A response to comments

First of all no need to apologize; it’s the nature of blogs (and email and texts, etc.) to make people sound harsher than they are. I really don’t get offended very easily; negative comments mostly make me curious as to why other people don’t think I’m as smart as I think I am. I’m obviously the most brilliant person alive, if only the rest of the world would realize it and hand me the reins of power. (Or the rains of power, I’ll take whatever, I’m not fussy.)

Let me respond to your comments one at a time:

You said “I don't think that anyone is arguing that gay people want marriage rights so that they can bring down the institution of marriage from the inside out…” Actually there are some people who believe exactly this. Most Church members are not this extreme, but some are. And there are some non-LDS groups that we were allied with that do believe this view, or similar ones (i.e. there is a great gay conspiracy attempting to trick us all to hell, or other such nonsense.) When we make common cause with groups like that sometimes we are assumed to agree with all of their viewpoints and this obscures our message. It also allows some of their ideas to bleed into ours.

“I think when people use the word "destroy" it means more along the lines of making marriage less sacred.” This is still the same argument, only said in a nicer way. The underlying assumption is that gay people are inferior and they would spoil marriage (“make it less sacred.”) The point isn’t to learn to use nicer words, but to actually talk about, and understand the issues in a way that the gay community would accept as fair. Offensive attitudes are still offensive even when they are delivered with kind words.

“I think both sides need to understand that, while their are extreme fringes, most people on either side are just good people, trying to make sense of their world, and make decisions that will make the world a better place for them and their kids.” I agree, but even good people can have bigoted attitudes. Nowadays we like to think of racists as pure evil, but the fact of the matter is that 50 years ago there were a lot of good, honest, nice people who really in their heart of hearts didn’t believe that black people were as good (clean, wholesome, intelligent, etc.) as whites and thought it entirely unfair that black people couldn’t stay in their own specially designated black zones. They believed that desegregation was a violation their rights because they should have a right not to be in the same stores, or share restrooms with people they thought of as dirty or inferior. They really believed that giving blacks equal rights threatened their rights. Just because someone is trying to do what they think is best doesn’t mean they are doing what’s best, and that is why it is so important to deal with people on the basis of respect and equality rather than on the assumption of their inferiority or unworthiness.

“For some people that means marriage as Christian religion has traditionally defined it- between a man and a woman.” I addressed this form of the argument in my original post. If I were to look up marriage in the dictionary we would all think it strange if it said “Marriage= between a man and a woman.” Such a definition doesn’t make sense. Marriage does not mean “between a man and a woman.” Marriage is what is between them, or in other words it is a type of relationship. If we focus on defining the type of relationship that marriage is, and the role that it should play in society then who can enter into such a relationship will flow from that definition naturally. I also believe that from a public attempt to create such a definition would flow other types of relationships that are beneficial to society, and thus would be worth giving official recognition to. As would the recognition that it is the relationship that is sacred, not the word “marriage”. This would also leave the question of rights denied, or religious beliefs threatened, out of the issue.

I believe that the debate on marriage should not be about who should marry (and especially not about who we deem “worthy” to marry), but what marriage is, and its role in society. These issues go way beyond the issues of gay marriage and begin to incorporate the much larger issues and problems facing marriage that the current debate is obscuring (casual divorce, poverty, marriage-like cohabitation, unrealistic expectations, adultery, selfishness, etc.)

One Small Step…

I literally leapt from my seat with joy when I surfed over to the Church’s web site this week and read that the Church was coming out in favor of a civil rights law protecting homosexuals against discrimination. While we still have a long way to go, it filled my heart with joy to see us taking the fist steps down the path toward more Christ like concern for our fellow men.

In my initial post on Gay marriage I gave the church a C+ for the way in which they were addressing the issue. A part of the reason for the low grade was the failure of the Church to directly repudiate the bigotry that was being carried out under the banner of marriage defense. In the general “battle” to protect marriage the Church had aligned itself with some groups that had more far-reaching and bigoted goals than the protection of marriage (and some of these goals have begun to bleed though and color church members’ thoughts and actions), also some members of the Church were using the Church’s stand against gay marriage as a justification for denying homosexuals other basic rights and legal protections (take as an example the repeated inability of the Utah Legislature to pass a workable hate crimes bill because the supporters insist on including sexual orientation as one of the categories against which a hate crime can be committed.) Even though the Church had specifically stated that they were “not opposed” to extending basic (non-marriage) rights to homosexuals, this message wasn’t loud enough to be heard over much of the bigotry on the right.

