel, thanks for the comment. I think you put it better than I did: “For me, it’s not about moral relativism, but the idea that my own freedoms are only as safe as the freedom of those around me.” I completely agree. I think I saw yesterday that Beck had apologized for this little bit of stupidity.
I was just thinking about how easy it would be for the Church to react in a much different way to the gay marriage issue. Bracketing the question of ideal solutions for a moment, it would be so easy for the Church to announce as its position:
“We take this opportunity to affirm that God ordains marriage between a man and a woman only. We do not support efforts to legalize gay marriage. At the same time, we recognize that we live in a pluralistic society with multiple viewpoints. Our understanding of morality cannot be enforced by law, but only taught with persuasion. We also affirm our determination to love others and respect their ability to act according to their consciences, and support the government’s desire to provide rights to all its citizens, which must remain separate from issues of theology and morality.”
It would be so, so easy. The Church would lose no doctrinal ground. But…. no.
Do you think the Church’s involvement is only about enforcing morality?
Would civil unions allow people to act according to their own conscience?
Can you provide equal rights to all citizens without loosing the definition of marriage?
@Joshua, I’m not sure what the church’s involvement is about.
I still don’t think allowing same-sex marriage diminishes the definition of marriage.
I like your statement, Jared. Maybe you could get a job with the church’s public affairs department. ;)
I’ll post this and then give you the last word (if you want it):
1) After millions of dollars and a year preparing the case in support of Prop 8 in California, the judge asked the attorney supporting the ban on same sex marriage to “identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage.” This attorney replied that “he could not think of any.” I have yet to hear anyone articulate exactly how expanding marriage to include same-sex couples will harm heterosexual marriage. Will it make heterosexuals less likely to marry? Will it increase the divorce rate? I’m at a loss here. On the other hand, expanding the definition of marriage promised substantial benefits, including more stable relationships in the gay community, more orphans adopted into these homes, an increased sense of inclusion and enhanced life satisfaction for this segment of our population, etc.
2) This is debate we should have. What I think is interesting is how much religious thinking colors how people see this issue, even when they claim they are trying to see it through a secular lens. For example, the assumption that two traditional heterosexual parents are inherently better than two same-sex parents seems to be hardwired into the brains of church members I discuss this with. When I point out that the data do not support this conclusion, they immediately conclude that the data must be flawed (because OF COURSE heterosexual couples are superior, therefore even if nearly all studies demonstrate otherwise, then the studies must be wrong). Viewed objectively, data from numerous academic studies overwhelmingly suggests that two same-sex parents are as “fit and capable as heterosexual parents” based on child development outcomes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting, see links to studies as the bottom of the page).
3) Personally I think the church’s response, as an institution, to the civil rights movement was an embarrassment. The fact that there were statements from earlier prophets on the subject that were more reasonable than the official church stance during the time period doesn’t improve things-it actually makes it worse. I don’t know why the Church chose to adopt such an adversarial position-but I don’t think the fact that it did can be disputed on a factual basis. I’m not arguing that there weren’t periods in Church history when the Church has been on the progressive side of social issues (women’s suffrage would be a good example, although we were practicing polygamy at the time, so our contribution to the movement was viewed as suspect). What I’m arguing is that the Church was clearly on the wrong side of the issue during the civil rights movement (and that’s significant for me, because that is the most proximate corollary to the marriage equality debate). On a side note, I often hear the explanation that the rampant racism during that time frame was not “official doctrine.” If this makes people feel better about the church, then I guess it serves a purpose, but it’s not accurate. I have a copy of a 1954 statement by the first presidency that outlines the “less-valiant-in-the-spiritual-world” explanation for denying blacks the priesthood (and a simple google search with using the terms “Mormon” and “racism” will return literally hundreds of quotes by nearly every church official during the time period that are overtly racist). We could then move on to language in the BoM that equates sin with “dark skin”-language that we have now changed, for the most part. The church gets no points from me for its cosmetic “lack of opposition” to civil unions.
I’m up for a debate, but if you don’t want to engage me any further then that is fine. Let me end by saying I do appreciate you standing up for what you believe. While I support the brethren in traditional marriage, I also support your right to disagree. I think often people who oppose traditional marriage do so out of compassion for people with same-sex attraction, while many people who support traditional marriage do so out of fear of people with same-sex attraction. God will judge our hearts as well as our actions. If we act out of love, I think we will be treated better in the judgment day than those that acted out of hate. At the same time, not everyone who supports traditional marriage does so out of hate.
