In the United States, marriage is a civil union, not a religious one. This is true almost everywhere in the world (except for the few countries where the religion is also the government). You can, if you’d like, get married in your church, but it won't be recognized by the State. Conversely, civil marriages (in the Mormon faith) are not recognized by God once we die, so it really doesn’t matter who we marry – male, female, same-sex partner – because in the end the only marriages that will be recognized will be those sealings between couples who kept all of their commitments and were faithful to the Church (otherwise, even your heterosexual temple marriage is null and void).
Certain benefits have been afforded to (civilly) married couples: tax breaks, immunity from incriminating testimony in court, visitation rights at hospitals, access to Social Security and other pension benefits upon death of spouse, property rights, custody rights, and more. In California, all of these benefits are available to same-sex couples in domestic partnerships. In other states, various benefits are afforded, while some are not. Until these benefits are equally available to all who are in committed relationships, denying somebody the opportunity to get married amounts to a denial of whatever benefits they are not afforded under domestic partnership laws.
As far as the Church is concerned, the debate strikes me as odd. The Church has repeatedly stated that they favor granting same-sex couples all of the rights and benefits of married couples. From their most recent statement:
Even more, the Church does not object to rights for same-sex couples regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the traditional family or the constitutional rights of churches.So if it’s not about the benefits, why all the fuss? The argument put forth by the Church during this campaign (and alluded to in the statement above) is that the Church has a constitutional right to express its beliefs through its practices and they don’t want to be forced to perform gay marriages in the temple. They fear that legalizing civil marriages between gay couples will lead to lawsuits forcing the church to change its stance on gay marriage. The Church points to the Supreme Court of California who ruled earlier this year that homosexuals are a “suspect class” under the Equal Protection clause of Article I section 3(a)(4) of the California Constitution (a classification not yet afforded to gays under the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th amendment). This means that any policy that discriminates against homosexuals must have a compelling state interest or will not be allowed. The Church is afraid that this classification will prohibit them from preventing gay marriage. This reasoning is flawed for two reasons:
1) These protections apply only to places of public accommodation. The temple is not a place of public accommodation. We don’t rent it out to anybody, we don’t hold concerts there, the public is never invited to visit, and members are not even free to enter without permission. As a private space, the Church can control what happens inside, like who marries whom. We already do this. Not everybody who desires to get married in our temples (members included) is allowed to.
2) To make absolutely clear that the gay marriage controversy was limited to the granting of civil licenses only, the Supreme Court explicitly carved out a religious exemption in the above-cited case (on page 117):
Finally, affording same-sex couples the opportunity to obtain the designation of marriage will not impinge upon the religious freedom of any religious organization, official, or any other person; no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs. (the Court then cites Article I, section 4 of the California Constitution that declares the free exercise of religion right).Does the Church not believe the Court? Possibly. It's more likely, in my opinion, that few of the Church leaders who spearheaded the 'Yes on 8' campaign ever read the Court's opinion. Legally, the Church has gained nothing from this proposition; they were already exempted from sanctifying these relationships before Prop 8. The actions of the church have prompted negative ads, on-site protests, and ill will towards the organization. Furthermore, the experience has disenfranchised a lot of members in California.
What you don't seem to want to admit, Doug, is that the Church is doing something very important that it has done repeatedly throughout its history. It is creating a moment in history where it has done something very embarrassing and silly. This will provide future generations of members something that the intellectually curious can go back and find out about and be horrified, while the comfortably complacent deny that the Church was ever prejudiced against homosexuals (in the future, when it won't be). Where would the Church be today without all of its jaw-dropping history that the mainstream of membership and leadership do just fine ignoring?
ReplyDeleteThe Church has been creating these historical moments of contention from the beginning. Now is not the time to break the tradition. I don't know why you don't get that.
All that aside, you give a very clear argument against the argument the church is trying to present for its actions.
And I should add: Glad to see you bloggin, bro!
ReplyDeleteThank you for this information. It has been a bit uncomfortable for me. All that stuff from the past that Will mentioned...I have sort of come to terms with. Admittedly, it does help that the Church has moved beyond those practices. To experience being in the middle of something I disagree with is very hard. I have a testimony of God, Christ and Prophets, so how am I to make sense of it, or accept the sense it doesn't make.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little self-conscious that my comment is personal, but hope you won't mind.