Last week that changed. Although I first heard the news on the Church’s web site, it was on the front page of The Oregonian, and reported in the New York Times (also here) as well. The Church’s official public relations spokesperson, speaking on behalf of the Church, explicitly stated the Church’s support for a measure before the Salt Lake City Council granting civil rights protection for homosexuals in housing and employment. While this was presented as being in harmony with earlier statements (and in a sense it was), it represents a radical change. The Church went from being “not opposed” to being in “in support of,” and not just abstractly “in support”; they took active steps to support the civil rights of homosexuals in the face of opposition from groups with whom they were previously allied.

While I still think that we have a long way to go as a church when it comes to gay rights issues and learning to see homosexuals as our brothers and sisters, this is a very welcome step in the right direction. It tells the critics on the far left and the extremists on the far right that we actually do mean what we say and that the position on gay marriage isn’t part of a larger agenda to marginalize homosexuals. Hopefully both the statement itself and the language in the statement will serve as reminder to Church members that bigoted words and ideas are not part of the Gospel of Christ.

If this represents an actual change in position leading to a real sustained effort (as a recent follow-up statement by Elder Holland indicates), in my mind this would move the church from a C+ to B-. Among other things, we still need to admit that there are bigots in our own ranks and address them. We need to help people to understand what bigotry is, why it is dangerous and how to recognize it. We need to learn to acknowledge the arguments on the other side in terms that they would recognize and accept as accurate, fair, and respectful. We need to address our arguments using independently verifiable, universally acceptable, objective data and not pick and choose among studies (we can’t ignore the ones we don’t like and blindly generalize from those we do.) And we can refuse to align ourselves with people and groups using this issue to further agendas of bigotry.

A response to comments

First why respond as a new post? Because it is fun that way, also it is a good way to keep the discussion at the top of the page so to speak.

Unsurprisingly there were a number of comments on my Gay Marriage post. Hopefully I can address some of them here.

First several of you cautioned me to show tolerance even to intolerant Church members. I could not agree more. Everyone has weaknesses and one of the great things about being in a large organization is that we are exposed to others’ weaknesses and strengths. Intolerance is definitely a weakness (and it just happens to be one of very few that drives me up the wall.) Tolerance however is one of those principles that must be handled with care, it should never be confused with condoning bad behavior, nor should it be a reason for staying silent in the face of destructive behavior. What it means is that disagreements should be handled with respect for, and charity towards, those you are in disagreement with, not silence. Tolerance of the intolerant means that I accept that they are children of God, as I am, and are in need of the atonement of Christ, as I am, and that they are deserving of my love. It does not mean that intolerance masquerading as righteousness should remain unchallenged or unnamed.

Several of you recommended that I read the interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman. I have several times, in fact I linked to it in my post and it was one of my main sources of information on the Church’s position on gay marriage. This interview I think address the easy to moderately difficult questions about the Church’s position on homosexual behavior in general (this was a pleasant surprise to me because I expected an interview of Church officials by a Church reporter to only ask the easy questions.) The discussion on gay marriage is several years old at least (the first time I saw it was when the amendment to the U.S. Constitution was proposed.) The interview really only states the belief that accepting gay marriage is a threat to the institution of marriage because it would redefine it (an argument that mostly leads nowhere because the real question isn’t should we redefine marriage but is the new definition better or worse than the old one.) Its main contribution is that it defines the threat as against the institution, not individual marriages. It is in the statement on Prop 8 that the Church more clearly explains why it believes such a redefinition is a problem. And I believe that the reason laid out in the post accurately reflects that position. (If you still think otherwise please let me know what the other reasons are, I really would like to know.)

The interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman I believe was intended primarily as a statement of religious belief, not policy. That is not true for the statement on Prop 8. That statement is an argument made in an attempt to change public policy. And as such it would have been more effective had it been addressed to a wider audience or helped give Church members the tools to talk to a wider audience. The statement was written in such a way that it sounded like an attempt to show the rightness of the Church’s position, but because of the way it mixed the religious and secular reasoning it could not be used in any attempt to persuade a fence-sitter or someone who was in disagreement. It could only reinforce the beliefs of those who already agreed with it. In other words, I could not send it to someone who was not already a Mormon and did not already believe in the Church's teachings and position to that statement and expect them to come away convinced.

This ties into the comment made by Anonymous at 7:06. I have no problem combining secular reasoning with religious belief— in fact I think that it is vital! The point I was making when I talked about the intermingling of the two making the statement useless was not that intermingling was wrong or that the Church was wrong to do it. The point was that it made the statement unusable as a tool to promote public policy. If we want to impact national (or state policy) it cannot be based on religious reasons- that would cause the state to become an instrument of religious enforcement. It can only be based on universally demonstrable truths. Take smoking as an example. If the only reason that we can give for not smoking is that God said not to do it, then those who believe can use that belief to govern their own behavior, but they cannot use it as reason to have the government force people who do not believe to change their behavior. If, on the other hand, we can do an objective study and show that secondhand smoke increases other people’s risk for lung cancer then we can make a strong case for banning smoking in public places. The same holds true for gay marriage. If the only reason for homosexuals not to marry is that God said not to, that is insufficient grounds for using the government to prevent them from marrying. If, on the other hand, it can be objectively shown that gay marriage would be harmful to society (not very likely) or that unique recognition of heterosexual marriage would benefit society (much more likely) then that would be sufficient grounds on which to base public policy.