1) Changing the definition of marriage will make it loose its meaning and not make it stronger. I personally know people here in California who left their marriage because of the philosophies around same-sex marriage. He believed that he was born to have gay sex, and that was the only way he could be happy. He left his wife and children and got a boyfriend. His family convinced him to go to a General Conference. He went, and felt the spirit. He realized he made a mistake and left his boyfriend. His wife received a strong spiritual impression to take him back and they know have a great marriage. Same-sex marriage works in direct opposition to opposite-sex marriage.
2) I’ll give you people think opposite-sex parenting is better by default. I actually don’t think homosexual parenting is that bad. I am in favor of same-sex couples adopting. The problem I see is when they start to say dads don’t offer any benefit at all, and could be equally replaced by a second mom. It gets worse if that view is enforced on adoption agencies.
Since you like Wikipedia, you should have a gander at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father
It includes two studies that compared children raised by both a mom and a dad with those raised by two mothers. They concluded:
Children who were raised without fathers perceive themselves to be less cognitively and physically competent than their peers from father-present families. Mothers raising children without fathers reported more severe disputes with their child. Sons raised without fathers showed more feminine but no less masculine characteristics of gender role behavior.
The studies showed that there wasn’t much of a difference between single mothers and two mothers. Both differed from those with a father in the home.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9363577?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/jcpp/2004/00000045/00000008/art00009
They also show those raised by same-sex parents are more likely to have gay sex,even though they were just as likely to have same-sex attraction. Researchers often say this is positive, since that means their kids are more open-minded to having gay sex.
3) That still doesn’t explain the protection of gender identity, nor standing up to bullying gay people.
I think it is easy to look through history and see what we want to see. That goes for both me and you. The issue is not as black and white as it may appear. There are quotes that seem to contradict each other. To get at the meaning you would have had to been there to really understand the intent. That is one reason we have modern prophets. I am grateful for the church’s current position on homosexuality.
Joshua,
I’m reading your response in point 1) above and as I read those words, I can see that same scenario in a hetero marriage:
“He believed that he was in love with his secretary, and that was the only way he could be happy. He left his wife and children and hooked up with his secretary. His family convinced him to go to a General Conference. He went, and felt the spirit. He realized he made a mistake and left his secretary. His wife received a strong spiritual impression to take him back and they know have a great marriage.”
Just replacing a few words, it appears that opposite sex couples experience the same back and forth in relationships. And in fact, I personally know of several that experienced the above rewritten scenario.
@Jared, yes, it would be soooo easy. . . but. . .
Or how about something like this:
[introductory comments]. We do not understand why some individuals are infertile. We do not understand why some individuals are gay. Although we continue to affirm that one of the primary purposes of marriage is procreation, we recognize the need that all individuals have for intimacy, companionship, and mutual support. We hereby acknowledge the right of any two consenting adults to enter into a marriage relationship. The Church will now recognize all legal marriages as valid for institutional purposes. We continue to maintain that all individuals should live the law of chastity, which requires that all individuals abstain from sexual intimacy before marriage and maintain complete fidelity within marriage. [concluding comments]
With a statement like that, it sounds like you are changing the law of chastity to include gay sex within a same-sex marriage. Has the need for intimacy now trumped the need to put off the natural man?
Surely, we do not know why some of us are attracted to the same sex. But the law of chastity as currently stands, which is that sexual relationships are prohibited except between a husband and a wife, is what will bring joy and happiness. Sure, being with someone of the same sex in a sexual way is fun. I remember the first time I was intimate with another man it was thrilling. I felt more alive than I ever had in my whole life. But there was another side effect. I lost the spirit. Plain and simple. I really wanted to believe that the church was just behind, and God would approve of homosexual intimacy, but I got a direct message from God that He did not approve.
By stopping homosexual intimacy, I have regained the peace and joy that I felt by living the commandments of God. By the mercy of God I have since entered into a marriage with a woman. I was really surprised that I was able to feel alive and peace at the same time.
Why that is, I don’t know, but if you change the law of chastity to include gay sex within a same-sex marriage, you are doing a great disservice to gay people. I go to church to learn what I need to do to feel the spirit, and if you stop helping gay people feel the spirit, you are pretty much damning them.