Thank you for laying out the Supreme Courts stance. I didn't understand those ins and outs of it before.
Thanks for the well-reasoned information. This kind of perspective has been very hard (for me) to come by here in Utah. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteDavid: Anna's dad, Will and Millie's uncle, and a coworker in the Jarvis campaign with your very good father.
Millie, I totally appreciate your personal thoughts. I think that "accepting the sense it doesn't make" is actually a pretty good definition of what faith is.
ReplyDeleteMany people who do not have religious faith themselves would probably hear this statement as being a confirmation of all their suspicions about religious people. Namely, that there is nothing to belief other than self-delusion. People choose to believe because they want to believe. That maintaining faith is simply a matter of refusing to look at the evidence, and keeping yourself sufficiently duped by not thinking too hard about things, or just doing what your Church leaders tell you to do.
I think that faith is richer than that, and it's great for me to know that there are others (like you) who don't make sense of this stuff (like me), yet are trying to "accept the sense it doesn't make" because of your testimony.
Thanks for sharing.
"Uncle" Dave,
ReplyDeleteThanks for stopping by. I didn't know you were helping Don Jarvis with his campaign. I was sad (but not surprised) to hear about Don's loss. He was my mission president for one year, and a longtime neighbor and friend and he would have done a bang-up job.
I do have a great dad. We don't always see eye to eye on things, but he is always reasonable and a good role model.
You have a pretty good progeny yourself. And Stephen K's kids aren't too bad, either.
Doug, I'm glad you started a blog. I searched for your blog the other day and discovered you didn't have one.
ReplyDeleteYou really hit the nail on the head here.
And I feel very much like Millie. I'm just trying to muddle through this one. It is not fun to be loyal to an organization making bigoted arguments and so blatantly promoting group think.
Very well said. I wonder, however, if there is more to the Church's stance than just the legal questions and fears.
ReplyDeleteIn the statement you quoted which followed the passage of Prop 8 the Church affirmed support of gay unions, so long as they don't infringe on "the integrity of the traditional family" and suspiciously absent from the rights they feel ought to be protected were adoptive rights for same-sex couples. Perhaps they worry for the children who would be raised in these households, Is the Church's support of the amendment as a moral statement objecting to same-sex parenting justified?
Clearly not. The same rights for gay parents still exist whether or not their relationships are called marriages.
I still don't get it.
I hear you Marcus. I think the Church has several non-legal concerns about gay marriage, and from what I can gather by reading “The Divine Institution of Marriage,” procreation and childrearing are near the top of the list. According to this document, “same-sex marriage likely will erode the social identity, gender development, and moral character of children.”
ReplyDeleteI’m interested in why the Church minimized these morality concerns about gay marriage during this campaign and focused primarily on its legal concerns. Either way, I am not convinced that Prop 8’s passage should be seen as a victory for the Church. They gained no new legal protections and the amendment does little to mitigate the morality concerns of the Church.
Prop 8 doesn’t prohibit gay people from living together, Prop 8 doesn’t change adoption laws, Prop 8 doesn’t retract domestic partnership benefits, Prop 8 doesn’t change artificial insemination laws, and Prop 8 doesn’t change the fact that a lot of Sampson’s friend’s parents will be gay. Prop 8 doesn’t affect how I explain to Sampson that some people have two mommies and some people have a mommy and a daddy. By teaching him to love his friend’s parents, regardless how the law defines their relationship, I hope that his moral character will actually be stronger. And by the time he’s old enough to appreciate the history and semantics of marriage, and the nuances of civil vs. private recognition of committed partnerships, he’ll likely already have developed a healthy social identity.
Maybe I'm being too simplistic (and not sarcastic, this time), but isn't it probably the case that the center of this issue for the church is absolute, social discomfort with the idea of homosexuality and/or the religious conviction that homosexuality is an abomination? (I think one often masks the other, but I won't go into that now.) So they don't want adults doing it, they don't want neighbors of adults doing it, they don't want kids raised in it, they don't want kids to know other kids raised in it, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think "no gayness" is pretty much what they are after.