Carrie: about Elder Wickman’s statement. Your question brings along with it a lot of assumptions. First, doctrinally what he is saying is an interpolation (and a very logical one) from our current state of knowledge about the pre- and post- earth life, it is not revelation. As far as I can recall, nowhere in scripture is this taught. There have been other times in the history of the church when ideas were taught that were then overturned as new revelation came forward. One that relates specifically to the pre-mortal life was the teaching that people of African decent were fence sitters in the war in heaven (they refused to support Christ, but didn’t join with Satan either) and thus withholding the priesthood from them was justified. This teaching has now been specifically condemned as false by Elder Holland. Similar situations can be found regarding other doctrines, such as polygamy or the changing of the temple ceremonies. My point is that there is always the possibility that the Lord could provide us with additional knowledge that would overturn earlier assumptions, just like what has happened in the past. Also, let’s be clear in what I was saying, I was not declaring that someone who engages in homosexual behavior will be in one of the lower levels of the Celestial Kingdom, only that that is one possible way that I can see that God could allow for homosexual marriage, without needing to overturn the idea that a continuation of posterity in the next life requires men and women working together in an eternal marriage. I’m sure there are other ways and I’m sure that if that’s the way He’s going God’s already got it all figured out.

John and Pamela: I think you have touched on one of the great (and not entirely unjustified) fears of the religious right with this issue. There are some gay rights activists who are attempting to use the government to force changes in religious doctrine. Just because someone is on the political left does not make them a liberal.

Anonymous at 7:33: Thank you so much for taking the time to read my blog, and for leaving comments! (I’m not being sarcastic, I really am glad you took the time to read!) I have seen many members of the Church with similar beliefs about the incompatibility of Mormonism, Liberalism and Democratic politics. In fact that is one of the reasons why I decided to start this blog. In my experience the belief that Liberalism and Mormonism are incompatible stems from one of several things: a misunderstanding of Mormon teachings, belief and doctrine, or a misunderstanding of Liberalism, or some combination of these. One of my goals is to help correct those misunderstandings. Because you are anonymous I can’t really speak to your level of understanding of Mormonism, as to your understanding of liberalism- let me use an analogy.

I assume that at some point you have stumbled across descriptions of our church and faith made by enemies of Mormonism. Not just people who are ignorant, but people whose goal it is to tear down the Church and our people. They tell outright lies, and they twist the truth so hard it turns into a lie. Such statements aren’t really all that dangerous to those who know the truth; we see them for what they are. Imagine, however, that all you had ever heard about the Church had either been filtered by or explained by its enemies. What would your opinion of the Church be then? If all I knew about the Church came from its enemies I surely would think it was a terrible organization and I’d want nothing to do with it. The same holds true for political discourse. So many people have gotten their entire understanding of liberalism from the conservative media, people like Limbaugh, Beck, and Savage. These people make millions by making conservatives angry at liberals. If you’re not angry they’re not getting their ratings. People like this are a very bad place to get information about what liberals believe. If all I knew about liberalism was from these sources I would not believe that it was compatible with Mormon belief. Fortunately, for conservatives, these guys have just about talked themselves to the point where their silliness is almost universally apparent (death camps for the elderly, from Democrats the defenders of the defenseless and the authors of Medicare? How much more ridiculous can you get?) Hopefully for conservatives real leaders will start to emerge soon. My point is that if all you’ve ever heard about Liberals and Democrats is from people like this or has been explained to you or framed for you by people like this then you don’t actually have any real idea what it is we believe.

I hope that you will take the time to browse back through some of my older posts (I did several posts that dealt with liberalism on a general level rather then on an issue specific level.) Also helpful would be to read about Harry Reid (Democratic Senator from Nevada, Senate Majority Leader and active Church member.) He said that he believed that it was easier to reconcile Democratic values with Church teachings then Republican ones. President James E. Faust (former member of the First Presidency) was a Democrat and served in the Kennedy administration. Elder Marlin K. Jensen (a current member of the Quorum of the Seventy) is also a Democrat. In fact “On April 22, 1998, Jensen was sent by the First Presidency to give an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune in reaction to a recent First Presidency statement and to explicitly state that someone could be a devout Mormon and a member of the Democratic Party.” (from the Wikipedia article on Elder Jensen and footnoted to a transcript of the interview) Further back in the past Elder Marion G. Romney (former member of the First Presidency) served in the Utah state legislature as a Democrat.