Why don’t know why some people are attracted to alcohol. I am sure not, and I really didn’t understand why some of my friends who were in the Mormon church had such an urge to experiment. I think even the smell is revolting. Yet, even some of my friends who thought it would be enticing. Still some were strong, and decided to not act upon that attraction. Others were weak and were acted upon by that attraction.
All of us have feelings we did not choose, yet coming to Christ means putting off the natural man. Joseph Smith once said a religion that doesn’t require the sacrifice of all things can’t produce the faith necessary to obtain salvation. The early saints sacrificed everything to join the Church. They were persecuted, driven out, and often died in the cause of their belief. Nowadays people don’t even want to allow the Church to ask people to control their sexual desires, because people need to be sexually intimate.
Allowing other people to be married to the same sex is one thing. I disagree, but I respect your opinion to believe that. What I do not respect is the request for the church to alter the law of chastity. I have a strong testimony of the law of chastity as it currently stands. Please do not even advocate for a change, even jokingly.
If you want a church that allows people to have gay sex, then join another church. The Mormon church is one of the few places I can go that will support me in my marriage. Please don’t take that away.
Part of our disagreement, I think, is derived from the fact that I’m approaching this from a public policy perspective and you are approaching this from more of a personal perspective. I think the last part of your last post is particularly powerful:
“If you want a church that allows people to have gay sex, then join another church. The Mormon church is one of the few places I can go that will support me in my marriage. Please don’t take that away.”
I was being a little tongue-and-cheek in my last post (the “fake” press release from the church) and I probably shouldn’t have written it. I think the church has positioned itself on the wrong side of this issue from a public policy perspective, but I do not advocate that the church change its doctrine. Religious organizations are in the business of delivering religious experiences to their members. In the U.S. this occurs in an open religious economy where religious organizations compete with each other for adherents. The organizations that deliver the best spiritual value grow at the expense of the less successful. It’s a dynamic religious marketplace.
It is clear that you benefit spiritually from your association with the church. For you and for many others, the religious product the church delivers is valuable and it works. For others it doesn’t. I often get frustrated with church members because they seem to believe that no one outside of our church has legitimate spiritual experiences or derives legitimate spiritual benefit from other religions. I’ve talked to too many other devout members of other faiths who have had very powerful spiritual experiences that have confirmed, for them, the legitimacy of their own faith to accept that we have a monopoly on spiritual experience. In my opinion, the fact that more than 200 years of religious competition has yet to produce any clear winner in the religious marketplace indicates that no one organization or church has a monopoly on spiritual experience. People are different. Religions are different. People have profound spiritual experiences that confirm, for them, very different beliefs and belief systems. As we like to put it, the spirit confirms the truthfulness of different things in different ways to different people. Although this is messy and we sometimes prefer the idea that there is just one truth and that all spiritual experiences will lead everyone, in some way, to that one truth, it doesn’t seem to work that way. Of course, we like to hedge a little bit on this and talk about people having part of the truth-that way we can accept (or explain) their spiritual experiences without it undermining our belief that there is only one truth (and that we have it). Of course, the business of comparing spiritual experiences gets pretty complicated pretty quickly.
For me, advocating that the church change because I want it to doesn’t make sense. That would be like me standing in the shampoo isle at Wal-mart with 50 different shampoos on display, and then picking one that I don’t really like so that I can go home and write to the manufacturer and try to convince them that they should change the formula. The church is what the church is-and there are a lot of people that derive a lot of benefit from it. Although I may selfishly like to encourage some change in some areas, I also recognize that the church is a very complex social institution with subtle structural interdependencies and that changing parts of it may have unintended consequences.
The position I’ve tried to advocate in my essay (and in my comments) is a public policy position. I don’t agree with how the church has positioned itself on this issue in that sense. I would (and will) defend the church’s right to manage its internal affairs as it sees fit. I appreciate you sharing your personal experiences and I respect that you have found a spiritual home in the church (and I certainly don’t want to challenge or undermine that).