As I wrote in my post on Palin and Mormon views of women, we often use argumentative strategies that seem most promising for achieving a certain goal, even when they aren't entirely consistent with our core reason for using them. Those strategies, however, often end up back-firing and pointing the movement in a whole new direction. (One of my favorite examples is still Hobbes theorizing the social contract to try and shore up the authority of monarchs while actually setting off a democratic avalanche.)
At the core, irrational level, the "church" (define that how you will) just doesn't want gayness in the world, and it doesn't want whatever gayness exists to be socially acceptable. In the real world, where we all have to pretend to be rational, the church knows it can actually only try to retard the continuing acceptance of homosexuality with certain arguments.
These arguments have to be P.C. enough to keep the church from looking too bigoted, and they have to actually be legally effective to have a real-world effect.
The point I'm getting to is that the arguments, strategies and tactics the church uses in the real world are not necessarily aligned with the core, irrational, subconscious fears that drive them. Therefore, they won't be logically or doctrinally consistent.
So if the church wants to say, "Gayness should not never exist no how in the world!!!" but knows that it would be a PR disaster to do so, and would also get little done legislatively, then it is going to make the best arguments it can. And those arguments, by necessity, won't be consistent with what drives them and, therefore, they will likely be internally inconsistent within church thinking and within themselves.
In short, when one is prejudiced, but doesn't want to appear prejudiced, one has to produce some pretty torturous arguments to try and keep the world the way they want it.
Enjoyably, these funky arguments will shape the way the church (leadership, membership, etc) continues to develop in its views on the issue. Hopefully it will also root out those unconscious "ick" reactions that drive the whole fight in the first place.
I agree that all the lame "legal" arguments were a "cover-up" for just good old fashioned, down-home, old school prejudice. Things will change in the church for the better I hope as society at large becomes more tolerant and as a result more LDS people will actually know someone who is gay. Then they will realize that gay people are living, breathing, human beings with emotions and feelings and intelligence (that light all of us descendants of God posses). I guess as soon as a healthy amount of people in the church can stop fearing the foppish over-sexed gay person stereotype and put in its place a real human being things will start to change. Everyone I know who has a gay sibling/friend/child is totally and completely fine with gay marriage. Even one friend who's only political issue is abortion.
ReplyDeleteWill, you’re probably not that far off. In fact, Prop 8 actually affords the Church something valuable on this front. The law of chastity forbids sexual relations unless you are legally and lawfully married. Legalizing same-sex marriage would have put the Church in an interesting position regarding the law of chastity.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, the temple ceremony was changed in 1990 in an ironic way. Prior to the change, women and men covenanted separately to keep the law of chastity, which was defined as “sexual intercourse” with your husband (for women) or your wife (for men). After the change, men and women covenanted at the same time to refrain from “sexual relations” except for with their “husband or wife.” No doubt the change was meant to streamline the endowment, but the resulting ambiguity could have backfired with legalized gay marriage.
You wrote: “we often use argumentative strategies that seem most promising for achieving a certain goal, even when they aren't entirely consistent with our core reason for using them.” That really explains a lot and in many ways makes total sense: choose whatever battles present themselves, even if your argument is weak and/or inconsistent, and even if it doesn’t align with the “core, irrational, subconscious fears” that defines your policy stance.
What I don’t understand is why the Church doesn’t pursue the legitimate battles that actually relate to their core beliefs in addition to these other battles. If the Church is irrationally (in your and my opinion) engaging in campaigns against anything remotely related to homosexuality, then why not at least lend their weight to cases that address the morality of homosexuality itself?
For example, the Church was conspicuously silent regarding two very highly publicized and controversial sodomy cases heard by the United State Supreme Court - one in 1986 and one in 2003. In both cases, two male adults were caught engaging in consensual sex in their own bedroom and prosecuted under state sodomy laws. In the earlier case (Bowers v. Hardwick), the Supreme Court ruled that Georgia’s sodomy laws were constitutional because homosexuals do not have the right engage in sodomy. In the later case (Lawrence v. Texas), the Supreme Court ruled that Texas’ sodomy laws were unconstitutional because, while individuals may not have an explicit right to engage in homosexual sex, they do have the right to make important decisions about their intimate relationships, especially when in the privacy of their homes (thus overturning Bowers).