I’m with Harry Reid; I think it is much easier to combine Mormon beliefs with Democratic liberal beliefs then with Republican conservative ones. Although I would be thrilled if I was able to convince some people of the value of Liberalism, I’d be quite satisfied with increasing their level of understanding of the issues and helping them to see that despite what Rush Limbaugh and his cronies say Liberalism is not a synonym for evil.

Anonymous at 7:06: I addressed the main body of your comment above. As for the PS, I would be careful about arbitrarily placing limits on God. From what I can tell the only limits on God are those imposed universally by Justice, Mercy, and Love. I would recommend taking a little time to study the history of polygamy in the Church. Remember than many people define marriage as only between ONE man and ONE woman and thus marriage to a second women while still married to the first is not valid and thus adulterous. Adultery is exactly what Joseph Smith was accused of by his detractors. In essence, the Lord allowed for a time what many people believe was adultery.

The Gay Marriage Post

I’ve been working on this post over the course of many months (like six), and so if there is anyone who happens to track such things this is NOT in response to any one event, person, e-mail, blog post, sacrament meeting talk, newspaper article, or any other world event. I understand that there are some who read this that will disagree strongly with my point of view; that’s fine with me. Also nothing in what I have said below should be interpreted as a personal attack on any individual.


_____________________

The whole gay marriage debate seems a bit strange to me. It is almost like we missed a step along the way somewhere. Like most of the “great” debates of the day, each side seems to be plugging its ears and shouting at each other rather than actually sitting down and thinking though the issue. This is clearest in the way the “traditional” marriage supporters talk about the issue. They say, “Marriage is defined as between a Man and a Woman.” Okay…that sounds nice, the problem is that it is only half a definition, and without the other half the whole debate floats away to a strange never-never land. The real debate needs to begin not with who can marry, but what marriage is. Who can marry is completely irrelevant until we have an understanding of what it is they are doing and the impact that it has on society. In other words: if marriage is to be only between a man and a woman, what is it that is between them? As I see it there are three main facets of marriage that are relevant to the discussion before us. They are: marriage as a personal relationship, marriage as a legally recognized union, and marriage as a facilitator of biological reproduction.

Marriage as a personal relationship

One way to define marriage is as a lifelong relationship between two individuals entered into for mutual support and companionship on the basis of love and respect, and which assumes the partners have exclusive sexual access to one another. I think that most modern Americans would agree with this definition of marriage.*

The above definition is completely independent of government, society, or what the neighbors say or think. Without intruding into the personal lives of its citizens to a degree that most Americans would find appalling there is nothing that government can (or should) do to stop such relationships from forming between any individuals whatsoever, gay or straight. Everyone in this country should have the right to pursue happiness wherever they think they can find it, so long as one individual’s pursuit does not unreasonably interfere with anyone else’s, and surely your relationships and living arrangements have no real direct impact on me at all. We all have this right regardless of whether or not others think that the path we are pursuing is moral or not or whether it conforms to their belief systems or not. This means that if two men want to live together in a long term, mutually supportive relationship, change their last names, exchange rings and throw a party to celebrate the official start to their new lives together, that is completely their business and not anyone else’s, regardless of whether or not others think such a relationship is a good idea.

The trouble is that while the personal aspect element of marriage is important, left standing by itself it is incomplete.

Marriage as a legally recognized union

If marriage is purely a personal relationship, why should the government be involved in marriage at all? In fact, I have heard it suggested by people on both sides of the issue that the government should just get out of the business of marriage altogether and the whole issue would then just go away. Marriage would then become a purely private affair with no legal ramifications at all. I suppose individuals could then write their own contracts regarding things such as distribution of property and other such issues normally assumed in a marriage relationship.

I do not think that this is a good idea. Currently marriage has a larger role in society than just official recognition of a relationship between individuals, though that relationship is at the root of it. Stable monogamous relationships provide society with a myriad of benefits, everything from lessening the spread of disease, to home health care, to increasing worker productivity, to reducing anti-social behavior, to fostering a commitment to the stability of the community. In other words individual marriages benefit society as a whole, not just the individual members of society who are married. Therefore society has a stake in marriage, its success, and the roles it plays.

By formally recognizing such relationships we can encourage them, and we can provide individuals in such relationships benefits that are designed to strengthen, maintain, or otherwise assist such relationships. For example providing hospital visitation rights reinforces (among other things) the role of the spouse as primary caregiver, the responsibility that they have for their partner, and clearly identifies (hopefully) an individual who is responsible for the health of the patient.