Thank you,
It is good to know you aren’t trying to change Mormon doctrine. I am thankful for that. There are a lot of voices trying to do that, and it scares me. It seems like the culture has turned so that even supporting people in mixed-orientation marriages or ex-gay can be considered a hate crime. It scares me. Be careful when you joke. Others may take you at your word. There is such a culture now-a-days that in order to be true to yourself, a gay person needs to have gay sex. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that I am not really being true to myself. They don’t understand that being Mormon is how I am, and I can’t deny it. I want people to be able to openly and freely live whatever lifestyle they chose, but I am seeing my lifestyle as being dubbed as “wrong” and those who support my lifestyle as “oppressive”. Often, these are the very people who claim to be “pro-gay”. I don’t understand how you can claim to be pro-gay when you are so antagonistic to organizations like Evergreen that are set up to help us. Thank you for being understanding in how the law of chastity has helped me.
I do think we have a problem about thinking we have a monopoly on truth. I think God is the father of all of us and he will answer any of us when we pray. I believe there will be many same-sex couples that make it into heaven and many Mormons who jeer at them who will be sorely disappointed. But as far as truth is concerned, I believe Christ died for us and rose again on the third day, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life. I also believe that He, along with His father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith and restored the everlasting gospel. I guess I don’t understand how that can be true for me but not true for someone else.
I have given you secular reasons for my opposition. I am affected by my life experiences, as are you. I think my life has helped me understand how same-sex relationships really are a choice. We all chose our lifestyles. I chose not to have a gay lifestyle. I think other people see it as just who they are, so regardless of what evidence against who they are, they should still be free to be who they are and be treated equally. I don’t think that is who they are, but I think they should be free to act how they chose to act. There is a difference. When can have programs that encourage certain choices, like encouraging healthy eating habits or quitting smoking or decrease pollution. But encouraging people to be something that they are not doesn’t make sense. I think that is where my experience comes in.
This was very well written. I am very active in GLBT rights, but most of my family doesn’t know. I don’t share, because they believe so differently.
This was succinct enough and close enough to my own thoughts (but much better than I could have said it.), I plan on sharing. (Maybe, if I’m brave enough…)
Thank you
Great points, Brent! I make similar ones here (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2011/02/youtube-moral-case-for-lds-same-sex.html), here (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2011/01/chapter-6-rebuttals-to-common-anti-same.html), here (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2011/01/chapter-5-moral-case-for-lds-same-sex.html), and here (http://bradcarmack.blogspot.com/2011/03/anti-same-sex-marriage-rebuttals-1-of-4.html).
” I often get frustrated with church members because they seem to believe that no one outside of our church has legitimate spiritual experiences or derives legitimate spiritual benefit from other religions. I’ve talked to too many other devout members of other faiths who have had very powerful spiritual experiences that have confirmed, for them, the legitimacy of their own faith to accept that we have a monopoly on spiritual experience. In my opinion, the fact that more than 200 years of religious competition has yet to produce any clear winner in the religious marketplace indicates that no one organization or church has a monopoly on spiritual experience. People are different. Religions are different. People have profound spiritual experiences that confirm, for them, very different beliefs and belief systems.” I’ve had similar experiences.
I would disagree with your contention about the irrelevance of religious beliefs to the debate, as I think they merit a place at the table of public discussion.
“If you claim that your experiences are superior to mine and that your religious views should therefore be given precedence, then what is to prevent me from making the same claim?” Strong point.
“When I read the speech, I couldn’t help but assume that he was throwing me in with the moral relativists. I couldn’t disagree more.” I feel similarly. There is no necessary reason or evidence to suggest that an agnostic or atheist group/individual necessarily lacks a rich morality. Indeed, it is likely that many of them are comparably privileged compared to some impoverished theists.
I’ll warn those who go to the links to buckle up – there’s a lot of content there. You can watch most of the arguments on youtube though if you want (follow the links on the blog posts).
@Brad, thanks for your comments. I followed a couple of the links you posted, and it definitely looks like we’re on the same the same side of the issue. Interesting reading.
@Joshua, had to step in and clarify one point with regard to your statement that the LDS church has “NEVER” opposed civil unions. I continue to see statements along these lines; however, the words and actions of LDS leaders indicate quite the opposite, including:
There are certain indicia of marriage – certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy – which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.” – Dallin H. Oaks, Apostle
“If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.” – Elder Lance B. Wickman, Emeritus General Authority and General Counsel
“This bill (IL HB2234] will legalize civil unions in the state of Illinois, and will treat such civil unions with the same legal obligations, responsibilities, protections and benefits as are afforded within marriage. In other words, civil unions will be different in name only from marriage…To help defeat this bill, please call your state representative and state senator and ask that they support traditional marriage and vote against the civil unions bill.” – Bishop Chris Church, of the Nauvoo, Illinois 3rd Ward (sent via official LDS ward website to all ward members on 3 March 2009)
I just think you have to be very careful when you say that the LDS church does not oppose (or has never opposed) civil unions. In fact, the LDS church leaders’ official position is that there is no opposition to civil unions that offer only a very narrow, limited range of protections, such as hospital visitation and health care. They in no way, shape or form support (notice how they only use the phrase “don’t oppose?”) civil unions as a parallel institution to marriage.