In the Bowers case, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights and the Rutherford Institutes in 9 states filed amicus briefs in support of the sodomy laws. In the Lawrence case, 17 amicus briefs were filed in favor of the sodomy laws including one by the State of Utah and one by 30 religious organizations. Not only did the Church not join any of these briefs (or write their own), they made no public statements in response to either of the outcomes. By contrast, the Church filed an amicus brief with the California Supreme Court regarding gay marriage and was very public in their disappointment with the Court’s opinion.
In light of the Church’s policy of (as you suggest, and I agree) “no gayness,” it strikes me as odd that the Church irrationally aligns itself with peripheral issues, which are mostly legal, but has failed to publicly endorse sodomy laws that criminalize the behavior that forms the core of the Church’s moral engine behind these peripheral issues.
Anna, I couldn't agree with you more. I think that gay relationships are too often conflated with gay sex. When you become close friends with a gay couple, you realize how silly it is to equate their love and support for each other with non-stop sexual escapades. One of the sad side-effects of the current debate is that both sides have been so obnoxiously loud that we have been distracted from figuring out as a Church how to best help our gay friends and neighbors (members of the Church or not) feel like we love them.
ReplyDeleteWe're a worldwide Church. California Mormons make up less than 5% of the overall membership. I would love to be talking about how the Church is going to reach out to its gay members all over the world (some of whom live in countries where gay marriage is legal) to help them feel like the gospel applies to their lives. Instead, our number one news story is that Catholic bishops are sticking up for our right to protest gay marriage. That's hardly the message of tolerance we could (and should!) be promoting.
I've also heard the argument that allowing the Definition of "Marriage" to be of either gay or straight can later be used to turn the courts against the Church. One issue I've heard is ex-communication. If someone is legally married (gay) and is ex-communicated for such then a lawsuit could arise. The other is eventually the part in the California Gay-marriage law that exempts the Churches from performing gay-marriage is one step closer to being dissolved.
ReplyDeleteSo the whole purpose behind the Prop 8 thing was to define "marriage" between a man and women for fear of later legal troubles. Allowing gay-union rights is not good enough for the gay community because they want the religions to confess that it is not a sin.
Now in my own conscience. Before I knew about the Church's stance on gay civil rights/unions I had the feeling that they should have rights under the law to have a Civil Union. That would allow for the same rights that they want through "Marriage". That part of me referred to the scriptures with many manifestations of love for "sinners". Even the whole idea of Christ with the leper, a symbolic example of those we think of unclean. Or the words he prays to the Father, "Forgive them for they know not what they do". Or the bit about what is Ceasar's is... in relation to the law of the land, not the Kingdom of God.
In the years since I came to the realization that members are not going to be perfect, I have come to terms with the range of characters who have received the same witness I have from a God who 'upbraideth not" to those who seek Him.
It allows for more tolerance and acceptance. Knowing that we all are on our own journey through life and will accept/reject things according to level of obedience we desire to live or level of the spirit in our lives we seek. If my hometeaching companion isn't showing up because the playoffs are on then I will still accept him without adding to the sin with gossip and anger. I accept each person for who they are and what level of knowledge or spirituality they may profess. Everyone has their own set of eyes and most times blinders are used to steer the ship. Its up to each member to gain the spirit, listen and live by the promptings. Sometimes I surprise myself by being able to listen to it and other times I have regrets for not taking it more serious.
If a gay couple can't accept that those who are against gay-marriage are just as much for their own rights as against the other then its going to just go on being another war in society. Two borders fighting it out. If each side accepts the other without trying to take everything from the other and allowing a border of sorts to exist without war then society will get on with living how they desire to live. Or as in the 2nd article of faith to worship/live according to their own conscience. Two different ways of thinking to co-existing without forcing say Mormons to get in line or be called big-its. At the moment its just like the middle east in alot of ways. Blah blah blah, love one another....
What up Doug?
Hey Jared! Long time no see, my friend. What's up with you these days?
ReplyDelete