Formal recognition of private relationships is an important tool that society can use for its betterment. The benefits above are independent of the genders of the persons involved in the relationship. If both heterosexual and homosexual relationships provide society with these benefits then both types of relationships should be officially recognized.

Questions still remain: “Do either homo- or heterosexual relationships benefit society in a way that the other does not?” and “If such a difference is found is the benefit large enough to merit distinct recognition?”


Marriage as a facilitator of biological reproduction

While there may be many disagreements as to what constitutes the best environment for raising children I believe that there would be almost universal agreement on the importance of long-term family stability as a vital part of the mix. With the assumption of sexual access as part of marriage, good marriages become an optimum place for the birth and raising of children. A relationship that has the positive interpersonal characteristics enumerated above and has the capacity to extend that stability and love to the joint biological offspring of the participants is a unique benefit of most heterosexual marriages. The only (constitutionally legitimate) difference that I can see between a heterosexual relationship and a homosexual one is the potential for the partners to reproduce together. Is this biological difference a strong enough reason to provide heterosexual relationships with unique recognition? What about heterosexual relationships where the individuals choose not to have children, or are unable to? Should these relationships be recognized with the same status as fertile relationships? What about adoption, which allows those in infertile relationships to raise children?

There have been studies done to determine how having homosexual parents impacts children. It is these studies that have lead the American Psychological Association (see also here) to conclude that having a homosexual parent is not detrimental to child development, and thus that arguments against homosexual marriage based on concern for child development are unfounded. In other words (to debunk a few of the more hatful lies of those who oppose gay marriage out of ignorance and /or bigotry) children of gay parents are no more likely to be abused than children of straight parents, are just as likely to develop socially accepted understandings of gender roles, and while they are slightly more likely to report having experimented with homosexuality they are no more likely to self-identify as homosexual than children of straight parents.

To my mind, while these studies are sufficient to show bigots for what they are, they are not asking quite the right questions. The studies that I looked at, at least, focused mostly on the sexuality and sexual development of children and additionally they focused almost exclusively on the biological children of homosexual parents. This most often meant that the children had lesbian mothers or gay fathers who were separated from the child’s other biological parent, and thus for the purposes of the studies the legitimate comparison group would be the children of divorced parents or single parents. And while no one would argue that single parents or divorced parents cannot be excellent parents, it is clear that both divorce and single parenting have a negative impact on children.

Does biology matter? I’m not a social scientist, but I would suspect that this is a question that can be answered through the right kind of research. Does being raised by both biological parents provide any advantage to a child? I hypothesize that, when other factors are equal, it does. Many traits, from personality types to health conditions, are passed genetically from one generation to the next, and along with these genetic traits can come the family traditions that can direct, control, and explain them in positive ways, or provide other coping strategies.

Appropriate future studies should focus on the adopted children of homosexual couples and compare them with both the adopted children of straight couples and the biological children of straight couples, and then measure them not only on the direct impact of sexual or gender identity development, but on all aspects of child development. This would help to confirm or detract from the earlier studies, and help to establish the relative importance of biological parents. My hypothesis is that little difference would be found between the two groups of adopted children, but that there would be clear differences between adopted children and biological children. This is not because I believe that adopted parents are not good parents (in fact, given what it takes to be approved to become an adoptive parent I believe that they are much more likely to be better parents in terms of skills, financial and emotional stability, desire for children, and willingness to appreciate the chance to parent.) But being given up for adoption can have an impact on the child, independent of anything their adoptive parents can do. Some children are able to see their adoption as a positive, as “someone wanted me badly enough to work hard to find me.” Unfortunately, others have a hard time getting past the idea that someone didn’t want them and gave them away (however legitimate the reasons).

It is for this reason that I believe that in an ideal world children would all be born into homes where both biological parents are in the same stable, committed, long term relationship (marriage) and are willing and able to take care of them. I understand, however, that as long as we are living in an imperfect world this will not be the case, and so I salute adoptive parents and their children. But my point remains; I believe that biology, in terms of parenting, matters.

All of this strengthens the idea that society has a legitimate interest in recognizing and promoting long term, stable, healthy, relationships that are capable of producing biological offspring.


The “threat” posed by eliminating any distinction between heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage is not that any individual relationship would be weakened, it is the fact that such a definition would define marriage purely in terms of the participants’ relationship to each other, thus leaving out the role that marriage has traditionally played of providing official recognition of a legitimate means of biological reproduction. (note the difference between the traditional role of marriage and traditional marriage.) When the Church says that acceptance of gay marriage is a threat to “traditional” marriage, this is the threat that they are talking about: the threat that biological reproduction has either been reduced in importance or defined out of marriage altogether. Or, in other words, the threat is that marriage moves one step closer to being seen as purely an interpersonal relationship with less and less of a larger social purpose.