@Hunter, thanks for the comments. I think you’re right. I think the assertion that the Church as supported civil unions is indefensible (a quick google search is sufficient to demonstrate otherwise). The assertion that the Church “hasn’t opposed” civil unions is only slightly less difficult to defend, although it does seem like the Chuch has recently quietly ratcheted down its opposition to them (or has at least stopped trying to publicly argue that they are the same as marriage).
@Brent, I’m not entirely sure they’ve “ratcheted down” the opposition. I think the statement the LDS church made that they “[do] not object to rights regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights” is often taken out of context by members of the church to distract from the real issue. This statement was made specifically regarding the rights already established in CA; it was not a wholesale statement regarding the position of the LDS church. It refers to a specific instance of civil unions in a specific place…CA. It wasn’t so much ratcheting down as it was acknowledging there was not going to be an end to civil unions in the state, even if same sex marriage was tossed out. The PR machine is great at saving face.
But, for the sake of argument, let’s say the LDS church meant this to be its position from coast to coast. The lack of opposition only applies to some very specific rights: hospitalization (visitation), medical care (insurance), fair housing, employment and probate. In many cases, a civil union isn’t necessary for the first two: powers of attorney and employer sponsored medical plans can deal with these. A formal civil union also isn’t needed for probate: a living trust or will can handle that. So, it really comes down to fair housing and employment where it could possibly make a difference, but only in states where these protections already exist since neither are covered at the federal level. When you start breaking it down, you can see how easy it is to make this statement because their lack of opposition is largely irrelevant in these cases. Again, an easy way to save some face with a crafted message. And, it worked. The members are out there saying the LDS church doesn’t oppose civil unions while its leaders assert that civil unions with benefits equivalent to marriage are unacceptable (Joshua is a great example of this).
As a former Mormon, I always have to give my thanks to well written and open positions like this one from those that are practicing LDS members. Bravo, Brent and Heather. If more shared your true respect for humanity, there would be less division in this world.
@Martymankins, it seems like such a lame effort–writing a blog post . . . but I figure we can either pack our bags or stick around and keep talking.
As a spiritual gay (mormon) man, when I accepted my orientation and went to God asking for guidance in how to live my life, that’s when the spirit returned to me and set me on an accelerated learning curve (actually the spirit never left, but the negative voices I had been taught made it hard to hear).
Separate but equal is never equal – we as a country have already gone down that road and found that argument to be a lie.
All the research I’ve seen on raising children says children do best when they have two loving parents who are actively involved in their lives – the gender combination of the parents doesn’t matter. Two good places to start on the research are:
Alice Park, “Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers,” Monday, Jun. 07, 2010, Time Magazine, http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
Kevin Sack, “Do children of gay parents develop differently?” Los Angeles Times, October 30, 2006. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-surrogacyside1xoct30,1,7963634.story.
The Adam & Eve – male and female argument also falls apart when one starts looking at biology – over 2% of the population is intersex – a combination of both genders or neither gender completely – 8% of the population is infertile and I could go on to a couple of other issues.
Mormons, Muslins, Baptists, Catholics, Jews etc., are defending myths and prejudices. If religion is loosing its influence, it only has itself to blame since all of them have been pretty immoral in their war against civil rights – race, gender, orientation.
viagra – penis enlargement tools!
Members need to think long and hard before supporting gay marriage as this will jeopardize their own exaltation. LDS members are commanded to help others repent not to commit sin. Let’s imagine that an LDS member supports someone all the way in choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle. Let’s imagine that person never repents and is at the judgement seat like all of us will be. That person received support from an LDS church member in continuing to live this way. What makes that LDS member think that their exaltation is safe? It won’t be.
Jon, I feel much more comfortable about the prospect of meeting God and telling him/her that I tried to love people without judgment than telling him/her that I rejected someone because of his/her sexual orientation.
I do not worry about jeopardizing my exaltation for having loved someone.