The question arises, how do we maintain a hold on the ideal while accepting that it is not possible in every condition or for every person?

If we accept that reproduction is an important role for marriage and that officially refusing to recognize that the capacity for reproduction is, in fact, a loss to society, we need to ask what it would take to prevent that loss from occurring and if we are willing to pay that price. The way the debate appears to be going now is that the cost seems to be reducing the gay and lesbian members of our society to second class citizens, undeserving of the same rights and freedoms as their straight neighbors. Many in the “traditional” marriage camps seem all too willing to accept this, some with regret and, unfortunately, some with relish. Is this an issue worth hating your neighbor over, or stirring up hatred, or strife? I don’t think so.

Proposition 8 and other “Protect” Marriage Initiatives

This brings us to a specific instance of the debate, the Proposition 8 debate in California, one of the very few instances where the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has actively played a role in a political campaign.

There are few things in life that make me truly, deeply angry, to the point of being furious. One of the worst is when individuals or groups use religion as a cover for bigotry, hatred, meanness, or violence. Only one thing makes me angrier – when the people doing this are members of my own religion. It is completely and utterly inexcusable. It is for this reason that I have had such a hard time writing this post; the things that I have seen and heard from some of my fellow Church members have been appalling. While I think that some comments are based on ignorance, to me that is no excuse; for members of the human race, and especially for those that claim to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, ignorance is no excuse for intolerance, bigotry or meanness.

The Church

If I had to give the official Salt Lake City-based Church organization a grade on how they did entering into this debate (based primarily on this statement and this one on the Church’s web site) I’d give them a C+. They avoided bigoted and untrue attacks on those who opposed their position, they spent the time to address the issue in a nuanced way, and they stated that they were not trying to interfere with existing homosexual relationships or rights, and that they were not opposed the rights then granted to homosexual couples elsewhere in California law (including civil unions, a statement that Utah gay rights groups are hoping to leverage to get those same rights for same-sex couples in Utah.) They reminded members to speak their positions with love and respect for those they disagree with and they expressed their respect. And they tried to present the position as pro-marriage rather than anti-gay.

There were, however, several problems with the statement. One was the complete intermingling of secular reasoning and LDS theology. This (at least to me) made the statement unusable as a tool to promote public policy. If your main basis for supporting a position is “because God said so,” that is fine for governing personal behavior and the behavior of fellow believers, but it doesn’t fly for promoting policy. The reason is that all it takes is for someone to say, “No, he doesn’t,” and you’re in the business of using the government to enforce religious belief or dictate religious doctrine, clearly a violation of the constitution. Additionally, because of the way that religious doctrine was intermingled throughout the statement I believe that attempting to use it as a tool for persuading someone who didn’t already agree with the doctrine would be futile.

The next problem was one of omission: while the statement did express respect for those with differing opinions and asked Church members to do the same, it seemed evident (to me anyway) that this was not said clearly enough, nor defined well enough (more on that below.) To me this was the greatest failing of the statement. They could have clearly condemned the use of misinformation and lies in the pursuit of their objective. I deeply wish that more time and effort had gone into explaining what respectful conversation meant and that specific examples of bigotry had been raised and repudiated. For example the Church could have raised the falsity that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles or abusive and then clearly stated that this was not true and that for Church members to play a part in the creation or spreading of such scurrilous lies would be diminishing for both the individual and the Church. They could have called on Church members to get to know their gay neighbors better, not for the purpose of conversion or to change their minds on the issue, but just to increase the amount of good will and good faith the country. In short I believe that they should have recognized the amount of bigotry and ignorance in the Church, the tendency for people to hear what they want rather than what is said, and recognized that some people would use the Church and its position to excuse their own bigotry.

My last concern was that there was some (though not much compared to some other statements/ emails that I’ve read) use of fear of homosexuality as a motivator. This was evident in the using of the Catholic Charities of Boston’s cessation of adoption services (in response to Gay rights lawsuits which required placing children with homosexual couples) to motivate participation. While concerns about those that will attempt to force the Church or its members to participate in activities that they feel violate their beliefs is legitimate, the ignorant and bigoted have seized on the few examples and exploded into a state of irrational panic. Take for example the case of the Catholic Charities in Boston. They did voluntarily remove themselves from the adoption business in response to a lawsuit that they lost which would have required them to place children with gay couples (the issue at stake being should the government be able to force someone to violate their religious beliefs, a great question for another time.) However, the Catholic Charities only went to court once, even though they certainly had grounds for appeal based on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Many groups that supported them were disappointed that they chose to capitulate rather than pursue such an appeal. The ability and limits of government to control and regulate religious groups is certainly a question that could benefit from a look by the Supreme Court. Additionally, no other Catholic Charities in Massachusetts have closed or stopped facilitating adoptions, nor have they begun placing children with gay couples in violation of their religious beliefs. Another example is what if (God forbid) the courts should require that gay couples should be aloud to live in married student housing at BYU. My response is, so what? How many gay couples do you really think there are that would want to go to BYU let alone live in the married student housing (I’m suspecting very few, bordering on none.) But let’s imagine that there was such a couple. What would happen? There are several possibilities: 1) They would come to get to know their neighbors and their neighbors would get to know them and everyone would learn that we’re not really that different and that we should all love and respect one another even when we disagree, and they would leave the school with a positive view of the Church and its members. In other words it would give Church members the opportunity to practice what they preach. 2) They would experience the hatred and bigotry that many in the gay community have come to associate with religion and leave the school with a negative view of the Church and its members. In other words it would show Church members as hypocrites. Either way it would be positive, even in the second instance, because then we would learn where we need to focus our efforts in order to become more Christ like.

My last concern is not with the statement itself but with the Church’s implicate endorsement of resolving the issue though a ballot initiative in the first place. The issues involved are numerous and nuanced – they will require great care and the development of long-term relationships and understanding to resolve. Trying to resolve them through the ballot initiative process to amend a state constitution is like trying to perform brain surgery with a baseball bat. It just isn’t the right tool for the job, and could very well cause more problems then it solves.

Church Member Response

I don’t live in California, so I can’t say that I have a lot of direct experience with how members of the Church there responded. I have talked to, heard from, seen email from, seen blog posts by, etc. Church members here and around the country and based on my observations I would (with a few exceptions) give Church members somewhere between a C and a C- for their responses to Prop 8.

Too many missed, misunderstood, or ignored altogether the requests of the Church to treat those we disagree with with respect. Many were clearly anti-gay, or homophobic, and were using the cover of the Church’s position to justify their bigotry. I remember talking to one individual who said (in essence) that if the Church wants us to say something and reminds us that we are a respectful people then however we say it it is automatically, by definition, respectful (kind of like the Nixon defense “if the president does it, it’s legal.”) And I saw in words and actions of many others this same attitude. I saw fear mongering, incomplete and twisted representation of facts, and pride and glory taken in what were framed as “strong” comments, but were actually hurtful or rude. Vile rumors and hearsay was passed around with no effort at verifying truthfulness. Excitement was found at the prospect of taking action that would obviously hurt others (“only” emotionally, fortunately; I have not heard that Church members participated in any violent or destructive protests.) I saw no effort to reach out to others and little effort taken to be respectful. I saw Church members excuse this behavior by saying, “well, the other side is doing it too,” as if the meanness of others (and there was meanness on the gay-rights side) somehow absolves you of your obligation to follow Christ’s teachings. I read the comments of one prominent Church member, who I believe should have known better, where he accused those he was attempting to debate with of lying because they did not agree with him.

Whenever I wonder how it is that people like the Pharisees and Sadducees could have risen to such prominence at the time of the New Testament, or how people that claim to be followers of Christ could consent to and participate in some of the worst autocracies of our time, I only have to see the words spoken by some of my fellow Church members to see them fearing deviance and valuing conformity more than love and respect for others and their agency. I see them starting down a path that could, if followed to its extreme end, lead them to crucify their Savior, rejecting Him because He preaches love for individuals above ritual, doctrinal purity, and societal conformance.

Mormon Theological Possibilities for the Recognition and Acceptance of Same-Sex relationships

(A note to those who worry about such things: This is not an attempt to dictate doctrine to the Church or its leaders. I speak only for myself and claim no authority to change Church doctrine, nor am I attempting to claim that my statements below are Church doctrine. Like everything else on this blog the speculations below represent only my own personal opinions.)

I believe that the best course for society with regards to the gay marriage question is to recognize gay unions, and give homosexuals clear access to equal civil rights, while at the same time recognizing the unique role of heterosexual marriage. But that doesn’t change the fact that as a point of Mormon religious doctrine homosexuality is still condemned. Is it possible that that could ever change? I would like to think so. After decades of officially denying priesthood equality and semi-officially backing it up with doctoral teachings and justifications the Church was able to reverse course and allow black members to be full participants. There are still traces of lingering racism, but we are moving further and further from that.

It is important to note that the Church, right now, recognizes many different types of marriages, some very different from the “traditional” marriage model. To understand the significance of these it is important to understand the Church doctrine of eternal marriage. This is the belief that marriages that have been blessed by the right people and in the right place (currently temples) do not end at death but continue forever. This implies that marriages that took place 150 years ago are still valid, still in existence and still recognized by God and, inferentially, by the Church. In the early days of the Church a variety of relationships were recognized, and thus are presumably still recognized. (Meaning that those that were authorized and performed historically are still recognized, not that members could enter in to some of the relationships below today and still expect recognition.) This includes the following types of relationships:

 Temple Marriage – the highest form of marriage, marriage for eternity
 Civil Marriage – recognized by the Church (i.e. the Church does not consider those in a civil marriage living in adultery) but not considered equal to temple marriage, nor is it considered still in effect after the death of either of the spouses.
 Polygamy (no longer practiced) – Clearly a part of Mormon history. Authorized marriages performed before the practice was officially discontinued sometime between 1891 and the first decade of the 1900’s are still considered valid.
 Polyandry (the marriage of a woman to more than one man, no longer practiced) – much rarer in Church history, although there are a several recorded instances in the Nauvoo period of the Church.
 Serial polygamy (current practice) – Currently the Church doctrine (as I understand it) is that when a man’s wife dies, he can remarry and be married for eternity to another women; thus in eternity he will be married to two (or more, I suppose) women. While officially the same belief does not hold true for women whose husbands die (the typical reply I’ve heard is that “God will work it out”) I suspect that given the existence of polyandry in Church history that polyandry, too, will exist in eternity
 Marriage for eternity only (no longer practiced) – at times in the early history of the Church marriages were preformed for “eternity” only. That is, the spouses would not be married during their lifetimes, but would only be married in eternity.
 Other sealings (no longer practiced) – The Church also practiced so-called “adoptive” sealings, in which adult members were sealed to other members in non-marriage “parental” relationships. From what I have seen in my research this was conducted so that members would be adopted into the families of the Church leaders. Thus a person could be sealed to Brigham Young as his son, and would be counted among his family in eternity even though his parents might be alive and well (I have no idea how this was expected to work out if the son was also sealed to his birth parents, but I think that they also were then connected into the prophet’s family; a fascinating tangent, we’re so boring and conventional nowadays.)

Another Church doctrine that provides us with an entry point is the very unique Mormon understanding of the afterlife. Unlike traditional Christianity, Mormons do not believe the standard Heaven/Hell duality. Instead we believe there is a continuum of glory or reward, and each person will be assigned to a place on the continuum based on the way in which they’ve lived their life and the extent to which they have accepted Christ and His teachings. Mormon scripture divides this continuum up into three categories (called kingdoms), the worst of which is to be so wonderful as to surpass all understanding. The highest level (the Celestial) Mormons typically equate with the more standard Christian Heaven. This highest level is further sub-divided into three more parts. Entry into the highest of these is possible only for married couples (presumably the work that goes on there is possible only by the combination of male and female working together.) This leaves us with the result that we have two levels in heaven that do not require marriage between men and women for entry. Interestingly enough Mormon doctrine is utterly silent regarding the two additional levels, what they mean, and who goes there.

To my mind, given the vast array of marriages (some very nontraditional) already recognized, the already existing belief in several “unknown” levels of heaven, and the Mormon belief that God will continue to teach His children about His ways, there is plenty of room for theological recognition of homosexual relationships, even without a radical change in doctrine.

For comparison, the shift in Church policy regarding allowing members of African decent full participation required the overturning of a vast amount of folklore and tradition. The denial was based on traditional beliefs (some of which have yet to die out completely, despite official instruction to put a stop to them) that justified the practice based on scriptural teachings. As was the case when the Church abandoned polygamy, social pressure was brought to bear on the Church, which set off a chain of events that led to what at the time appeared to be a radical change in Church doctrine, but in retrospect was clearly the right thing to do.

I don’t believe that it would be beneficial for Church members to lobby their leaders for such a change. In fact I would suspect that such an effort would backfire. However, we can go over their heads and take the case straight to God. I certainly would not expect a radical change anytime soon, but we can pray, hope, and trust in the Lord and his power to make all thinks right.

However life ends up working out, we can be absolutely certain that we respect the thoughts, feelings, rights, and beliefs of others.

__________________________

*Though to call it “traditional” seems a bit of a stretch to me, it is only in our fairly recent history that love, or the physical attraction that often accompanies it, have had a significant part to play in the selection of a spouse. Traditionally things such as family connections, wealth, dowries, or the acquisition of other property were much more important. Nor was the relationship mutually supportive in the way we would think of it today. Women were often poorly treated, it was considered within a man’s rights to beat his wife, and at times women were assumed to be the equivalent of her husband’s property. We have moved beyond such things, to the betterment of society. In a debate with as much riding on it as this we need to be clear. And clearly the terminology “traditional marriage” is not clear.